Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 13, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

02:17:58

Elon MSM Enemy #1; Prosecute Sam Brinton? Dog-Faced Poney Soldiers AND MORE! Viva Frei Live!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	It's 100,000, Jess.
	There you go!
	We did it!
	We did it!
	100,000!
	Oh, my God!
	You've done it, mate!
	And you're still going!
	We did it!
	Still going!
	Oh, it's amazing!
	Thank you so much!
	Oh, my God!
	Thank you!
	Yay!
	Well done, Captain Corey!
	Yay!
	Thank you so much!
	How do you feel?
	So excited!
	Oh, my God.
	There's nothing in my hat.
	I don't know.
	There's nothing in my hat.
	Oh, my God.
	I can't believe it.
	Done it.
	It's still going up.
	Thank you so much.
	Thank you so much.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Subscribe.
	Okay.
	I'll give you the backdrop to that.
	Did it go mute at any point in time?
	When I was playing that because my headphones didn't seem to be playing that music.
	I didn't seem to be hearing the audio when I plugged in my headphones.
	So I'm going to have to see if that's a problem with that video or in general.
	All right.
	The backstory behind that is that apparently this kid, his name is Corey, K-O-R-I, apparently has had two heart transplants.
	Is in palliative care now.
	And Legal Bites Alita circulated the story.
	I don't know if it was, I mean, I think it was being circulated before because Johnny Depp replied to the kid.
	The kid has had two heart transplants, is in palliative care, which means end of life.
	And the kid's a young kid.
	And apparently his dream was to reach 100,000 subs, get the silver play button.
	In whatever time he has remaining on this earth.
	And I don't know the details to the story.
	I just had to make sure that it was a legit story in as much as one can verify anything on the interwebs.
	I did.
	It's a legit story.
	Johnny, the kid's channel is called Kraken the Box.
	And Kraken is going to come, it's going to circulate back into the stream today because when Twitter was deciding what hashtags to censor and they were trying to determine whether or not they censor Kraken.
	Sidney Powell's The Kraken during the 2020 election contests.
	And they said, well, we can't do that.
	That's a Nordic sea monster.
	We'll get back there.
	So the kid wanted to reach 100,000 subs on his channel, Kraken the Box.
	Johnny Depp actually made a short video to him in character as Captain Jack Sparrow.
	And the LawTube community, the interwebs, has been sharing around this kid's channel to try to get him to 100,000.
	He was at 10,000 subs yesterday.
	And he's reached his dream, and that is the look of elation.
	That's the look of a kid.
	I mean, everybody...
	Hold on.
	Where's my plug?
	It is idolatry.
	We recognize that it is idolatry.
	You get a plaque and whatever.
	The kid had a dream, has a dream, reached that dream.
	A hundred...
	It's gonna...
	I think it's just getting started.
	I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if it gets to a million subs, his channel.
	Kid had a dream, and that look is something that is enough to...
	It's a silver lining to a gray cloud because the underlying story is tragic, and the details are...
	The story is terrible.
	We are...
	Fortunate enough to exist for whatever time we exist, and to a great extent, we don't control our destiny in this life in a great many respects.
	Some are lucky, some are not lucky, and some get unlucky with health issues.
	At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is health, and some people just draw the short straw from the random genetic lot, and whatever problem he has is palliative.
	At this point in his life.
	And he had a dream.
	And I mean, it's beautiful.
	Anybody who's ever had a video go viral, I mean, every time you refresh and the numbers go up, it's silly, but it feels good.
	I can only imagine this kid.
	First of all, getting a video from Johnny Depp in and of itself, how much better can life get for a kid or an adult?
	It's beautiful to get that video.
	But then for this to happen, a community of people who he's never met rallying behind him.
	To make this dream come true.
	It's amazing.
	It's beautiful.
	Even though it's still...
	What makes it beautiful is what makes it tragic.
	But nonetheless, a silver lining of a gray cloud.
	We have got one heck of a lineup for today's show, people.
	The world has gone crazy.
	We went live Saturday.
	We went live Sunday.
	And then between Sunday and it's Tuesday.
	Holy...
	Crabapples.
	Sam Bankman-Fried does a live interview in Twitter spaces yesterday with unusual whales.
	His answers were unsatisfactory, and I don't think one had anything to do with the other, but today he's arrested.
	Been indicted in the Bahamas, and I think they're looking for extradition.
	Arrested.
	What else do we got?
	Elon is melting down the interwebs.
	Elon is melting the brains and the faces of the left because he tweets out, my preferred pronouns are prosecute slash Fauci.
	And then people get up in arms, you know, say it's threat.
	I mean, we're going to get to it.
	What else?
	Sam Bankman Freed is being sued by the SEC, Securities and Exchange Commission.
	We got the lawsuit.
	I went through it.
	Doesn't really tell us much more of what we didn't already know, and it's acutely silent or vague on certain issues.
	We're going to get there.
	The lying-faced dog-pony soldiers walking...
	Okay, I can't take credit for that joke, but I think it's a sufficiently...
	Is the word ubiquitous?
	I don't think anybody can take credit for that joke, so I don't feel compelled to give credit to that joke.
	I've seen it all over the internet.
	The military...
	I saw this.
	We've all seen the picture.
	It's a flipping military guy in military uniform in front of an American flag.
	I thought it was a joke.
	Maybe it was a Halloween costume.
	We're going to get to it.
	Bottom line, there's that image of military men in uniform wearing furry masks with leather leashes and dogs.
	The images are real.
	We don't know the context.
	And there's an investigation.
	We'll get there.
	SBF gets arrested the day before he's supposedly going to testify.
	There were C-SPAN notifications.
	That was if he were going to testify.
	He had no compulsion to be testifying, and it was going to be...
	If he so chose to do it, we're going to get into all of that.
	Okay.
