Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 21, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

01:45:12

Peckford Charter Challenge DISMISSED! Bannon Sentenced! Trump Denied Rights? Viva Frei-Day!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	For anybody who doesn't know what's going on, we're live on the main channel where we've got screen in screen.
	Me streaming.
	Me streaming the inquiry.
	And it's so confusing.
	Okay.
	This might blow the algorithm's artificial brains.
	This might be a little bit more than a one.
	So, we're live.
	This is the intro video, but we're going to...
	I'm going to explain what the heck is going on in 30 seconds.
	Got to make sure we're live on Rumble.
	I think we're live on Rumble as well.
	Okay, I see some comments.
	Let's just see.
	Yeah, this is so confusing.
	Audibly for me, where's that super chat?
	That super chat's in the stream and stream.
	Okay, this is nuts.
	I'll explain exactly what's going on right now.
	Viva, what is your memory of the local businesses shutting down?
	I remember it being some by their choice or forced by local government or police to make it inconvenient for the convoy.
	I believe they were told to shut down by recollection, and the one that stayed open, the iconic cafe, got harassed but proper by the police.
	Okay, so now I'm going to stop what's going on because this is just going to get too confusing.
	I'm going to back myself out of this stream, remove there, and now we're still live with that stream, which I'm going to remove from here.
	Now, I still hear it, so I've got to take my headphones off.
	Chat?
	The lighting is not good.
	I've rearranged the office.
	Hold on.
	Okay, I've rearranged the office.
	Let me get my little mat here for the acoustics.
	All right, and now I'm going to explain what's going on because this is, it's confusing to me, and I have, I have, you know, I tend to do relatively well at multitasking.
	This is audibly confusing, visually confusing, technologically confusing.
	I'm still in my office, Christopher and Josie.
	What is your background?
	I'm in my office.
	I'm just trying to simplify the background.
	Fix some lighting issues and fix some audio issues.
	But it was mostly the background and I wanted to try, so we'll see how it works.
	This is what's happening.
	It's going to be very confusing.
	Someone said, someone had the great idea, Viva, we were talking about streaming the Emergencies Act inquiry, but it's going on for six weeks.
	And as much as I love talking I don't know what you mean, but are you serious about it?
	In as much as I love talking, I can't sit in front of the computer for eight hours a day for six weeks because people have to appreciate this hearing is going to go on until, I think, November 23rd.
	It started Monday?
	When did it start?
	No, it started last week.
	It started last week.
	So this is going to go on for six weeks.
	It's going to be boring, but people want to see it.
	So someone said, Viva, run the stream on your second channel, Viva Clips on YouTube.
	Run it on a second stream on Rumble with the chat so people can talk, share ideas.
	Okay.
	And I'll pop in as often as I can.
	And this way, I can pop in whenever I want.
	I don't have to be there all the time, but I can follow the chat as I'm doing.
	And it's a great idea.
	Viva, I have to say, you truly look the part of the Florida man beach bum surfer type from one Floridian man to another.
	Welcome to my beautiful state.
	Well, thank you very much.
	The only irony is that I had the hair back in Canada.
	It was the freedom fro.
	Do we all remember this?
	I said I'm growing the fro until we have freedom.
	We don't have freedom yet.
	So that's what's going on.
	So right now, let me see if I can get the...
	This is...
	The current stream, which is very confusing.
	Okay, good.
	Now I'm going to StreamYard.
	Oh, I better take down that Super Chat.
	That'll be confusing.
	So I want to share...
	Oh, this will be confusing for one day and one day only, and then we're going to figure out how to do it.
	I'm going to share the Rumble link where you can watch...
	For those who want to watch the inquiry and not the stream of the day, you can go to Rumble to do it.
	It's right here.
	And I'll put that in the stream here.
	Okay?
	This is the Emergencies Act Inquiry on Rumble.
	It's also on YouTube on my second channel, Viva Clips.
	The mainstream is right now also on Rumble.
	You have the pinned link there.
	Is that clear or is that totally confusing?
	And now every now and again, I can just go like this and bring myself into the stream.
	And now I'm back in the...
	I'm in two streams at the same time right now.
	No, I'm not because I haven't shared it.
	Add to screen.
	Now I'm back in two streams at the same time.
	It is called Streamception, people.
	And it's nuts.
	But it's good because I'm going to pop in and out and I'm listening to that inquiry while I'm walking around the house driving myself crazy with this.
	Okay, so now I'm going to stop share screen.
	Now we are strictly on the main stream on YouTube.
	That will be running in the background.
	Comments, chat, you can all figure it out.
	You can super chat if you want as well.
	No pressure whatsoever.
	I'm going to keep my headphones off because I can't seem to mute the back screen.
	I can't seem to mute the second stream without actually muting the stream.
	So that's it.
	Now I don't know which stream I'm in.
	Oh, I'm an idiot.
	Hold on.
	This is gonna be very confusing.
	I think I pulled the hearing out of the side stream.
	Okay, there we go.
	Now I'm gonna pull myself out of there.
	And I'm still live here and I'm gonna remove that.
	We can see your StreamYards.
	Okay, now it should be good.
	In StreamYards, on the second channel, it should be good.
	This is confusing, but we'll get there.
	And now I'm back to the mainstream.
	I'm going to stop sharing that screen.
	Okay.
	Good now.
	Good now.
	Put a mirror behind you.
	Oh, yeah.
	Okay.
	So today's stream, by the way, and it's a black pill.
	Oh, my God, Viva.
	These tech issues make me leave.
	Well, you have to...
	This is a learning curve for all of us, so you have to bear with me because I haven't done this before.
	He crossed the streams.
	We're live here.
	We are live on Rumble.
	And all good.
	Phenomenal.
	Now, I'm going to start with the video that I wanted to start with, and then we're going to see if this actually works.
	I wanted to start with something that would make us laugh a little bit.
	Something that might make you cry.
	The chickens coming home to roost.
	AOC getting...
	Not comeuppance, but AOC...
	Reaping what she sows.
	Protest has to be disruptive for it to be effective.
	You know, AOC out there protesting the Supreme Court justices.
	But when it comes home to roost, all of a sudden, it's not so funny.
	Yeah.
	Are we hearing this?
	Look at the arrogant pomposity.
	She just stuck her tongue in it.
	Like a disco dancing.
	Do we hear the audio?
	We hear the audio, correct?
	Protest has to be disruptive to be effective.
	But if it's too disruptive, it becomes criminal and then prosecuted.
	But only if it's on one side of the political line.
	We've talked about it before.
	We're going to talk about it today.
	The January 6th violent riot that has led to two years of public inquiry.
	Two years of committee inquiry.
	Two years of committee inquiry.
	It has led to people being jailed in pretrial detention for nearly two years.
	It has led to people being jailed for...
	Non-violent crimes.
	People being denied fundamental rights.
	Allegedly abused in prison.
	But, you know, the thing that people don't seem to recollect was the plan to disrupt Donald Trump's inauguration in 2017.
	Burning of cars, protesting in the streets, violent riots.
	Virtually everyone who got arrested in the...
	It was called Disrupt.
	Disrupt 17 or Disrupt January?
	Whatever it was called.
	Disrupt January 17. Virtually all of them, if not a significant portion of the people who protested, violently destroyed property, charges dropped.
	In the summer of love, George Floyd protests, arrested, released, mostly fiery, no, sorry, mostly peace, slightly fiery, but mostly peaceful protest.
	Yeah, J-20.
	Released.
	Not only were virtually all those charges dropped as well, you had politicians raising funds for bail money for the people who were arrested.
	Raising money to, let me see, arguably support criminality.
	But January 6th, two years of inquiry, pre-trial detention for many, and now Bannon gets sentenced today for defying a congressional subpoena in the context of that.
	Hold on, hold on.
	Never superchatted, but still feel miffed.
	Well, don't do that.
	Okay, now, before we get into the day, Hoo-Yip, can you comment on the Convoy lawyer's questioning tactics regarding not pinning the whiteness down when they have made false statements?
	Thoughts?
	I have to know more specifically what you're talking about, Hoo-Yip, but thank you very much for the superchat.
	All right, standard intros.
	No legal advice, no medical advice, no election fornification advice.
	Superchats.
	YouTube takes 30% of Superchats.
	If you want to support the channel, you want to support me and my endeavors, you can also follow on Rumble.
	Rumble Rants, the equivalent of Superchats, they take 20%.
	You can follow us and support Robert Barnes and me at Locals, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	But every now and again, it happens that I also get a sponsor.
	That is courageous enough to sponsor the channel and a product that I feel good about and that I actually use.
	I can't seem to find the picture of our EnviroCleanse air filtration system.
	But we have dogs in the house.
	We have a kid with asthma.
	And clean air is an important thing for us.
	We had one in Montreal.
	And so when I find a product that I like and when I find a product that's good or they...
	Come to me and I say, let's see if we can work together.
	I have to like the product.
	I have to believe in the product.
	So EnviroCleanse, it's a cube air filtration purification system.
	It's got a HEPA filter in it.
	It's got patented technology in the filter itself that neutralizes bacteria up to a quarter of the size or half the size of the Rona virus thingy thing.
	It's quiet.
	It's beautiful.
	It's perfect.
	It's also used by the Department of Defense.
	So if anybody had any doubts, I don't know.
	Maybe some people have more doubts, but if it's good for the Department of Defense, it's good for us.
	It's in 300,000 schools in the United States, classrooms in the United States.
	I spent a good half hour on the phone asking about the filtration system, the patented technology.
	It's amazing.
	EnviroCleanse, if you go to ekpure.com, E-K, echokilopure.com, promo code VIVA, you'll get 10% off the unit.
	It's expensive.
	But it's $699, but sometimes you need to get the good things in order to get the good things and not waste money on the bad stuff.