	Now, I said I think...
	No Red Bull.
	What I actually had was the leftover coffee banana smoothie.
	It might have been a little more coffee than I needed at this point in time.
	So I'm going to breathe.
	And I'm going to remember my sponsor for today's video.
	You may have noticed it said this video contains a paid sponsorship because it does.
	It's a sponsorship that I actually use myself.
	Home title lock, people.
	Only good for Americans.
	So for the Canadians out there...
	I don't know that there's a Canadian equivalent to home title lock, but I don't actually believe the type of title fraud that is so prevalent in the United States is quite as prevalent in Canada.
	I'm a lawyer.
	I've owned a house in Canada.
	I had never heard of this type of fraud in Canada.
	You hear of identity theft, etc.
	From what I have been told and what has been confirmed to me, it's a lot more prevalent.
	It's prevalent in the United States.
	Florida.
	Florida is the Wild West of the United States.
	My joke is that Florida is like continental Australia of the North Americas.
	But there's a certain type of fraud which is prevalent in the United States, home title theft.
	And it's not like someone goes and steals your house.
	They forge the signature and then show up and say, "I own your house.
	Get out.
	Viva." It is more sinister because you don't actually know it has happened until creditors, they don't really...
	Typically show up at the front door, but they show up in your mailbox.
	And they say, you borrowed money against your house and it's time to repay us.
	What people do, it's been confirmed to me, I verified home title lock, verified with our home insurance, verified with some real estate developer that I met at the Deerfield Pier while I was fishing.
	What people do is they go to the town clerk office, they pull up your deed, and they forge your signature and borrow money against any equity in your house.
	And then you don't even know about it.
	Until creditors start sending letters saying it's time to repay that loan.
	And you're like, what loan?
	And then you find out someone pulled up your deed, forged your signature, borrowed money against your house.
	It's like a type of theft where someone doesn't steal your car, but they replace your engine when it's been parked.
	And you don't actually find out that they've replaced your engine with a crappy engine until you go to the garage.
	You don't find out about it until you start getting calls to repay the loan.
	And then it's too late.
	You're stuck holding a bag and the people have made off with your money.
	And apparently it's quite easy.
	Home title lock.
	slash Viva, promo code Viva, you'll get a free title assessment.
	What they do, it's basically 24-7 surveillance of the digital realm of your deed of sale.
	If someone pulls it, they're going to freeze your account and notify you so that nobody can borrow against your house.
	Freeze your deed, notify you so that you can rectify it or take care of whatever's going on, and nobody can borrow against your deed, thus leaving you with the debt.
	And I use it.
	It's $19.95 a month, and as far as I'm concerned, that is...
	Four coffees a month so that you can actually sleep easy knowing that you have 24-7 digital surveillance of your property.
	They guarantee for a quarter of a million dollars in legal defense fees.
	Some people may not need it.
	$19.95 a month to protect your most valuable asset or most people's most valuable asset.
	Well worth it to me.
	It's a no-brainer.
	And I use it.
	All right.
	Thank you, Home Title Lock, also for sponsoring The Hinged.
	Fringed minority holding unacceptable views.
	Link is in the description.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	You all know.
	Okay.
	What do we want to start with?
	Let's make sure that we're live.
	We are live on Rumble and we're good.
	They don't ask for photo ID to get a loan approved.
	That's crazy.
	That's a comment.
	Look, I've seen the videos of how the fraudsters actually do it.
	It seems unreasonably easy.
	But even photo ID, I mean, not hard to falsify that, but in any event, once they forge your signature, that's the identifying element.
	Anyway, hometidlock.com forward slash Viva.
	Protect your asset.
	Cover your asset, people.
	All right, we are good.
	Standard disclaimers.
	We're going to be going over to Rumble in 19 minutes, give or take, exclusively.
	Rumble rants.
	Super chats.
	Hey, Viva and chat.
	It's been a while.
	Love you all.
	Force name change.
	YouTube takes 30% of all Super Chats for anybody who chooses to support my channel that way.
	Rumble has a Rumble rant equivalent to the Super Chat.
	They take 20%.
	Better for the platform.
	Better for the creator.
	Best way to support the channel.
	Stuck holding your schmeckle.
	The best way to support the channel, if I may, promote my own merch.
	Viva Fry.
	I found out yesterday that I had not renewed my own website, my own merch website, so I renewed it for a decade.
	So I don't forget next time.
	Renewed for 10 years.
	VivaFry.co.
	VivaFry.org.net.com.ca.
	If anybody wants a shirt for Christmas, it's all there.
	Barnes, good, good.
	Look at this.
	Look at this.
	Abraham Barnes mug.
	There's that.
	And then if anybody wants to go...
	So go to Viva Barnes for merch.
	Creations by Ziggy.
	Local, handcrafted, handmade stuff for Christmas.
	You got...
	Sold out of dreidels.
	Booyah.
	I didn't know that.
	That's cool.
	Ornaments, Christmas stuff.
	Okay.
	Creations by Ziggy.
	And vivafried.com.
	For anybody who wants to support that way.
	And locals.
	VivaBarnsLaw.locals.com Okay, the homework is done.
	The housework is done.
	Let's get into it.
	What do we start with?
	Chat, what do we start with?
	I think we have to start with the tweet that melted the universe.
	Elon Musk comes out and says, my pronouns are prosecute slash Fauci.
	Let me get the tweets.
	Here we go.
	Oh, no.
	This goes in so many angles, you won't believe it.
	Elon melted the internet.
	My pronouns are prosecute slash Fauci.
	It got, what do we see here?
	220...
	25,000 retweets.
	35,000 quote retweets.
	185,000 regular retweets.
	1.2 million likes.
	Now, I have to do something here because someone said most popular tweet.
	What is the most popular tweet of all time?
	List of most liked tweets.
	What realm are we in here?
	I just want to see where this one...
	Racks up.
	So we're in the realm.
	I mean, let's see.
	It was at 2.1.
	So it's not the most popular tweet ever.
	But it rattled some cages, it would seem.
	It struck the nerve of media, Fauci, blue checkmark handles, George Takei.
	People came out and said, this is terrible.
	You can't put the spotlight like that on Joe.
	We're going to go from the angle of inciting aggression and anger towards Fauci on the one hand to mocking pronouns on the other.
	And the hypocrisy that comes out of this, there is a lack of insight that is clinical.
	It's a diagnosable lack of insight.
	Well, let's just deal with the outrage that it puts a little heat on Sir Anthony Fauci, Lord Anthony Fauci.
	What's it called when somebody...
	Saint.
	Saint Anthony Fauci.
	You can't criticize him because you literally had people saying, how dare you?
	He's a damn hero.
	Let me pull up one here.
	Let's just pull up one response.
	Here we go.
	Let's take this one.
	Brian Kloss.
	Brian Kloss.
	Twitter's an amazing thing.
	It's a discussion.
	It's like being in town hall and you just get to hear what everybody has to say.
	Big and small, educated and uneducated, propagandists and truth-tellers.
	Brian Kloss, don't know who he is.
	He came up in my feed and I like the fact that people I've never seen before are coming up in my feed.
	Associate Professor in Global Politics at UCL.
	I don't know what that is.
	Author of Corruptible, contributing writer at The Atlantic.
	That's an indication.
	Power corrupts podcast.
	Okay.
	Brian Kloss, with an interesting legal take, says how incredibly embarrassing that the New York Times published a piece like 24 hours ago saying that it was difficult to discern whether Elon Musk was far-right conservative because he claimed to be a centrist.
	Here he is calling to prosecute a public health...
	Let's break this one down, shall we, people?
	What's the first thing that we notice in this?
	The word embarrassing.
	Straight to shaming.
	They're not shaming Elon here.
	They're shaming New York Times.
	It's a tactic that people use when they have nothing of substance to say.
	They just go straight for the shame.
	It's so embarrassing.
	Oh, New York Times is so stupid.
	They've published that they can't discern whether Elon is centrist or not.
	And why do they think he's far right?
	Because he's calling to prosecute a public health official.
	Now, I don't know if Fauci qualifies as a public health official.
	I mean, he's a federal employee.
	You know, he's in charge of the NAID.
	Manages $6 billion a year in funding and grants, which I'm talking about absolute power, absolute corrupting, Brian Klass.
	What do you think happens when someone controls the purse strings to billions and billions of dollars in research grants?
	Who do you think gets those funds?
	Excuse me.
	Any chance we could hear which meme?
	Liar, liar.
	Oh, yeah.
	Liar!
	Liar!
	Come on, Princess Bride.
	So, Brian Klaus comes up and says, absolute power corrupts.
	He has the Power Corrupts podcast.
	He would know a little bit.
	You can't criticize him.
	You're a far right winger if you decide to prosecute or promote prosecuting a public health official.
	I had a number of replies to this, but what a fortunate thing to suggest that public health officials can't be prosecuted.
	They can't commit wrongdoing.
	I mean, I don't know if Dr. Joseph Mengele was an official public health official.
	He was a physician for a regime that carried out certain atrocities that actually led to the Nuremberg Code, which we seem to have forgotten, could, could, could.
	Could Mengele not be prosecuted because he was a public health official?
	I'm not comparing Fauci to Mengele.
	Some people might say there's no comparison because one actually had a hand in ending a lot more people's lives to the extent that he actually did engage in gain-of-function research of a virus that escaped and killed millions of people worldwide and then tried to conceal the fact that they were involved in gain-of-function.
	In a lab in Wuhan, China, funding it and then concealing the story so that it wouldn't see the light of day.
	Some might argue that.
	Not me necessarily, but some would.
	But set that aside.
	Brian Kloss, author of or host of PowerCrupp's podcast, suggesting that you either cannot prosecute public health officials for wrongdoing, public health officials are incapable of doing wrongdoing, Or if you want to prosecute public health officials, that somehow makes you far right.
	Not right, not centrist, far right.
	It's amazing.
	And then you get the media coming out and saying, oh, this is terrible.
	It's calling attention to Fauci.
	He's a loving person who's worked so hard.
	Tirelessly to save the world from this epidemic.
	We're going to get to the astronaut in a second.
	People were criticizing him.
	Richie Torres says Elon Musk wants to criminalize Anthony Fauci because he disagrees with him.
	Elon is no champion of free speech.
	Imagine these people are coming out and saying you can't prosecute health officials for lying under oath, for lying about funding.
	Biological warfare.
	I mean, what more is gain-of-function other than biological bioweapons?
	You can't prosecute them for lying under oath about funding research on biological weapons, for indirectly, through third-party NGOs, funding the development or research of biological weapons, for suppressing stories that would have revealed the origins, potential origins, of this Rona.
	Now, Richie Torres.
	Who's Richie Torres in all of this?
	I forget if we've talked about this one, so forgive me if we have.
	Richie Torres, congressman, I think we might have already, he says, Elon's no champion of free speech because he wants to criminalize Fauci because he disagrees with him.
	No, no, no.
	I think he wants to criminalize Fauci because Fauci lied under oath, engaged in gain-of-function research in a lab in China through third-party NGOs that they denied funding, jeopardized the entire planet, and to the extent that they, in fact, that this might have been a lab leak from a lab in Wuhan, China that was being indirectly funded through NGOs.
	At the hand of Fauci, who controls the purse strings for billions of dollars, he might have contributed to the deaths of millions of people, if not through the overt acts in the first place, potentially through a cover-up which might have hindered a response if we were not allowed questioning or determining that this was a lab leak from a lab in China versus originated naturally because people were eating pangolins.