	And you'll also get, if you use the promo code EKpeer.com, promo code VIVA, you'll get an air quality measurement system, which is also phenomenal.
	That'll let you know what your air quality is like and whether or not the filtration system is doing a good job, which it will.
	And it's a third-party mechanism, so it's not the product.
	It's not the company itself confirming the effectiveness of its own product.
	EnviroCleanse.
	EKpure.com, promo code Viva, 10% off.
	They have 0% financing availability, and you'll get the free air unit, air testing unit device, which is, I think, 80 bucks or something.
	Okay, and I'd like to thank my sponsor.
	Oh, sweet, merciful goodness.
	So, it's a Friday, and it feels like a black pill Friday.
	There's three...
	Bad news is coming out for the day.
	It is true, people.
	You have heard correctly that Brian Peckford and the other plaintiffs who were challenging Justin Trudeau's, in my humble view, unconstitutional and I'll even say inhumane travel restrictions, it was struck down for mootness.
	It was dismissed for mootness.
	We'll start with this and then we'll go through the judgment.
	The judgment is three paragraphs long.
	Set the context for those of you who don't remember, don't recollect.
	Justin Trudeau, the man who follows the science, the man who follows the science, evolves with the science, at one point in time, enacted a policy to keep our children safe that you could not board a plane or train in Canada unless you were fully vaccinated.
	You couldn't board a plane or train in Canada unless you were fully vaccinated.
	And let's just even assume that this was at a time when people were under the false impression that the jibby jab prevented transmission.
	Let's just assume that that's the case.
	Although we now know, according to a Pfizer executive or a Pfizer representative, that they never even tested for that because they were moving at the speed of science.
	Let's set all that aside.
	Let's just assume that at some point, when Justin Trudeau and his benevolent dictatorship...
	Thought that it was a good idea to impose this restriction on the ability to board a plane or a train in Canada for the unvaccinated.
	Let's just assume, for the sake of argument, he thought that at first.
	It became abundantly clear when the breakthrough cases became the cases, and the only breakthrough cases might have been people who actually got vaccinated and didn't carry, transmit, or contract the virus.
	It became clear very soon, and I think it was clear before.
	The Rona Jibby Jab did not prevent contracting, carrying, or transmitting the virus.
	That's why the moving goalposts went very quickly from 100% effective, a la Albert Bourla tweet from April 1st, 2021, 100% effective.
	How quickly it went from that to, well, it'll prevent severe symptoms and hospitalizations.
	It went from get it to protect grandma to...
	Forget that we ever said that, and now we got the fact checker saying, no, we never said it would prevent transmission, even though Albert Buller tweeted out on April 1st, 100% effective at preventing cases in South Africa.
	Joe Biden said, get the vaccine, you will not get the virus.
	It stops it.
	MSNBC fake news propagandist Rachel Maddow describing in meticulous science how it will prevent you from getting the virus.
	If you get it, you're protected.
	And you will not give it to granny.
	So even if you're not at risk from the symptoms, get it to protect granny.
	Dr. Fauci, on June 2nd, 2021, saying the same thing.
	Oh, the way it prevents you from getting it, so you'll be safe.
	Forget...
	Forget all that.
	Forget the moving goalpost.
	Justin Trudeau, in all of his scientific wonder, imposed that restriction.
	Unvaccinated Canadians in a country...
	That is, I think it's the third biggest country by way of landmass in the world.
	With a population of the state of California, people couldn't travel.
	They couldn't visit loved ones.
	They couldn't be with loved ones for weddings, funerals.
	They couldn't live a dignified life because of Justin Trudeau.
	And some of them took it to court for judicial review of the policy.
	One of whom was the Honorable Brian Peckford, the last living signatory.
	Signatory or signatory?
	The last living signatory to the Charter of Rights that the Honorable Brian Peckford believes, and rightfully so in my view, is being desecrated and violated by Supreme Leader Justin Trudeau.
	So they filed suit.
	I think it was an application for judicial review.
	I'll get the proceeding.
	Basically, calling on the federal court to review and declare unconstitutional the order.
	Because it violates charter rights.
	That was about, I think it was about a year ago.
	If it's not a year, it's pretty close.
	Brian was on my channel.
	We did a phenomenal interview.
	It's amazing.
	Just like by virtue of being old, you've lived through stuff.
	You have a history.
	You have a lived history.
	And with it, a lived knowledge that most people don't have unless they have a functioning brain and have reached that stage of life.
	So Trudeau says, No travel for the unvaccinated.
	12 years old and up.
	Can't get on a plane or train.
	Peckford challenges it.
	And it's about a year ago if it's a little under a year.
	The trial, the judicial process goes on until today.
	And it's going to go on forward because they're going to appeal the decision.
	It goes on for about a year.
	They have depositions.
	They have court filings.
	They sit down and they depose.
	I think Keith Wilson, who's the attorney on file for Brian Peckford, I think he said they had something like four weeks of depositions, various medical experts.
	They had weeks on end of depositions in this file.
	Discovery, getting admissions, getting statements on record that...
	All of these medical professionals, all of these politicians passing the buck.
	Oh, I never made any decision.
	That was recommended to me from there.
	What evidence did you have to support any of the measures you had?
	Well, I didn't have any.
	That wasn't my department.
	Go to this person.
	This person says, well, I didn't have any.
	Go to this person.
	They had their depositions.
	And you have to appreciate, by the way, this will be relevant for the absolute, in my view, judicial abuse here.
	Peckford's paying his own legal fees.
	Brian Wilson.
	Keith Wilson, he doesn't work for free.
	He doesn't dedicate a year of his life to work for free.
	Families, houses, bills, etc.
	Now, he might be working at a reduced rate.
	He might be working much more than he's billing in a file.
	That typically happens with responsible lawyers.
	But Peckford has to pay Wilson.
	Wilson needs to get paid.
	It costs money to do this.
	Lots of money.
	Now, I don't know what they said.
	I don't know what they said in terms of cost, but I think it is easily over $100,000 in fees.
	Peckford's got to pay his illegal fees.
	He can crowdfund, etc., so maybe he's not paying for them.
	But Wilson's not working for free.
	Wilson's got to get paid.
	That money's got to come from somewhere.
	The government, on the other hand, well, that's the beauty of...
	Playing poker with other people's money.
	The government has unlimited resources.
	This is no skin off their back.
	It's not like Justin Trudeau is paying for these legal fees out of his pocket.
	We're paying for it as taxpayers.
	We're paying for the process through which we are being abused as citizens.
	So let's just say it's a cool $100,000 that Peckford has incurred.
	Maybe it's less.
	Maybe it's $50,000.
	It's expensive.
	Litigation is expensive.
	Peckford and Wilson are playing with real money.
	Justin Trudeau is playing with our money.
	So they go through the process.
	Court filings, depositions, transcriptions.
	People have to appreciate a day of deposition, other than, you know, costing like 2,000 bucks in legal fees at least, other than taking a day of prep for every day of deposition.
	The stenographers need to get paid.
	Court costs.
	You know, you order a transcript of a deposition, it's going to cost you several hundred dollars.
	So they do this for nine months, close to a year.
	And in that time, it becomes not unscientific.
	It becomes politically unpopular to continue with these measures.
	Justin Trudeau, only recently, I think it's in September or a little earlier, rescind.
	Sorry, they didn't rescind.
	They suspend the policy.
	They suspend the impugned charter violation policies.
	And they say, don't worry about it.
	Okay, it's over.
	I'm done hitting you, so you can't sue me for abuse anymore.
	They suspend, and they specifically did not rescind, did not revoke, retract, renounce.
	They suspended the policies.
	We'll suspend them for now.
	If it becomes necessary to impose mask mandates, now Dr. Kieran Moore is saying that.
	We reserve the right for the future, but it's suspended for now.
	They actually have the audacity to then say, Well, we've suspended the impugned charter violation.
	Therefore, it's moot.
	You have no case in controversy anymore.
	I've stopped hitting you, so you can't get an injunction anymore to prevent me from hitting you because I'm not hitting you anymore.
	Now, I know that it's not entirely analogous.
	Thank you.
	Suspended June 14, 2022.
	I know it's not entirely analogous, but I haven't yet found the reason why.
	You know, the fact that someone...
	You know what?
	Let's just take the convoy analogy.
	The fact that they were honking and you could have gotten an injunction so long as they were honking doesn't mean that you can't sue for damages for the honking later on.
	Unless you're the government.
	We've abused you.
	We violated your charter rights through a policy for however long.
	Now we suspend that policy.
	Okay, fine.
	So now I don't need an injunction to allow me to fly, but I want damages for my charter violations.
	But no.
	Trudeau and the government actually came in and said, no case in controversy.
	It's moot.
	It is moot.
	Dismissed the lawsuit.
	And they had a hearing on September 21st.
	First of all, you imagine the trial was scheduled for September 21st, I think, give or take.
	They present this motion to dismiss for mootness.
	Then the judge says, okay, well, we're going to put off the hearing on the merits so we can hear the argument for mootness.
	Imagine just the judicial process, the abuse of the judicial process, the arguable abuse of the judicial process.
	We're ready for trial, suspend the impugned charter violations, and then say, we don't need to go to trial now, and we're going to make a motion.
	And instead of going to trial, for which everyone has been preparing for a long time, we're instead going to use that date.
	To hear the motion to dismiss on mootness, and we'll put the trial date off a little later.
	Okay, well, they did that on the 21st, and I interviewed Keith Wilson on the 22nd.
	How's the audio, by the way?
	Just let me know if the audio is good.
	I interviewed Keith Wilson on the 22nd, and I said to Keith afterwards, he went over all the arguments that they raised, and I said, if they dismiss this for mootness, That's going to be a black pill for me.
	That's going to be the absolute kick in the teeth after they've broken your knees and shoved you to the ground.
	They can't.
	They can't do it.
	The trial for which everyone has been preparing for a year is barely in a month.
	Whether or not the policy has been suspended, we need a declaration to know how and when you can do something like this, if ever.
	In the future.
	So, I said, if they dismiss this for mootness, it's going to be a black pill for me.
	Because it's such an obvious question that needs to be answered.
	Okay, it's no longer in effect.
	Was it justified when you did it?
	And set the legal threshold for when such a charter violation can ever be done again in the future.
	What do you need?
	Do you need a doctor that says it's absolutely necessary, which they didn't have?
	Do you need a doctor to say it's more likely than not beneficial?
	Which I don't even think they had.
	There were emails showing that this measure, this draconian unconstitutional measure, was not based in science.
	It was based in politics.
	And the suspension of the measure itself was also not based in science.
	It was also based in politics.
	They argued dismissal on mootness.
	And it came down at 11.30 last night.
	I'm on Twitter, and I see a tweet.
	I see a tweet.
	That says it was dismissed for mootness.
	And I messaged Keith and I said, is this true?
	And he said, yes.
	Here.
	We see this?
	Dismissed for mootness.
	And by the way, there's an extra.
	They've kneecapped us.
	They've shoved us to the ground.
	They've kicked us in the teeth.
	Well, here's the kick right up the butthole.
	Because...
	The hearing was on the 21st, and I did the interview with Wilson on the 22nd.
	The hearing on the merits was scheduled for October 31st to November 5th.
	Let me just double-check the date.
	The hearing was scheduled.
	Where the heck is it here?
	No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
	Dude, where's the...
	Wow, I'm going crazy.
	It's right here.
	Okay.
	The hearing was scheduled for October 31st to November 4th.
	So just bear this in mind.
	The hearing was on the 21st to declare moot, to dismiss for mootness.
	I interviewed Keith Wilson on the 22nd.
	The trial on the merits, the hearing on the merits was scheduled for October 31st, barely a little over a month later.
	I said, there's no way they're going to wait.
	Any extended period of time to dismiss for mootness because a five-day trial with tens of thousands of pages of evidence, you don't prepare for that the night before.
	You prepare for that the month before.
	So I said that the longer this goes, the more likely it is that they're not going to dismiss for mootness because they know damn well everybody's going to prepare for a trial that's coming up.
	You don't wait till the day before.
	The only difference is Trudeau and his team.
	You know, they pay their lawyers with our taxpayer dollars, no skin off their back.
	They've been preparing probably since January.
	Peckford and the other plaintiffs are paying their attorneys with real money, their own money or crowdsourced money.
	So we're paying twice, by the way.
	I said the longer they wait, the better it's going to look because they can't wait until the eve of the trial to dismiss because they know damn well people are going to be preparing for the trial.
	Responsible attorneys will be.
	I was wrong.
	Wrong again.
	Where did I just get the...
	Wrong for the right reasons and right for the wrong reasons.
	I don't even know what that means.
	No, I was wrong.
	Last night, a month after the hearing, they dismiss it for mootness.
	But let's read this here.
	Let's read this.
	Okay, good.
	This is...
	Okay, so we've got one plaintiff, Peckford, etc., etc., applicants, Attorney General of Canada, respondent, and between Sean Rickard, other applicants, Attorney General of Canada, judgment, reasons to follow.
	It's only been a month.
	It's only been a month.
	We don't have reasons, but listen, given that a five-day judicial review in these matters is scheduled for October 31, and in order to avoid additional preparation time, oh, additional preparation time, in order to avoid additional, if you knew you were going to do this, And you probably did from the day after the hearing.
	It's not like a chess problem that you take it home and you look at the pieces and it just clicks the solution.
	No!
	This judge, for all intents and purposes, in my mind, there's not a chance the judge went away from this hearing conflicted.
	It's not like this was a chess problem where you have to go and discover alternatives and say, oh, that was the solution all along.
	No.
	It's not like the judge went away on the 21st saying, I'm torn, how am I going to go?
	No.
	The judge probably knew exactly where the judge was going to go.
	And so in that case, waiting a month to issue an unreasoned decision for these reasons makes even less sense.
	Given that a 5-D judicial review in these matters is scheduled for October 31, 2022, and in order to avoid additional prep time, because they know that they've already incurred a lot of prep time.
	The court is releasing this judgment, reasons to follow in both official languages, yada, yada, yada.
	The proceedings leading to the issue of this decision were conducted in both official languages.
	Okay, yeah, fine.
	This is what took a month to draft.
	The court's reasons should be issued simultaneously.
	Okay, great.
	They will be as soon as the translation is completed.
	All right.
	The court's...
	They will be as soon as the translation is completed.
	So is that to say, when was the judgment realized in the mind of the judge?
	They waited until October 21 or October 20th.
	That is a fly.
	The respondent's motion is granted.
	The applicant's application for judicial review are struck as moot.
	The party shall provide written submissions on costs not exceeding five days within 10 days of the reasons to follow costs.
	Costs are not legal fees, people.
	Costs are not legal fees.
	Costs are court costs.
	Stenographer, bailiff, transcriptions, audio recording, whatever.
	It's judicial costs, not judicial fees.
	So the judge, because of the urgency of the situation, doesn't issue a motivated decision, says reasons to follow given the time constraints, but waits nearly a month.
	Do I kill the fly?
	I can't kill the fly.
	Waits nearly a month to issue this decision.
	You can call me whatever you want.
	To me, that feels like the extra kick in the butt after the kick in the teeth, after being shoved to the ground, after having your knees, you know, clubbed.
	The judge waited a month to issue an unmotivated decision because of time constraints.
	Why couldn't that have been done a week after the trial?
	Are you telling me a week after the hearing, the judge wasn't already certain that the judge was going to dismiss for mootness?
	Bull.
	Whatever, what's the big deal?
	Government pays for their legal fees with our taxpayer dollars.
	Peckford, who I know has been preparing for this, paying for it through crowdfunding or his own funds.
	Eat the fly.
	You will eat the fly and like it.
	So it's an absolute black pill.
	The government can abuse you through unconstituted...
	Now, by the way...
	They're going to appeal, so who knows?
	This might not be the end of the story.
	Damn well better appeal.
	But this is the black pill of the day.
	The government enacts what I believe is clearly unconstitutional, unscientific, inhumane policy.
	Yesu.
	The process takes time.
	A long time.
	It costs money.
	A lot of money.
	And then the government says, we're suspending it.
	So no harm, no foul, and no lawsuit.
	And a judge bought it, at the very least, for now.
	It's preposterous.
	So there's that.
	I hope I have not upset people.
	It's...
	Oh, and then people say...
	The system works.
	Moot.
	It's moot.
	And if the government does it again in the future, you got to start from scratch.
	Different times, different circumstances.
	It might be a differently worded policy.
	Start from scratch.
	Rinse, recycle, repeat.
	Whatever the expression is.
	Rinse, repeat.
	Rinse, repeat.
	Okay.
	So that's the black pillow of Canada.
	Now what we're going to do, I think the link is in the pinned comment.
	But I'll put it back here.
	We're going to go to...
	We're going to go move it over to Rumble now.
	And we're going to do Bannon, which I don't think really there's much news on it.
	I mean, there's news, but it'll be quick.
	And then Trump.
	We're going to go through this court order in which Donald Trump's attorney, the judge basically says, from what I understand, I haven't read the decision.
	We're going to read it together in real time.
	I've read the articles, read the reviews.
	No solicitor-client privilege.
	When there's an alleged crime involved in the correspondence between client and attorney.
	Hey, criminal attorneys, get ready for you to reap what you sow, much like AOC.
	Be dancing around whether or not your correspondence is going to be...
	What do you mean I totally forgot Rumble?
	No, no.
	Both streams are live on Rumble.
	I may have forgot.
	Okay, let's see.
	Okay, we're going to move over to Rumble right now, everybody.
	Be kind enough to find the party over there.
	I'm going to remove from YouTube.
	There should be Super Chat.
	There should be Super Chat here.
	Let me just see if we've been demonetized.
	No, we're still monetized here.
	There's Super Chat and Rumble on both streams.
	So no pressure, no expectation, but if you're so inclined, it's there.
	Okay, now we are going to end this on...
	YouTube, mosey on over to Rumble.
	And we'll be smoother the next time.
	But this inception, Viva livestream inception, was confusing.
	And I think my brain has connected different neurons.
	Go!
	Over to Rumble.
	See you there.
	I think we're alone now.
	Let me see here.
	Let me just go like this.
	Refresh.
	And...
	I'm getting an ad.
	It says, should Biden be able to fire Clarence Thomas?
	I'm going to say no to that.
	Oh, no, it clicked me through to a conservative underground news.
	Okay, and we're good.
	We're good.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Rumble feed is fine from Blanc Givre.
	Good.
	Good, good.
	Kenzie 67. Okay, and we're good.
	Okay.
	The salt must flow from pure ambulator.
	Rumble, babe.
	Booyah.
	Okay.
	And I see the numbers going up.
	That's beautiful.
	What?
	1,926.
	Okay.
	Oh, and we're going to talk about the CDC decision to undermine any faith that anybody ever had in the CDC.
	My goodness.
	I want to pull out the Archer meme.
	I'm going to break up the joke.
	You want to create...
	Vaccine hesitancy, CDC.
	This is how you create vaccine hesitancy, CDC.
	But before we get there, let's do Bannon in the legal news sense, not in any other dirty sense.
	You filthy people out there with filthy minds.
	Bannon got sentenced today.
	Okay, so we have our black pill out of Canada.
	We've got, I don't know what we're going to call this one.
	We'll call this one a purple pill.
	No, purple would be a mix between blue and red.
	We'll go with mauve.
	No, we'll go with maroon.
	Because it's a mix between the red pill and the black pill.
	Bannon got sentenced today for his conviction on two charges of contempt of Congress.