	You remember that original story?
	It occurred in nature because people were eating bats and pangolins.
	Oh, and who else?
	I mean, it's just fun.
	We're documenting the lies in real time.
	Who else comes out in defense of this gratuitous, dangerous attack on Anthony Fauci?
	Brennan.
	Brennan!
	We'll get to who John Brennan is for those of you who don't know.
	Let's see who John Brennan is.
	Ukrainian flag right before anything else.
	John Brennan, former CIA director, has no American flag in his bio.
	The first thing he has in his bio is a Ukrainian flag.
	And I'm no doctor, but I think Brennan, if I were going by origins, is an Irish last name?
	Scottish, Irish, English?
	So the former CIA director, who served America's intelligence, has a foreign flag as the leading element of his public profile.
	Okay, fine.
	CIA director of Obama White House, proud Fordham Ram.
	I don't know what that is.
	UT Austin, Longhorn.
	I sort of know what that is.
	My memoir, Undaunted.
	My fight against America's enemies at home and abroad.
	That's John Brennan, former CIA director.
	He comes out and says, Dr. Fauci, can we have some music?
	I don't want to put music on.
	We'll get copy-striked.
	Dr. Fauci is a national hero.
	I'll do the golfing voice.
	Dr. Fauci is a national hero who will be remembered for generations to come for his innate goodness and many contributions to public health.
	Methink thou dost protesteth too hard, John O 'Brennan, for his innate goodness?
	Good God, man!
	Okay, sorry.
	You might have been buttering it up a little heavy there.
	Dr. Fauci is a national hero who will be remembered for his generation, for generations to come, for his innate goodness.
	He's nicer than Santa Claus.
	He is a bloody saint.
	And how dare you besmitch his good name?
	Despite your business success, you will be remembered most for fueling public hate and divisions.
	Projection, people.
	Can you imagine the former head of the CIA that promoted the Russiagate hoax, that promoted the idea that the Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian disinformation, is accusing Elon Musk of fueling public hate and division.
	And that's what he's going to be remembered for.
	Here's a spoiler alert, John Brennan.
	You're going to be remembered for fueling public hate and division.
	Like you think we don't remember things?
	You may have money, but you have no class.
	What a classy thing to say.
	Oh, that's John Brennan's defense.
	Well, okay, American-made.
	Don't steal my thunder here.
	That's John Brennan.
	Does everyone remember John Brennan?
	Politico.
	Hunter Biden's story is Russian disinfo.
	That's short for disinformation, people.
	Dozens of former intel officials say.
	More than 50 former intelligence officials signed a letter casting doubt on the provenance of a New York Post story on the former vice president's son.
	Notice they said former vice president because he was not yet president because as a result of this suppression, he then became the president, but more than 50. This is from October 19, 2020.
	The Twitter files have revealed everything that went on here, but...
	This is from the article.
	You can go pull it up yourselves until it's memory hold.
	The former Trump administration officials who signed the letter include Russ Travers, who served as National Counterterrorism Center acting director.
	There's a man who lost all credibility for the rest of his life.
	Not because he was wrong, but because he probably lied.
	Glenn Gerstle, the former NSA general counsel, lied.
	Rick Leggett, the former deputy NSA director, liar.
	Mark Polymeropoulos, a retired CIA senior operations officer, lied in defense of interfering with an election.
	Cynthia Strand, who serves as the CIA's deputy assistant director for global issues.
	Former CIA directors or acting directors, Brennan, Leon Panetta, Michael Hayden, John McGregor, also signed the letter.
	John Brennan, the man who is now coming out and telling you how history is going to remember Anthony Fauci, because you should trust his judgment, is the one who came out, and there is no other word for it, either lied or willfully, blindly turned an eye to the provenance of the Hunter Biden laptop to come out and say something that they either knew was false or had no reasonable basis for believing was true because the Hunter Biden laptop was not Russian disinformation.
	It was real.
	They knew it was real at the time or could not have not known it was real at the time.
	That Brennan, who lied to America and the American people to influence their consent, to manufacture their consent to vote for Joe Biden, and it all worked very well, is now coming out and telling you that Elon Musk is the one with no class.
	Elon Musk is the one who's going to be remembered for hatred and division.
	And Anthony Fauci, Saint Anthony Fauci, Gosh darn saint.
	$3 rumble rent, knee boops.
	Fauci, do you regret anything?
	Well, I would have tortured more dogs and killed more AIDS orphans if I could have a do-over.
	I don't even get into the beagle stuff.
	The testing, torturing beagle babies and then euthanizing them.
	There are certain circumstances under which I guess, I don't know, some form of animal testing could have a...
	Scientific justification, even if it's morally objectionable.
	From what I understand of what Fauci did to the Beagles, it was effectively torture for the sake of torture.
	So that's Brennan.
	There were other people saying it's just dangerous what Elon is doing.
	By shining a spotlight on Anthony Fauci through prosecute Fauci, it's dangerous.
	Did I have any more about the danger stuff?
	I don't think so.
	So that was one angle the media goes after Elon Musk.
	The other angle?
	It will blow your minds.
	Elon is making mean jokes about preferred pronouns.
	That's the other angle, which we're going to carry on with exclusively on Rumble after we end this on YouTube.
	There's a $5 rumble rant.
	Tatone says, Viva, please stop saying Biden became president because of the laptop cover-up.
	That only got him within the margin of fornification.
	Certain 4 a.m. activities put him over the top.
	You guys know my position on that.
	Some of you don't like it.
	I'm not convinced about that stuff.
	Was never convinced about the flipping on the machines.
	I believe the Time article magazine.
	That's the fornification.
	But I do believe that, and I think it's, in as much as we can trust polls, in as much as I can trust my own judgment and my own assessment, it was determinate.