	One contempt for failing to submit documents.
	Two contempt for failing to submit to examination.
	To discovery.
	Because, you know, that bipartisan lawfully formed committee issued lawful subpoenas.
	And the failure to comply with those subpoenas leads to contempt charges, convictions, and now the sentence...
	I was wrong on both predictions.
	Well, I wasn't really wrong.
	I said two months and $200,000.
	The mauve pill, the maroon pill, part black, part red, Bannon was sentenced to four months in jail for his contempt conviction, but...
	It's suspended pending appeal.
	Or, sorry, stayed pending appeal.
	So he's not going to jail now.
	He might just go to jail for four months later because he did not abide by what was arguably an invalid subpoena, although that argument did not get withheld because he wasn't allowed to make that argument come trial.
	Let me get the article from the Postmillennial.
	Posobiec was...
	Covering this in live time.
	Here we go.
	It's amazing.
	Here, I'm going to get this open.
	Give me two seconds here.
	Okay.
	Postmillennial is covering it.
	It happened.
	Then they got an article out right away.
	But we had already known from the tweets beforehand.
	Share.
	Breaking.
	Here we go.
	And we all see this.
	We see the same thing.
	My internet.
	Appears to be very slow.
	Breaking Steve Bannon's sentence to 120 days for defying January 6th.
	Committee released pending appeal.
	So everyone has to bear in mind, it was a minimum, it was a maximum of one year in jail per charge, per conviction, and a minimum of one month in jail per conviction.
	Bannon's team argued that the judge has the discretion to not impose even the minimum sentence.
	Because all of a sudden, minimum sentences now mean something.
	But when it's KJB and, you know, potential potato files, you know, the minimum sentence, you know, we got to show compassion and not necessarily hold people to the minimum sentences.
	Unless, you know, they're political adversaries who defy potentially invalid unlawful subpoenas.
	Then, minimum, we can do a little better than that.
	Bandon was found guilty by a D.C. court in July for two counts of contempt of Congress.
	Refusal to comply with the subpoena.
	Refusal to documents and submit to testimony.
	He has pled not guilty to those charges.
	He was denied of the ability to raise certain arguments in defense, much in the same way Jones was also denied of the ability to raise certain arguments in defense.
	It's amazing how that happens.
	To hell with the judicial system.
	To hell with the adversarial...
	Full rights of a defendant.
	If we don't like him, we can find a way to bypass the arguments they can raise in their own defense.
	Barbisa Ariane, a $10 rumble rant.
	Just a tip.
	Thank you very much.
	Let's get to that article.
	It's amazing how they can find ways not only to bypass the process, to circumvent the process itself.
	To restrict your ability to even raise certain defenses in your own defense.
	On Friday morning, former Trump advisor Stephen Bannon was sentenced to four months in prison and a $6,500 fine.
	So I was wrong on both.
	I said two months in jail, $200,000 just because they can.
	It seems they went with the over-punishment on the jail time and the economic penalty would never have made a difference with Bannon anyhow.
	The sentence is to be delayed pending appeal.
	At least he got that.
	I said, you know, the judge apparently, according to Jack Posobiec's live tweeting, was asking whether or not Bannon should be released pending appeal.
	I tweeted, I'm like, dude, Jussie Smollett got released pending appeal.
	And I'm not saying that because I think Jussie Smollett should be in jail.
	Understanding the arguments, I think Jussie Smollett should be released pending his appeal.
	Because if he succeeds on his appeal, he will have served the time by the time his appeal gets around.
	No problem with that.
	That's fair, but it's fair for friend, fair for foe.
	Not fair for friend, unfair for foe.
	That's not how things work, except in politics.
	Bannon had not complied with the subpoena due to executive privilege invoked by President Donald Trump regarding their communication, and I think he was precluded from raising executive privilege as a defense.
	Trump later revoked that, clearing the way for Bannon to testify, yet the DOJ continued with their case.
	Thank you.
	What's going on here?
	According to Section 2 USC, contempt of Congress.
	Okay, so minimum jail time, minimum fine.
	During the prosecution's final arguments before sentencing, Assistant U.S. Attorney J.P. Cooney defended their request for a $200,000 fine, stating that Bannon's lack of cooperation with the probation office's financial review only amplifies his contemptuous conduct.
	Every citizen walks in and out of the office to honor subpoenas and fill those obligations, Cooney added.
	This man, a public figure, chose to hide behind a fabricated claim to thumb his nose at Congress.
	Don't worry, people.
	I know what some of you are thinking, and I'm going to get there.
	The prosecutor opposed Bannon remaining free pending an appeal of the sentence by his legal team.
	Can you imagine that?
	It's not even enough for a punishment in due time.
	It's a punishment now.
	We want you to suffer now, even if you're found to be innocent later on on appeal.
	Punish now, forget later.
	During the defense's argument, Attorney David Schoen said, I hope no American buys into anything the prosecutor just said other than Mr. Bannon should be treated like any other citizen, and that he hopes the record doesn't show Bannon is above the law, but rather the opposite.
	We'll get to people who are above the law.
	In that regard, the prosecution's opinion of Bannon remaining free temporarily after the sentence is delivered, Schoen said.
	Any sentence of incarceration should be suspended and wouldn't be appropriate.
	At least he got that.
	Schoen argued that Bannon was acting on legal advice.
	We've gone over all of this.
	Schoen also noted the issue of executive privilege, saying that Bannon was honoring executive privilege invoked by the president and saying that the January 6th committee wouldn't have been composed as it was if it was interested in an investigation.
	Bannon certainly took to the media to condemn that sham of a January hearing.
	Okay.
	Let's see what we said here.
	Before the decision, Judge Nichols noted that the events of January 6th were undeniably serious and that many rioters planned to come to the Capitol with the express purpose of interrupting the proceedings.
	What does that have to do with Bannon?
	Oh, that's right.
	He's going to have all sorts of evidence to prove that he was involved.
	The January 6th committee has every right to investigate what happened that day.
	What can be done to prevent similar events from happening in the future, he added.
	Here's what can happen.
	Bring in the National Guard.
	Nancy, that's one thing that can happen.
	Here's another thing that can happen.
	Be full-staffed.
	And if you're not full-staffed because of COVID, bring in the National Guard.
	Here's another thing that can happen.
	Don't open the front doors for people.
	You can do that too.
	What else can happen?
	Don't open the front doors and invite people in, police.
	In regard to the defense's executive privilege claims, Nicholas stated that some of the information sought by the subpoena is information under which no conceivable claim of executive privilege could have been made.
	Nicholas also said that Bannon did not completely ignore the subpoena or fail to...
	Yeah, they were angry that he actually...
	He thumbed his nose at the system.
	He announced that he wasn't going to abide by it.
	He also noted the committee's failure to go to court to enforce its subpoena cuts in Mr. Bannon's favor.
	Respect for Congress is, of course, an important piece of our constitutional system.
	When does this article end?
	The DOJ further cited Bannon's referencing the January 6th committee as a sham committee and trial to which he was subjected as a show trial.
	That he would be found guilty was known before the trial began.
	Well, it was.
	All right, we can skip the rest of this.
	But you all know exactly what I'm thinking.
	Congressional subpoenas are very, very serious things.
	If you don't respect them and you're held in contempt of Congress, you should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
	I mean, that's the way it works.
	Holder, Eric Holder, in a matter where he was being subpoenaed, Because guns that the American government were funneling to Mexican cartels resulted in the death, the murder, of an ATF agent.
	Yeah, just, you know, I'll say arguably more serious.
	Some people are still going to cling to the fake narrative that January 6th protesters bludgeoned officers on the Capitol.
	Arguably somewhat more serious.
	And Holder refused to respect a congressional subpoena so they could find out how it was that the government was funneling weapons, knowingly, deliberately, to track them, to trace them.
	Holder became the first sitting attorney general to be held in contempt of Congress during an investigation of the Operation Fast and Furious ATF gunwalking scandal.
	The Justice Department's Inspector General under Obama Refused to prosecute him and later cleared him of the charges.
	Oh yeah.
	It's very serious contempt of Congress.
	No one is above the law.
	And by the way, does anybody not remember what this was about?
	Gun walking or letting guns walk was a tactic used by the Arizona U.S. Attorney's Office and the Arizona Field Office of the United States ATF, which ran a series of sting operations between 2006 and 2011 in the Tucson and Phoenix area.
	Where the ATF, Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Agency, purposely allowed licensed firearms dealers to sell weapons to illegal straw buyers hoping to track the guns to Mexican drug cartel leaders and arrest them.
	These operations were done under the umbrella of Project Gunrunner, a project intended to stem the flow.
	The only way to stem the flow is to...
	Flood the market with illegal firearms.
	Was to stem the flow of firearms into Mexico by interdicting straw purchases and gun traffickers within the United States.
	The Jacob Chambers case began on October 9, 2009.
	Eventually became known as Operation Fast and Furious after agents discovered Chambers and the other suspects under investigation belonged to a car club.
	Guns tracked by the ATF have been found at...
	Crime scenes on both sides of the Mexico-U.S.
	state's border and the scene where United States Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was killed in December 2010.
	The gun-walking operations became public in the aftermath of Terry's murder.
	Dissenting ATF agents came forward to Congress in response, according to Humberto Benitez Trevino, former Mexican Attorney General and Chair of the Justice Committee in the Chamber of Deputies.
	Related firearms have been found in numerous crime scenes in Mexico where at least 150 Mexican civilians were maimed or killed.
	Revelations of gun walking led to the controversy in both countries and diplomatic relations were damaged.
	Do you believe that?
	It's very serious.
	Congressional subpoenas are very serious.
	No one is above the law.
	You have to respect them, you have to abide by them, especially when they want to investigate, you know, the government actively participating in a program which is unlawful by nature, but I guess it's never illegal when the government does it because they make the laws.
	A program that was arguably, if not outright illegal by nature that led to hundreds of people being killed or maimed at the hands...
	And therefore, the direct responsibility of the government that implemented this policy, subpoena, congressional subpoena investigation, contempt of Congress, contempt of abiding by the congressional subpoena.
	Obama's people decide not to prosecute Holder and then later forgive him.
	All is forgiven.
	There's no such thing as a two-tier justice system, right?
	Politics ruins everything.
	Okay.
	It's unbelievable.
	Anyway, so that's it.
	So Bannon gets to walk free.
	It would have been outrageous if they had not released him pending appeal.
	Outrageous.
	Because other than being a total travesty of justice, unequal application of the...
	Jussie Smollett, love him or hate him.
	Most people hate him.
	I support...
	Him being released, pending appeal, that's how it should work.
	You know, for the nature of his crime, for the nature of his conviction.
	Had that not been the case, it would have been too much.
	And the fact that it's November midterms next week, son, that a beasting.
	The fact that it's virtually next week, the midterms, in a couple of weeks, the political blowback would have blown the...
	Cavities out of people's teeth.
	Okay, let me go to the chat and see if there's any questions here.
	Healthcare is two-tiered.
	This is from Blangivre.
	Justice is two-tiered from Blangivre.
	Honor123 says, culture war, check out Mao.
	That is communism.
	And Blangivre says everything is two-tiered.
	Let's see what we got here.
	Okay, some interesting chat.
	So that's Bannon.
	You know what's bothering me about this side of the backdrop?
	I have to back my computer up because I don't like seeing the blinds.
	The wall is cut off.
	I got my American flag hanging from the wall.
	This was a gift from Eric Hunley.
	Eric Hunley, Unstructured Podcast, Laidback News, said the first package I had at the front door was a beautiful, massive.
	It's massive.
	Hold on, check it out.
	A big, beautiful American flag.
	Eric, thank you very much.
	And if you don't know who Eric is, you should go check him out.
	Eric Hundley, Laidback News, America's Untold Stories with Mark Robert.
	He has become a very, very good friend in this wild, wild YouTube internet rumble journey.
	Okay.
	So that is...
	That is Bannon.
	What else?
	Do I hear my wife?
	I thought I heard my wife.
	What else did we have on the menu?
	There's more stuff.
	More stuff that might not make you happy.
	What do we got here?
	In case we got the live convoy.
	We'll get to the Trump order afterwards.
	You know, let's get to this order right now.
	Is this it?
	Yeah.
	Are we seeing the same thing here?
	We are.
	Let me expand this a little bit.
	I don't know how long we're going to spend on this because this is...
	Okay, good.
	We see the same thing here.
	What did I just do?
	Okay.
	United States District Court, Central District of California, Southern Division.
	This is Benny G. Thompson, select committee to investigate the January 6th attack on the Capitol and Chapman University defendants.
	Let's see.
	Let's get the context.
	Plaintiff Dr. Eastman, a former law school dean at Chapman University, is a political conservative who supported former President Trump.
	And a self-described activist law professor.
	While he was a professor at Chapman, Dr. Eastman worked with President Trump and his campaign on legal and political strategy regarding the November 3, 2020 election.
	Attorney worked with Trump on legal and political strategy regarding the election.
	This case concerns the House Representative's Select Committee, or as Trump calls it, the Unselect Committee of the Kangaroo Court, to investigate the January 6th attacks, attempt to obtain Dr. Eastman's emails from his Chapman email between November 3, after the election, which is undoubtedly what they might invoke here, and January 2021.
	Parties disagree on whether or not those documents are privileged.
	Let's see how fast we can do this.
	The court has now conducted an in-camera review of every document disputed by the parties, weighed and considered all the evidence presented by the parties, and applied the appropriate standard of proof.
	In-camera means confidential.
	In French, it's called ariclo, which I don't know what it means, but ariclo, A-H-U-I-S-C-L-O-S, means in-camera.
	It means confidentially...
	Not viewable to the public so that the judge can say, okay, if it's privileged and confidential, we can't let the interested parties who might not be entitled to see this see it, we'll review it in camera, confidentially, and then we'll come to the conclusion.
	And the judge came to the conclusion.
	Because the court proceeds, well, it's the procedural stuff, yada, yada.
	Let's just see.
	We'll get to some substantive.
	The legal standard, federal common law, governs the attorney-client privilege when courts adjudicate issues of federal law.
	As with all evidentiary privileges, the burden of proving the privilege rests not with the party contesting the privilege, but with the party asserting it.
	Okay.
	Interesting.
	Everyone finding this interesting?
	I'm going through this for the first time with you right now.
	Chichaco, $20 rumble rent, says, Thank you, Viva.
	Chichaco, thank you.
	Let's do this.
	Let me just make sure we're good here.
	Now, you're going to see my thought process.
	I've got to get through this and get to the important stuff.
	So I read real quick.
	Let's just get to the anticipation of litigation.
	Let's see what we're dealing with here.
	Okay, word product, anticipation of litigation.
	They're going to get out on it because they say that which is used in criminal activity can't be privileged.
	Electoral count.
	Okay, are we going to be able to do this in real time?
	State-related documents.
	So we're going through the nature of the documents.
	Public documents.
	Preparation by or for client's representative.
	Okay, these are all the various types of documents.
	Waiver of protection.
	The court now considers whether Dr. Eastman waived his protection over any of the 524 documents that the court concluded constituted protected work product.
	Unlike attorney-client privilege, which is waived if not kept completely confidential, work protection is only waived when attorneys disclose their work to an advisory or conduit.
	Okay, fine.
	Let's just see where we are here.
	Hold on.
	Sorry, I'm going to make this big for me.
	Having evaluated each element of the work...
	Okay, we find the documents are a protected work product.
	So we're going through some of the stuff.
	It's going to be very confusing here.
	The court now moves from work product protection to Dr. Eastman's claims of attorney-client privilege.
	The attorney-client privilege protects confidential communication between attorney and clients for the purposes of legal advice.
	However, advice on political, strategic, or policy issues is not protected.
	Well, interesting.
	How about if you're consulting an attorney for that advice?
	They're no longer...
	The privilege extends to communications with agents of the clients and third parties assisting the attorney.
	Okay.
	Below, the court considers whether an attorney-client relationship existed and whether the client was seeking legal advice when committing with their attorney.
	Okay, so they say some do and some don't.
	Crime fraud exception.
	Having determined that 26 documents are unprotected, the court has found that 536 documents are protected either by work product or attorney-client privilege.
	The court now considers whether any of the remaining 536 documents be disclosed under, this is where we got to the juicy part, the crime fraud exception.
	A crime fraud exception applies when one, a client consults an attorney for advice that will serve them in the commission of a fraud or crime.
	And two, the communications are sufficiently related to and were made in furtherance of the crime.
	I'm picturing like a Kleinfeld situation here where you're having correspondence with your attorney, not in their capacity as an attorney, but rather in their capacity as a partner in crime.
	It is irrelevant whether the scheme was ultimately successful.
	An attorney's wrongdoing alone may pierce the privilege, regardless of the client's awareness or innocence.
	The exception which extinguishes both the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine applies only to documents and communications that were themselves in furtherance of illegal or fraudulent conduct.
	This is very, very, very interesting.
	Now you can appreciate why they were qualifying this attorney as an activist attorney.
	Because they're going to basically say, these documents, in our view, not legal advice, but participating in, planning, whatever, crime or fraud.
	What would be the crime or the fraud?
	Overturning the election.
	As the first prompt of the crime fraud exception, the court has previously determined that President Trump was more likely than not engaged in or planning an obstruction of official proceeding.
	What the?
	What judge is this?
	David O. Carter.
	Okay.
	That's quite a presumption.
	Wow.
	And conspiracy to defraud the United States when he sought the advice of Dr. Eastman.
	Oh, really?
	Oh, my good.
	What was that advice?
	How can I challenge this election results?
	What's my constitutional remedy to contesting the certification?
	That's fraud.
	That's fraud.
	Holy crap.
	But hold on.
	Maybe it gets better.
	Maybe it makes more sense towards the end.
	And then are we going to apply this rule to BLM protesters, Antifa protesters, and their attorneys?
	But never mind.
	It's totally not a two-tier system, people.
	The court now turns to the second prong of the exception to determine whether any of the emails were sufficiently related to in furtherance of obstruction of conspiracy crimes, yada, yada, yada.
	The court finds that the crime fraud exception applies to eight communications.
	Okay, so not to all.
	Emails related to and in furtherance of delaying or disrupting the January 6th Congressional proceedings.
	The court's prior orders addressed several email threads related to ongoing or prospective litigation in key battleground states.
	In the current review, the court finds 18 similar documents that present a close call.
	Some emails discuss legitimate litigation.
	How the electoral votes affect the campaign's legal options.
	How litigation, if successful, might overturn the election.
	How to frame cases for the Supreme Court.
	Let's hear the others.
	I'm genuinely curious.
	I have an open mind.
	Others discuss how the litigation served other goals, like providing support to state electors trying to decertify electoral votes or persuading the public to question the integrity of the election.
	That's a crime?
	Although these emails are sufficiently related to disrupting the January 6th vote, on balance, the court cannot conclusively determine that these emails furthered obstruction of the January 6th proceedings.
	Okay.
	Good.
	There are four documents, however, in which Dr. Eastman and other attorneys suggest that, irrespective of the merits, they're going to say, forget whether or not we have a legal basis to do this.
	It'll mess things up.
	In one email, for example, President Trump's attorneys state that, quote, merely having this case pending in the Supreme Court not ruled on might be enough to delay consideration of Georgia.
	Okay, let's hear the context, Monsieur Judge.
	This email read in context with other documents in this review make clear that President Trump filed certain lawsuits not to obtain legal relief.
	Oh, really?