	Had people known that that was the case and what was on that Hunter laptop computer, in the detail that we know now, I was listening to a Twitter space on Saturday night.
	I'd become a big, big flipping loser.
	I read lawsuits during the day and listen to Twitter hangouts on government corruption on Saturday nights.
	Oh, the outcome would have been different.
	Never know for certain, but I'm convinced because I know people who said it.
	All right, everybody, let's go over to Rumble because we're going to attack the second angle of the attack and demonizing of Elon Musk.
	Public enemy number one.
	It's dangerous what he's doing.
	You can't attack public officials.
	You can't even suggest they get prosecuted.
	They can commit crimes perjury with impunity.
	And you're an extreme far-right, alt-right whatever, if you suggest otherwise.
	He's also far-right because he's poking a little jabby-jab at the pronouns.
	Ending it on YouTube, you have the link to Rumble.
	See you there in three, two, one.
	Booyah.
	Okay, let's see what we got here.
	We should be going up.
	We should go up at least 800.
	We should be at 5,500 in no time at all.
	Live viewers.
	What day is it today?
	It's Tuesday.
	Let's see what we got here.
	Schwab to prison, 2023.
	Can't say that.
	Oh, no, no, no.
	Schwab is a philanthropist.
	All he wants to do is make a better world in which you own nothing and love it.
	The second angle, and it's gonna...
	It's going to blow your mind in terms of the superficiality of it, the virtue signaling madness of it, the audacity, because I don't know if I've said it before.
	If I have, you'll forgive me, and I'll just make sure that I say it today.
	The audacity that underlies the demand that people refer to others or that people refer to the person by their preferred pronouns, the audacity, privilege, and entitlement that that requires to make that demand.
	Mind-blowing.
	But let's hear it.
	We're going to pull up.
	We're going to have the discussion.
	Where was it?
	That's not it.
	Hold on.
	Oh, no, no, no, no, no.
	We can't do that.
	The first attack was the astronaut.
	Where's the astronaut?
	I had it.
	Oh, here we go.
	Elon.
	Making fun of preferred pronouns.
	This is Scott Kelly, people.
	Politics ruins everything, including people's brains.
	Scott Kelly, former NASA astronaut and retired U.S. Navy captain.
	The guy is accomplished.
	I'm sure the guy is very smart.
	You get to a point in your life where...
	Being virtuous or appearing to be virtuous becomes the commodity.
	It becomes the currency.
	New York Times bestselling author...
	That's a red flag there.
	Scott Kelly is clearly at that point of his life where...
	And I'm sure it's good-natured.
	I don't think he's maliciously trying to virtue signal.
	I think he's genuinely trying to be virtuous.
	And he's at a stage where...
	He is being brainwashed by the superficiality of the virtuousness of the time.
	Being virtuous now means denying reality, catering to people's whims, and arguably even confirming or affirming diagnosable mental conditions.
	There's no other way of describing it.
	And it's not me.
	It's the DSM-5.
	It's psychology or psychiatry.com.
	Gender dysphoria was added to the DSM-5.
	It replaced another gender...
	I forget what it was.
	I can look it up afterwards.
	It was added like 30 years ago.
	Scott Kelly.
	Elon Musk, please don't mock and promote hate toward already marginalized and at-risk-of-violence members of the LGBTQ plus community.
	They are real people with real feelings.
	Furthermore, Dr. Fauci is a dedicated public servant whose sole motivation was saving lives.
	Where's Elon's reply?
	Oh, here we go.
	And Elon's reply is something that I think a great many people will agree with.
	I strongly disagree.
	Forcing your pronouns upon others when they didn't ask and implicitly ostracizing those who don't is neither good nor kind to anyone.
	Because if you don't use someone's preferred pronouns, they call you a bigot.
	They call you, um, what's the other word?
	Transphobic?
	Call you whatever if you don't do it.
	As for Fauci, he lied to Congress and funded gain-of-function research that killed millions of people.
	Not awesome, in my opinion.
	He doesn't put the humble in there.
	Oh, what an arrogant prick Elon is.
	He doesn't put the H in IMO, in his opinion, not his humble opinion.
	I'm joking.
	And I think I had the revelation before Elon's reply, and just wait until you get into the absolute madness and hypocrisy.
	Appreciate what preferred pronouns imply by way of mentality.
	Preferred pronouns is someone saying, I know there are pronouns that have been historical linguistic rules since the advent of language.
	But my preferred pronouns are going to defy biology.
	They're going to defy definition linguistics.
	And they are, say, capricious in the sense that they can change from one day to the next.
	They can change from one month to the next in as much as they changed from the former part of my life to the present part of my life.
	But appreciate what preferred pronouns really means.
	If I tell you...
	What my preferred pronouns are.
	I would never have the audacity of suggesting I have preferred pronouns above and beyond what are the pronouns attributed to biological males.
	But let's just say I had the audacity of saying in my bio, I prefer he, him.
	What I'm telling you, the viewer, by doing that, viewer, this is how you have to refer to me when you are talking about me to another party in my absence.
	If you're talking to me, you never use he, him.
	You say you.
	You would only refer he, him to Viva when you're talking about Viva with another party.
	I am dictating how you are to refer to me when talking about me to third parties.
	That is privilege.
	That is entitlement.
	That is audacity.
	Especially when it is...
	What's the opposite of immutable?
	Especially when it can change at the whim of the individual.
	Especially when it is contrary to linguistics and contrary to biology.
	I wouldn't make fun of someone for having preferred pronouns in their bio.
	It might raise some flags like having the Ukrainian flag in your bio.
	I'm certainly drawing some connections between the propensity to have those types of bios and the propensity to have untenable political and logical positions in life.
	Set that aside.
	Do what you want.
	But the idea that if I don't refer to Dr. Rachel Levine as she, when Rachel Levine is a biological male and I'm somehow the bigot for refusing to compromise on biology and language, linguistic rules.
	Who's the intolerant one?
	You're not going to believe this.
	So in the context of that debate, I just had a thought and I lost it.
	I'm going to see if I can bring it back.
	George Takei, who I like to say has the worst Takeis on everything.
	George Takei, they should call him George Bad Take, eh?
	I am a parody of myself if anyone wonders if this is really me.
	George, I didn't read your profile before.
	I agree.
	Maybe your whole thing is a...
	Maybe this is actually all parody.
	Hold on.
	Now I'm totally confused.
	Is George Takei trolling us all?
	I am a parody of myself if anyone wonders if this is really me.
	I've got to tell you something.
	Now a lot of his tweets might make a little more sense.
	George Takei says my pronouns are he, him.
	And I want to thank Dr. Fauci for his long service.
	Is this a troll?
	Is this actually a parody at this point?
	Be on the right and respectful side of things.
	It's better for your own soul and better for others.
	I'm very glad that George Takei clarified that his pronouns were he, him, because I was about to call George Takei she, her.
	When I'm talking about George Takei with my wife, I was going to say, did you see her tweet?
	George Takei made the most crazy...
	Superficial tolerance, which is in fact veiling intolerance.
	Superficial virtue, which is in fact based on exploiting other people's diagnosable mental conditions.
	Feigning tolerance.
	And he has a great take on...
	He has an equally great take on Anthony Fauci.
	Okay, so people were getting mad at Elon Musk.
	For mocking the pronouns.
	How dare he?
	It's disrespectful.
	It's intolerant.
	It's bigotry.
	I'm sure those rules are going to apply to both sides, right?
	Like when Billy Baldwin, for those of you who don't know who Billy Baldwin is, in his profile, kind of looks like Alec Baldwin and Robert De Niro a little bit.
	Maybe that's Billy Baldwin pretending to be Robert De Niro.
	Biden, 81 million votes.
	Trump, 74 million votes.
	That'll be a red flag right there, or at least an indication of belief.
	Billy Baldwin comes out and says, retweet if your pronouns are boycott Tesla.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	And then look, all of the tolerant left who object to Elon Musk poking fun at the absurdity of preferred pronouns.
	Got another person who says my two pronouns.
	Nationalize SpaceX.
	Communists as well.
	That's nice.
	I just bought a new Tesla.
	Enjoy your Magamobile.
	Also boycott the blue check.
	Oh, I have.
	I'm boycotting anything associated with lining Elon's pockets.
	Two Ukrainian flags in that braille.
	So I'm unclear on the rules.
	Are you allowed?
	Making fun of the preferred pronouns if you do it to make fun of someone who you consider to be right-wing?
	Or are you allowed to do it if you're making what you think is a good point?
	Or is it a sin on both ends?
	Is Billy Baldwin getting cancelled now?
	Is New York Times going to be writing articles about how bigoted and intolerant and mocking the sanctity of preferred pronouns and drawing...
	Attention or mocking a marginalized community.
	Are they going to go after Billy Baldwin?
	Or is it okay when Billy Baldwin does it because he's demonizing someone who he thinks shouldn't have done it in the first place?
	Retweet if your pronouns are boycott Tesla.
	That sounds to me like one is making a little bit of a joke about preferred pronouns.
	Bad when Elon Musk does it.
	When Billy Baldwin does it.
	Hypocrisy.
	Or, as Michael Malice said, hierarchy.
	Although I don't think malice...
	Malice couldn't be the first one to have said that.
	What was the thought that I had about preferred pronouns?
	The audacity of making people use them, not in your presence, when talking about you to third parties.
	I forget.
	Oh, it might have actually had to do with the irony that the people who are demanding you refer to them in a certain way when talking about them to other people.
	Also tend to be the same people who refuse to refer to President Trump as president, call them by a number, and it is pure projection of their own psychological reflexes that they think there's something offensive to the individual if you refuse to call them by their name or refuse to call them by their title.
	They think there's something shocking and offensive when they do it, and so they presume that other people have that same ill intent when they just simply say, I'll refer to you as your biological sex.
	And if there's ambiguity, I might get it wrong.
	There are androgynous individuals.
	And sometimes it happens where, you know, someone looks at my kids and calls him or her because he's got long hair.
	Couldn't care less.
	I don't attribute any ill intent.
	But they do because it's in their head.
	In as much as when they say it's inciting hatred to say prosecute Fauci, when they say prosecute Trump, It's revelatory that they're trying to incite hatred and potentially even violence against Trump.
	If everyone is up in arms and outraged at how reckless it is for Elon Musk to, say, prosecute Fauci because it might enrage a mob to do something unlawful, they know damn well what their intent is when they do it with Trump.
	And it's not an accident.
	Okay.
	I think that's it for the Elon tweets.
	Did I read this already?
	Viva, please stop.
	I read that one, and I read another Rumble rant here, which was Nibupsh.
	Oh, we're done with Elon and the tweets, I think, unless I've forgotten something.
	But let's get on to the substance of Fauci.
	It's like...
	Oh, no, no, we're not done yet.
	We're not done yet.
	Sorry, hold on, hold on.
	Going back to Spaceman.
	The people, now, you know, the spaceman astronaut comes out and says, show some respect to marginalized communities.
	So I just go to see, you know, spaceman's profile.
	Spaceman, Scott Kelly, former NASA, we went over this, year in space, capital speakers, New York Times bestselling author, inquiries, acutely absent from Scott Kelly's Twitter profile are pronouns.
	Why is this relevant?
	Well, because Scott Kelly wants to be tolerant and he wants to, you know, I'll say either feign or prove that he's virtuous, tolerant, loves everybody, shows respect for people who use preferred pronouns.