	Well, that's a very presumptuous conclusion to come to.
	But to disrupt or delay the January 6th congressional proceedings through the courts.
	Well, what if that's the remedy that he was seeking?
	Delay the certification so we can decide these legal issues.
	This is freedom is strength.
	What is it?
	Ignorance is strength.
	War is peace.
	War is peace.
	Freedom is slavery.
	Ignorance is strength.
	He didn't file the lawsuits to obtain legal relief, but to delay the January 6th congressional proceedings through court.
	What if that was the legal relief he was seeking?
	Avoid certification.
	We don't think it should be certified.
	We don't think they should proceed on January 6th.
	What if that was the relief he was seeking?
	The court finds that these four documents are sufficiently related to and in furtherance of the obstruction crime.
	Accordingly, the crime fraud exception applies, and the court orders Dr. Eastman to disclose the four documents.
	Oh my goodness, I want to see those documents.
	Now we got the idea.
	Now we got the idea, and we've seen enough.
	Four emails demonstrated an effort by President Trump and his attorneys to press false claims in federal court for the purposes of delaying the January 6th vote.
	Unless the emails say, we know this is a fraudulent, baseless claim, but file it anyhow.
	If they say that...
	I gotta say, if they say that, I'm still not sure that would be determinate for me.
	I think people should have the right to file frivolous lawsuits and then have them dismissed for frivolity and let the court sanction it.
	Right now, what you have is a judge concluding the frivolity in the absence of the frivolity having been concluded in the context of those court proceedings.
	You have a judge effectively carrying out a trial on the merits of another case that are not before him or her.
	The evidence confirms that this effort was undertaking at least one lawsuit filed in Georgia.
	Let's see here.
	Let's see here.
	Here.
	Let's read the whole paragraph.
	On December 4, 2020, Trump and his attorney alleged in a Georgia state court action that Fulton County improperly counted a number of votes, including 10,000 deceased people.
	Okay.
	Trump and his attorneys then decided to contest the court proceedings in federal court and discussed incorporating by reference the voter fraud numbers alleged in the state petition.
	On December 30, 2020, Eastman relayed, quote, concerns from President Trump's team about including specific numbers in the paragraph dealing with felons, deceased, moved, etc.
	Okay, this is called solicitor-client privilege correspondence so they can discuss strategy.
	The attorneys continued to discuss the president's resistance to signing, quote, when specific numbers were included.
	Okay.
	Although the president signed a verification for the state court filing back on December 1, he has since been made aware that some of the allegations and evidence proffered by the experts has been inaccurate.
	For him to sign a new verification with that knowledge and incorporate it would not be accurate.
	What if he believes it still?
	Okay, some people said it's not accurate.
	What if he believes it to be accurate?
	Go to court, have a judge then say these numbers are not accurate.
	Have the judge in the context of that proceeding say, these were filed with the knowledge by the person filing it that they weren't accurate.
	We found that they're not accurate.
	We sanction in this court file.
	That's typically the way it should work.
	All right, so one lawyer says Trump should know that these numbers are not accurate.
	And Trump might say, I believe that they're accurate and I don't trust that guy who says that they're not.
	Okay, let's keep going.
	Let's see where this goes.
	Surely this has got to get better.
	President Trump and his attorneys ultimately filed the complaint with the same inaccurate numbers without rectifying, clarifying, or otherwise changing them.
	President Trump, moreover, signed a verification swearing under oath that the incorporated inaccurate numbers are true and correct.
	Or believed to be true and correct.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	So you've had the trial on the merits of the substance, which didn't occur.
	And now you're saying that when he said, I believe them to be true and correct, he didn't believe them to be true and correct.
	To the best of his knowledge or belief.
	That sounds like an equivocation.
	The emails show that President Trump knew that the specific numbers of voter fraud were wrong.
	Well, was there any?
	But continue to tell those numbers both in court and to the public.
	The court finds that these emails are sufficiently related to and in furtherance of conspiracy to defraud the United States.
	Wow.
	This stream started off with stream inception.
	We've now gone to trial inception.
	This was a mini trial within a trial.
	That judge came to the conclusion that those numbers were definitively, not just that they were in fact inaccurate, which they might very well be.
	But that Donald Trump did not sincerely believe them to be accurate in his own mind when he said, to the best of my beliefs.
	They went full trial inception and then belief inception.
	Anyhow, so that's it.
	Like, it's not even...
	That was the lawyer saying, there's somebody saying these numbers are not accurate.
	I wouldn't sign it if I were you.
	And Trump basically saying, I believe they're accurate.
	I'm signing it.
	Thanks for your advice.
	That's what it was.
	I'm the client, and I get to sign what I think I believe in.
	This is not like Kleinfeld talking with the guy in, was it Carlito's way?
	Yeah, Kleinfeld in Carlito's way had a break out of prison.
	What was Carlito's last name?
	What was Carlito's last name?
	That doesn't matter.
	So that's it.
	This is a joke of a document, says Eric Amanda.
	No, no, the judge has conducted the hearing on the merits of those numbers in this court file, not even in the original.
	And they might have been inaccurate.
	Let's operate on the basis that they were, in fact, inaccurate.
	I'm sure some people believe them and believe them with all their hearts.
	Now, if an attorney says, I don't think those numbers are accurate, You may have a problem client when they don't abide by or listen to the advice of their counsel, but sanctions should occur in the context of the proceedings and not outside.
	And this judge is basically saying, I've come to the conclusion that Trump knew that it was not accurate.
	I've come to the conclusion that the numbers weren't accurate, that Trump knew they weren't accurate, and basically I've come to the presumptive conclusion that he was trying to defraud the United States by making what I think are false, inaccurate allegations.
	No more solicitor-client privilege.
	This can of worms will never be opened any wider.
	This Pandora's box will never affect anybody else.
	I would love to see all of the correspondence between attorneys and protesters in the Summer of Love.
	I'd like to see the, if there were any, solicitor-client communications between Kamala Harris and others who were raising funds to bail out the protesters.
	I'd love to see what they were saying.
	You're actively raising money to bail out people who have been arrested?
	No, but they won't do that.
	They won't do that because it's not a two-tiered system.
	It's a one-tiered system, and justice is applied equally, fairly to everybody.
	And if you think otherwise, you might be a small fringe minority with unacceptable views.
	The Emergencies Act inquiry is still going strong, people.
	How many people we got watching that one?
	That stream, they've got 888 people watching the stream of the Emergencies Act in Korea.
	Okay, and we're almost done, but we've got some good stuff left.
	We've got some good stuff that's going on.
	If you have not been sufficiently blackpilled, we've got more coming.
	And by the way, I hope everyone watched my stream with Neil Oliver yesterday, because I think it was amazing.
	I was re-watching it.
	He is...
	Just eloquent, intelligent, well-balanced, well-spoken, and well-thought-out.
	But we were talking afterwards, and I said, you know, it is tough not to get blackpilled when you see the system being destroyed, burnt down, and people cheering it on.
	And it's tough not to get blackpilled.
	And the advice that was given to me was, you can't always pretend to be hunky-dory.
	It's not always hunky-dory.
	And sometimes it is darkest before the dawn.
	Or hopefully always darkest before the dawn.
	And applying that analogy, we just have to assess, when is it the darkest?
	I thought it was the darkest yesterday.
	And then the Peckford dismissal comes out.
	I thought it was the darkest today.
	You feel mighty, mighty black-pilled, mighty doom-pilled.
	But...
	You can't give up.
	And you also can't give in.
	So let's not go there.
	But I'll smile as it happens.
	Let's just add another black pill suppository to the day.
	The CDC.
	The Center for Disease Control.
	Hold on.
	Where is it?
	Here we go.
	The CDC, people.
	Now, I'm going to try to clarify some stuff with this, but the CDC, this is from Greg Price.
	Greg Price, for those who don't know.
	God is real and dudes rock.
	Philly guy, very happy warrior, noted buffalo wing eater, and senior digital strategist.
	He doesn't work for MSNBC.
	Okay, I thought he worked for Fox, but whatever.
	Greg Price, definitely worth a follow on the Twitterverse.
	Here's what he's reporting, and everyone's reporting it.
	CDC just officially voted to add COVID-19 to the child immunization schedule.
	It was unanimous.
	15 to 0. And then here's the clip.
	Approve.
	Hold on, let's pause it there.
	I'm going to replay and just pause it so we can read that.
	CDC.
	Approve the recommended child and adolescent immunization schedule, United States 2023, and the recommended adult immunization schedule, United States 2023.
	And I presume, based on the reporting and the stories, though I haven't seen the schedule myself, that that includes the Rona jibby jab, which they still call a vaccine, despite what other doctors have called it.
	This is a thorough black pill.
	Some people were claiming now that this is going to be mandatory in schools.
	One of those people was Tucker Carlson.
	Hold on, let me bring this up.
	Here's Tucker.
	I won't play the whole thing.
	How long was it?
	So here's an amazing story that's been effectively buried.
	This week, the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is expected to add the COVID-19 Vax to the list of required childhood vaccines.
	If this happens, your children will not be able to attend school without taking the COVID shot.
	Now, the problem is there is no medical basis for this decision whatsoever.
	Let's set aside that part.
	Let's set aside that part.
	The statement was that it will be mandatory.
	Your kids won't be able to go to school without getting it.
	That seems to be false.
	It's a state issue.
	This is guidance, from what I understand, and not what becomes a mandatory requirement at a state level.
	Florida has already stated that they're not going to mandate this.
	That's sort of the fairness part of it.
	It's not, by virtue of having been added to the, what do they call it, the immunization schedule, it does not become mandatory for public schools and your kid will not be You know, precluded from going to school at a state level if they don't get it.
	Fine.
	PolitiFact comes in and says, we rated this mostly false.
	A CDC advisory committee voted in favor of adding COVID vaccines to the agency's recommended routine immunization schedules.