	There are people out there who take the absence of preferred pronouns as an act of aggression, as a microaggression, as violence and silence.
	There are people out there who would look at Scott Kelly's profile and say, Scott, I thought you were an ally.
	Where are your pronouns?
	Are you embarrassed to put them there?
	Are you ashamed to have preferred pronouns?
	I thought you supported us.
	You don't support us with your silence.
	Your silence marginalizes us.
	Your silence empowers those who deny our preferred pronouns.
	I say this tongue-in-cheek almost, but there are people out there who say that.
	What did I just do here?
	Get this out of here.
	What is this?
	Go back.
	And I said it to him.
	You don't have pronouns in your bio.
	Many people feel this to be an act of mockery, microaggression, complicitly in silence.
	You must put your preferred pronouns in your bio.
	It's a mockery if you don't.
	Oh, how do you feel now, Scott?
	Well, don't tell me what to say.
	Oh, he didn't say that, but that's probably what he did.
	Don't tell me what to put in my bio.
	It's my bio.
	I'll put whatever I want in there.
	Oh, all right.
	It's my mouth.
	I'll put whatever I want in my mouth and I'll let whatever I want come out of my mouth, especially when I'm not talking to you.
	Oh, no, no, no.
	Or maybe he will.
	Maybe tomorrow Scott Kelly is going to have he, him, and his pronouns.
	We'll see.
	That was the last point on the outright hypocrisy.
	Silence is violence, Pete Hill.
	They say it.
	Joe Biden just came out and said, if you don't get on Twitter and say Hitler was bad, complicity in silence.
	By the way, not enough people have been saying Hitler is bad since Kanye has fallen out of the news.
	Now I'm starting to really think those people think Hitler is good.
	You know, because I've always judged a person for not publicly asserting on a daily basis Hitler was bad.
	Spoiler alert.
	I've never judged anybody for not feeling compelled on a daily basis to say Hitler is bad.
	Never judged anybody on a daily basis for not saying the sky is up.
	Water is wet.
	I have judged someone who says the sky is not up or water.
	There's a debate about the water is wet.
	I have judged people who said Hitler was not bad, but not the other way around.
	Because one, most people take for granted, unless you're a virtue-signaling buffoon who wants to find things to hold against people.
	But I've noticed that it's been oddly quiet with people condemning Hitler these days on Twitter.
	Maybe they were just faking in the first place.
	Maybe they all need to be cancelled.
	But Scott Kelly might find out that despite his best efforts, not having preferred pronouns in your bio, microaggression, silence and violence.
	Violence and silence.
	Now, I think that that is it.
	Okay, let me see here.
	Segway.
	Wrong Filipowski.
	Ukrainian flag and bio.
	We've seen him before.
	I don't know how...
	There's a lot of people on the left who are complaining that a lot of right-wingers are coming up on their Twitter feeds and they don't like it and it's making them feel unfair.
	They don't follow them.
	How is this happening, Elon?
	You're sabotaging my account.
	I've been noticing a lot of people who...
	Tend to have the exact polar opposite politics for me on my Twitter feed.
	I like it.
	I've known Filipowski for a while.
	He's an attorney, marine historian, former federal prosecutor, defense attorney, and Democrat.
	Track and report on the right wing.
	Seen on BBC, CNN, MSNBC, CBS.
	Red flags.
	CNN, MSNBC, CBS.
	Maybe he's the one who reported.
	No, I don't want to.
	I'm just joking.
	But CBS, you know, pulled their one of their recent stories.
	Maybe it was too right wing to.
	I have reported the truth.
	He seems to be judging Twitter for who he interacts with.
	Some of the accounts, the owner of Twitter, it doesn't name him, by the way, because to name him would be to give him credibility.
	So, Filipowski, does he have pronouns in his profile?
	No, he doesn't.
	Violence is silence.
	He doesn't want to use Elon's name.
	The owner, 45. He's replied favorably in the last seven days to just some of the accounts.
	Charlie Kirk, Glenn Greenwald, Tim Pool, Tom Fitton, Lara Logan, Cernovich, Liz of TikTok, Clay Travis, Dave Rubin, Cat Taron, Ian Miles Chong, Avi Yamini, Viva Frye, Bad Kitty Censored, Eliza, Sour Patch Kids, and it goes on.
	Mike Salana, Michael Saylor, David Sachs, Sam Gabb, Stopwell Culture, Amanda Milius, Miranda Medvin, Mario Nafal, Nafal, The Critical Drinker, Lee Fang, Mark Dresson.
	I think we have a pattern of fascism, folks.
	I just said, look, first of all, can you tag the accounts at least so that people can know which accounts?
	One of my responses was, are you jealous or does it bother you that Elon might find these accounts insightful, meaningful, and value-added?
	But I said, he also forgot to tag them.
	That wasn't the good one.
	I think I replied to his tweet with that.
	A lot of people will now be able to find those accounts because they might find value in them as well.
	Some of the lowest of the low.
	I'm seeing a trend there.
	Feels like the time to abandon this platform.
	It's almost like life has become a parody.
	And he still couldn't sway the 2022 midterms to a MAGA red wave.
	Where was my...
	Whatever.
	I put it in there as well so that people...
	Oh, man.
	The people who fault Elon Musk for interacting with other people are the ones who see guilt by association.
	They project onto others what they feel true to themselves.
	Okay.
	Now, I really think that's it.
	Now we're on to Fauci.
	Thank you.
	Listen to this.
	Max Kozlov.
	Science reporter for nature.
	Wow, that looks like the Arizona desert.
	That's so beautiful.
	Okay, let's see what we've got here.
	I don't know if this is a science LLC.
	Proud Ukrainian.
	There I can absolutely understand the Ukrainian flag in the bio.
	He's a proud Ukrainian, and there's nothing wrong with being patriotic.