	Okay.
	The schedules are not a mandate.
	States set requirements for attending school or daycare.
	That's true.
	And so...
	Perhaps Tucker got slightly ahead of himself or whatever.
	That's true.
	They added it to their recommended routine immunization schedules.
	That's true.
	What does that mean?
	It means that most of the schools, right down here, the intelligence of the internet is, you know, for good and for bad, it concentrates...
	Trollish behavior, mean behavior, etc.
	But it also concentrates knowledge.
	I believe it's a relatively known fact that states follow CDC guidelines.
	I'm fairly certain it's a relatively well-known fact.
	So the bottom line is that statement is correct.
	It's not mandatory.
	But the states, by and large, follow CDC guidelines.
	That's why they're there.
	I, as tongue-in-cheek, said, I rate the fact-checkers' fact wrong because Kieran Moore, Dr. Kieran Moore, Ontario's chief medical health officer, called them a therapeutic, not a vaccine.
	So I fact-check.
	You say it's a vaccine and it's been added to the vaccine list, PolitiFact.
	I call fact-check on you.
	But more important than that, okay, fine.
	It's not mandatory, but the states tend to follow the CDC's guidelines.
	The question I had, which I just closed the tweet, why did they add it?
	What's the consequence of having added it, legally speaking?
	There is a theory going around, and it seems to be pretty widely accepted, that the reason for which pharma companies were pushing so hard to get the Rona jab added to the childhood immunization list is because in so doing, and once approved, They then benefit from total immunity, not just emergency authorization use immunity.
	That's the running theory.
	And thus far, that seems to be an accurate running theory.
	Thank you.
	There's a number of people confirming that to be the case.
	Robert and I are going to talk about it Sunday.
	Some people are not so certain that it's actually the case.
	But Robert F. Kennedy?
	And a number of other people, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., are of the opinion that by adding it to the recommended childhood vaccination schedule, the pharma companies therefore benefit from immunity because any injuries have to go through the federal program and not directly through the pharma companies.
	So they went from emergency authorization use immunity under the PrEP Act or whatever it's called.
	Now they're going to get immunity under the law because once recommended on the annual children's vaccine schedule, any injuries go through the federal claim and not directly through the pharma companies.
	There may be some nuance to this, and Robert Barnes and I will discuss it Sunday evening.
	But that's the theory.
	And I asked PolitiFact to fact check that.
	Is the reason for which there was such a push...
	Because it would provide additional immunity beyond the EAU, beyond the PrEP Act, for these pharma companies.
	And so now they can distribute it with immunity and be immune from liability for that which has already been done.
	And that's the black pill.
	You got doctors coming out now with the updated statistics, knowing what we all know, knowing what we know about the risks of the jibby jab among a certain demographic.
	Knowing what we know about certain demographics not being at any meaningful risk from the Rona, certainly as compared to the risk of the jibby jab, knowing now that it doesn't prevent transmission, knowing now that Pfizer has admitted that it doesn't prevent transmission because they never even tested on whether or not it did when they were telling us to take it because you don't want granny to die, and now they're adding it to the schedule.
	CDC, 15 to 0. Corruption through and through.
	Corruption through and through, because this is one hand buttering the bread of the other, while the other hand scratches the back of the person buttering their bread.
	I mixed up some analogies there, but you know what I'm getting at.
	We know, according to Dr. Kieran Moore, according to German studies, the risk of myocarditis among a certain demographic, one in 5,000 per dose.
	We know the risk of the Rona for any serious impact for children, virtually nil.
	We know that the jibby jab does not prevent contracting, carrying, or transmitting the virus.
	At best, it reduces the severity of symptoms for people who would otherwise experience severe symptoms.
	And yet, the CDC, the corrupt institution that the CDC has become, if it wasn't always corrupt, bowing to the pressure or having their butter breaded by the lobbyists, 15 to 0, add this jibby jab.
	To a schedule for children knowing damn well that a number of states are going to abide by the CDC guidelines because it's the CDC.
	This is a black pill.
	This is a black pill for people that I know that don't get black pill very easily.
	And I correspond with a lot of people.
	I just cannot believe we have gone back to the day of sacrificing children at the altar of the science spelt with a dollar sign.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, and it's atrocious.
	You know what?
	I look much...
	I'm going to have to get...
	I'm going to have to get...
	What do they call them?
	Decorative.
	I'm going to have to get decorative headphones just so I can do this.
	Problem is I can't wear the headphones now because...
	Oh yeah, that's it.
	If I put the headphones on, I'm going to hear that emergencies act inquiry.
	Well, I can't read some of these chats, but...
	Yeah.
	So that's it.
	I mean, that's CDC.
	15 to 0. Actually, I almost forgot.
	Unanimous.
	That's how clear the science is.
	Unanimous.
	Unanimity on thorny questions of new science is not a good thing.
	It's not an indication of settled science.
	It's an indication of indoctrination.
	It's an indication of...
	What's the word I'm looking for?
	Not...
	Orthodoxy.
	It's an indication of orthodoxy, not an indication of science.
	It's inconceivable that among 15 professionals, alleged professionals, whatever they are on the board, inconceivable that not one of them...
	Said what a number of other doctors are currently saying.
	Inconceivable.
	Ideological homogeneity very rarely is a good thing.
	When Brexit, there was that...
	I forget what went to the Supreme Court in Brexit.
	And, you know, the Supreme Court, unanimous.
	There are very few cases that are so thorny they get to the Supreme Court that they should be unanimous at the Supreme Court.
	Very few.
	It happens.
	And there are very few scientific questions.
	I shouldn't say very few, but in order to get to unanimity at the scientific level, you have to have more than two and a half years of data.
	And given the data that we currently have, it's inconceivable.
	Setting aside financial interest, corruption, and even more sinister potential, it's inconceivable that the CDC, knowingly, in good conscience, adds this to the schedule.
	And now I'm looking, and I have hitherto been relatively deferential to experts, I'd say up until the last three years.
	I've vaccinated my kids.
	I got tetanus shots.
	I got the recommended list for my kids.
	I was never a skeptic.
	I now look at every other vaccine on that schedule.
	And I'm asking myself two questions.
	Are there doctors who call those vaccines therapeutics the same way there are doctors who call this jibby-jabba therapeutic?
	And I look at all of those vaccines now, and I say, now I got questions about each and every one of them.
	You want to create vaccine hesitancy?
	This is how you do it.
	Depressing Friday, says Blanche.
	Oh my God.
	Ah.
	I've had my...
	So Eric Amandus has better start conceiving.
	I've already had my three kids.
	My schmeckle has served its purpose on this earth.
	Anyway, so that's that.
	That's another black pill.
	But public outcry, public pressure, public backlash in a lawful, respectful manner.
	In a manner that would not make your parents, your children, or your pets ashamed of who you have become.
	When battling monsters, do not become the monster because when you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares right back.
	And it's not because people are...
	Corrupt, dishonest abusers that we should ever allow ourselves to become corrupt, dishonest abusers.
	You don't defeat the monster by becoming the monster.
	Of course, yeah.
	What else do we got in the backdrop?
	A little lighter side of bad takes.
	Billie Jean is not my lover.
	Oh, what did I just do here?
	Oh, what's going on?
	I've created window in window that I don't know how to deal with.
	All right, Billie Jean.
	Billie Jean King.
	By the way, you want to talk about arrogant pomposity.
	Like, I know Billie Jean was a great tennis player back in the day.
	I just went to read her profile.
	Anybody who refers to themselves as a sports icon, Billie Jean King.
	Sports icon.
	Equality champion.
	Founder of BJK.
	Initiative.
	Adidas.
	Oh yeah, sponsors.
	Every, you know, equality.
	Give me the money, Adidas.
	Global ambassador.
	All in.
	Available now.
	Okay, I don't know what that is.
	Anyways, Billie Jean is not my love.
	She has taken, you know...
	To politics.
	This is just, this is the way it has to work.
	Undoubtedly, a sports icon.
	And all shall bow and kneel before her sports awesomeness, which will undoubtedly, in as much as she is, in fact, a sports icon, she is.
	Just typically, you know, sports icons don't need to say that they're sports icons.
	Like Michael Jordan, I don't know what his Twitter feed says, but if it says best basketball player of all time, basketball icon, whatever.
	She's a sports icon.
	She is.
	Don't need to say it.
	And when you need to say it, it kind of detracts from the iconicness of the sports icon.
	But she's a sports icon.
	Surely she's going to know a little bit about politics and law.
	And she's following the stories closely, right?
	And she's going to be a source of accurate information as relates to the thorny, complex, legal, political questions of our time.
	Today, Brittany Griner turns 32. She will spend her birthday in a Russian prison where she has been unlawfully detained for eight months.
	Let's continue to advocate for her release and bring her home.
	We are BG.
	But where do we start with this Twitter diarrhea?
	She turns 32. I think she will spend her birthday in a Russian prison where she has been unlawfully detained for eight months.
	Now, you may like it or not like it.
	You may think she got what she deserved, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
	Brittany Griner pleaded guilty to smuggling drugs into Russia.
	And especially given what people think about Russia.
	Let's make sure about this.
	Because it was vape.
	Brittany Griner.
	CBD.
	No, what's in CBD?
	It was THC.
	Oh, they're alleging it was cannabis for pain.
	She smuggled cannabis into Russia.
	Cannabis.
	you Thank you.
	Yeah, she snuck cannabis cartridges.
	It's a drug into a foreign country.
	Given what people think about Russia and Putin, maybe it's not the best thing to smuggle drugs into a country that you think is run by a fascist dictator, a murderous, genocidal fascist dictator.
	Maybe it's just not the best idea.
	Maybe you didn't know, but I don't think that's the defense.
	And if you're going to, you know...
	Even going from Canada to the United States, you can't bring these things in.
	This is common sense.
	I wouldn't break the law anywhere.
	But don't break the law in a country that you think is run by a fascist, genocidal dictator, where you think there's no rule of law, where they violate human rights.
	Don't go there and break the law.
	Now, whether or not I think she was sentenced to nine years, it's absurd.
	But I ain't traveling to Russia.
	I'm not traveling anywhere, but...
	It's absurd.
	It's not unlawful.
	She had a trial.
	She pleaded guilty and was sentenced.
	The sentence is absurd, I think.
	I think most of us can agree on that.
	But it's not unlawful.
	In fact, by definition, what she did was unlawful.
	She has been lawfully detained.
	She pleaded guilty and was sentenced.
	The sentence is preposterous.
	The crime was admitted.
	But...
	Setting that aside, she's been in jail for eight months for smuggling cannabis into Russia.
	Let's continue to advocate.
	Hey, Billie Jean, you're about equality?
	Oh, no.
	You're about equality?
	What about the January 6th defendants?
	Now, you want to talk about unlawful, Billie Jean.
	What's going on here?
	You want to talk about unlawful?
	Brittany Griner was sentenced after pleading guilty.
	The January 6th defendants, some of them, have been in nearly two years of pretrial detention without even having gone to trial.
	Relatively non-violent, if not non-violent, accusations, pretrial detention.
	Some of them have been sentenced to years, five to seven years.
	Billie Jean, you're about equality.
	You're about opposing abusive detention.
	Are you going to look at January 6th?
	Or do you only focus on certain celebrities based on identity politics?
	Obvious issues of identity politics.
	No, no.
	It's unlawfully detained.
	Bella1022 says, I'm sure she has a different view for those Americans, Viva.
	Unlawfully detained for breaking the law, having pleaded guilty, and been sentenced.
	Okay, now do January 6th.
	The QAnon shaman, Jake and Jelly.
	What was it, six years?
	Six years for, what was it?
	I believe it was admittedly, recognizedly non-violent.
	The other guy who brought a firearm?
	What did he get, close to 10 years?
	Oh, no.
	Forget them.
	Forget them.
	It's the cool people to fight for.
	They have to fill in the identity politics blank.
	Those are the ones that we fight for.
	Let's focus on injustice elsewhere and not injustice right here at home.
	Okay.
	Okay, well, that's on the lighter side of things.
	What else?
	What else was on the menu?
	Okay, Blackpill confirmed.
	We got that.
	We can close this down.
	StreamYards.
	Let's see what else we got.
	I think we've done pretty good here.
	Oh, yeah.
	No, no.
	We'll end with the lighter side of things.
	When I was talking with Neil Oliver yesterday during the stream, the question was, when did he have his awakening?
	When did he realize that something was not making any sense?
	And he was like, when we saw certain gatherings being tolerated and others not being tolerated, It didn't make any sense.
	It couldn't make any sense because it didn't make any sense.
	That's not the window we want.
	It couldn't make sense because it doesn't make sense.
	And I had to go back and just refresh my memory.
	Do you all remember?
	We're in the midst of the most deadliest pandemic in the history of humankind that warrants locking people down, locking people up.
	Face masking children, social distancing, social isolation.
	It was the deadliest pandemic.
	It brought the world to its knees.
	And then NPR, in order to justify certain protests being carried out, notwithstanding the most deadliest of pandemics in the history of the mankind, have to find a way to allow for BLM protesters to gather.
	Coronavirus.
	Coronavirus, which was the most devastating, dangerous, you don't want Granny to die unless Granny's grandson wants to go to a BLM protest.
	It was the most deadliest pandemic ever.
	But so is racism.
	Coronavirus and racism are dual public health emergencies.
	This is June 5. Remember after the two weeks to flatten the curve, and then, you know, we did it, even though we didn't know when to measure the two weeks from.
	And then, you know, people wanted to protest and burn down cities in the name of racial justice or racial injustice.
	And had to find a way to allow them to do that, but not allow people to go to church.
	Across the country, this is, you've got to read this.
	We're reading this now with the benefit of hindsight.
	What's the month now?
	It's June.
	What year are we?
	2022.
	Two years ago.
	Across the country, demonstrators are protesting the death of George Floyd and the ongoing systemic racism that is woven into the fabric of the United States.
	UK lockdown.
	The world lockdown.
	Stay home.
	We're closer together, further apart.
	To love your grandmother is to never see her again.
	But in the States, they're protesting, and we kind of want to find a way to justify this, so let's just, like, get your mental gymnastics stretch on.
	The protests came in the middle of an unprecedented pandemic that is disproportionately killing people of color, particularly Black Americans.
	We talked to the health expert David Williams about systemic racism that is at the heart of the longstanding public health crisis for Black America.
	And we discussed the risks facing protesters who are gathering despite the dangers of the coronavirus.
	I think I started realizing a little earlier That something was rotten in Denmark.
	But you go back and you read these things now and you realize that you feel stupid for not realizing earlier and then you feel stupid for not getting angrier.
	Angrier in the dodgeball sense sooner.
	Preposterous.
	Outlandish.
	Ridiculous.
	It's the most dangerous pandemic ever.
	And I remember having this discussion with a friend at the time, the one who has since stopped talking to me.
	I was like, you've got doctors saying you can protest, but you can't go to church.
	And the individuals are like, yeah, that's problematic.
	That's not problematic.
	That's unscientific madness.
	That's idiotic, not problematic.
	And when these idiotic people are dictating policies, we've got a problem, Houston.
	Anyhow, that's it.
	Let me see what's in my Twitterverse.
	So now I'm going to go back to here.
	You want to do Stream Inception again?
	Okay, so we got Steve Bannon.
	Okay, we got the stream going.
	I did a funny on Twitter.
	I can't play it here, not because of any censorship reasons.
	I don't want...
	Hold on, let me put this here.
	I gotta put it.
	You gotta go watch this tweet.
	Dane Goodall releasing a gorilla into the wild and they put this synthetic music on it and the gorilla goes around and hugs everybody and looks around and it's all beautiful.
	It's like, dude, change the music on that backdrop.
	The entire video takes on a different meaning.
	And so go check out the link to Twitter and watch the video because it's hilarious if I do say so myself.
	I watch that and I'm laughing out loud.
	Let's see what we got.
	I think we've done everything, people.
	Okay, so we got Peckford dismissed.
	I believe Keith Wilson has...
	I don't believe.
	The lawyer has publicly confirmed there will be an appeal.
	But it's a black pill.
	Okay, then we got...
	You know, it's funny.
	We're going to bring this one up again one more time because I've noticed it's becoming increasingly difficult to find an original tweet that I had with Dr. Kieran Moore.
	This was the tweet.
	This was not the tweet that I was trying to find.
	I tweeted it a couple times.
	Can't find the other tweet.
	It bears repeating, everyone.
	I'll clip this one here so you can share that.
	There's always a risk to having any therapeutic, therapeutic, therapeutic, therapeutic, therapeutic, therapeutic versus a benefit.
	You want to make sure there's a very strong benefit versus a risk.
	If we're an 18-year-old healthy individual, the risk of getting hospitalized if we have no medical illness is very, very low.
	We know there is a risk, a very small risk.
	One in 5,000 that may get myocarditis, for example.
	Play it over.
	We'd have to have that discussion on the risk-benefit of a complication from the vaccine versus a benefit of decreased hospitalization.
	I just recommend it to everybody.
	Share it, repeat it over and over and over again.
	Okay, now we're, I think we're just, yeah, we're scrolling through my Twitter.
	This is my ongoing note-keeping diary.
	George Floyd, okay, we're talking about Kanye, and then AOC.
	All right, people, that does it for the day.
	Now, what we can do, if everyone's mind wants to get blown, while...
	Hold on, hold on, hold on.
	Okay, let's do this.
	We shall enter the stream in...
	Oh, they're on break.
	Oh, they're on break.
	Okay, there we go.
	And now...
	How do I share the stream yard here?
	Is it this one or this one?
	It's this one.
	Now watch this, people.
	Inception.
	There we go.
	And now we see the chat.
	I don't even know what we're looking at anymore is how confused I am.
	They're on break, so nothing to watch there.
	I can't end that.
	So what I'm going to do right now, I'll just go to YouTube.
	I'm going to get a video that's going to be nice for us to...
	To watch as we wind up on Rumble.
	Thank you all again for being here, as always.
	Beyond the black pill, the black pill is always the blackest before the dawn pill.
	We just need to wait for the Dom pill.
	But I'm going to find something nice to watch on the way out so that we can at least leave feeling slightly good.
	It's going to be a fishing video.
	It's going to be a fishing video.
	Hold on.
	I think I've...
	Okay, here we go.
	Here we go.
	Enjoy, people.
	Enjoy.
	Right there.
	Thank you all for being here.
	Enjoy the day.
	Sunday night.
	Maybe tomorrow we'll see what happens.
	Don't give up and don't give in.
	But don't do anything that will make you feel bad about yourself.
	Everybody, go.
	Enjoy the day.
	I'm just going to let it dry off.
	I don't even remember what's happening in this video.
	And while it does that, I'm going to go back to fish.
	Okay, I'll put you right here.
	Okay.
	Ow!
	I ran out of...
	I ran out of...
	Battery.
	I want to see that.
	Holy cows.
	Holy cows.
	Go.
	Everyone enjoy the day.
	See you soon.
	But I just landed the biggest smallmouth bass I've ever caught in my life.
	Look at the size of this fish.
	This is beautiful.
	Hold on.
	I'm going to get a picture.
	This is the biggest mammal bass I've ever caught in my life.
	Okay.
	And he's off.
	Okay, I should probably go back to my wife now, eh?
	Maybe just a couple more casts.
	That was huge.
	Okay.
	Just look at this.
	That is...
	Absolutely beautiful.
	Amazing.

▲