	It's actually, I think it's a good thing, not a bad thing.
	Max Kosov, who writes for science.
	Fauci's reply to Elon Musk prosecute Fauci tweet in a nature exclusive.
	I don't pay much attention to that, Max, and I don't even feel the need to respond.
	So let me respond.
	And by the way, let me respond with another lie.
	A lot of that stuff is just cesspool of misinformation, and I don't waste a minute worrying about it.
	You just wasted a minute replying to it after you say you don't respond to it.
	Full interview, TK.
	To come.
	No, that's not what it means.
	Full interview.
	I don't know what that means.
	I don't pay attention to that, Max.
	I don't even feel the need to respond.
	But let me respond.
	And when I respond, let me lie to you.
	It's just a cesspool of misinformation.
	Oh, really, Fauci?
	Oh, really?
	First article of the day.
	Just a cesspool of misinformation.
	This is from...
	The American Institute for Economic Research.
	I think it's relatively credible.
	I hope I'm not mistaken on that.
	Forgetful Fauci's deposition.
	All those lies are hard to keep straight.
	You don't say.
	Let me see something here.
	Okay, we're good.
	I'm going to cough again one more time.
	Hold on.
	And you're going to hear a lawnmower.
	Or airplane.
	I don't know what the heck that is.
	Anthony Fauci's penchant for misleading the public about COVID-19 may be heading into a federal courtroom soon, owing to a lawsuit brought by the Attorneys General of Missouri, Louisiana, and the new Civil Liberties Alliance.
	On November 23, 2020, Fauci sat down for a sworn deposition about his own actions in directing the United States pandemic response.
	Consistent with his past media appearances, Fauci displayed a penchant for bending the truth to fit his own narrative and, more specifically, denied his own involvement in suppressing the Great Barrington Declaration in October 2020.
	Only this time, it was under oath.
	The Barrington, the Great Barrington Declaration.
	I don't know if you guys hear that, but that's a loud noise.
	The Great Barrington Declaration was that letter signed by hundreds, I don't know, thousands of doctors, nurses, healthcare practitioners, talking about what would be the devastating effects of lockdowns, social distancing, all that stuff.
	You know what?
	Let me not mangle it.
	Let me just go...
	P. Moyer says...
	In a $1 rumble rant, notice that Fauci said that a lot of that is misinformation.
	Isn't that like saying a lot of my bio is true?
	A lot of it's misinformation.
	Some of it's accurate.
	But the Great Barrington Declaration got demonized.
	Great Barrington Declaration.
	It got demonized early on in the pandemic.
	I remember this because I was sending it to a friend with whom I was having a...
	Oh, I'm sorry, 934,000 signatures.
	I don't know who signed it, but it got demonized, boy howdy, in the early stages of the pandemic.
	And I remember this because I was sending this around saying, there's a lot of doctors saying this is all bad.
	This is not going to go good places.
	This is not even useful.
	And they all had written it off in their heads.
	And now I know why.
	Because St. Anthony Fauci told them it was disinformation.
	The Great Barrington Declaration, as infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists, we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies and recommend an approach we call focused protection.
	I don't think we need to go through this.
	Coming from the left and the right.
	And around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people.
	Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health.
	The results, to name a few, include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes.
	Funny.
	It's almost like someone was saying that back in the day.
	Fewer cancer screenings.
	And deteriorating mental health.
	This is almost like it was written now.
	They wrote this in the early stages of the pandemic.
	Leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, as we're seeing now.
	Some people are attributing it to the jibby jab.
	Others are saying, even jibby jab aside, this was going to happen.
	And we called it, and you didn't listen to us, and now you're responsible for it.
	But don't say that out loud, because that might make people angry.
	You can't criticize public health officials.
	They're infallible saints.
	Mortality in years to come with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden.
	Oh, for anybody who hasn't seen this, I'll give it to you, and then we're going to go back to Fauci's suppression of this in addition to his suppression of other stuff.
	Here, go read the article.
	You can go read it.
	I mean, I read it back in the day, and I had friends say, oh, you're an idiot.
	I'm listening.
	I'm trusting the science.
	I'm listening to my medical priests.
	What did Anthony Fauci do?
	He sought to demonize the authors of that and discredit the publication.
	So we got the federal order for Fauci's testimony.
	Fauci was asked in his testimony about his own role in Collins.
	Well, I think we need to know who Collins is in this.
	Oh, here we go.
	In early October 2020, Dr. Francis Collins, then director of the National Institute of Health, NIH, Fauci's the head of NIH, ordered Fauci and his trusted Lieutenant Clifford Lane to wage, quote, a quick and devastating published takedown, sick, of the great And he did.
	The banality of evil, as they talked about in the Twitter files, Hitler's willing executioners, as we've talked about historically, just do it.
	You have the order.
	Wash your hands once you've carried out the order.
	Fauci was asked about his own role in Colin's devastating takedown directive, which ended with the NIH director's question, I don't see anything online yet.
	Is it underway?
	Fauci answered the attorney general with a bluntly stated denial about his own involvement.
	No, this is not something I would be involved in.
	As I told you, I have a very important day job that is running a 6.4 billion dollar institute.
	Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
	I would not be involved.
	By the way, notice the lying terminology.
	I would not be involved in examining this and doing something that would, quote, counter it.
	I would not be involved is a hypothetical.
	I was not involved is a definitive.
	When liars lie, they use equivocal.
	I would not have been involved and I might not have done.
	No.
	Liar, you're lying.
	We know you're lying.
	This is the language of deceit.
	I would not have been involved.
	Were you or were you not?
	Not would you have been, because that's a hypothetical about what was not the case.
	Press him even further.
	Let me finish the question of some kind of refutation of the Great Barrington Declaration.
	This is his answer here.
	We already read that one.
	The problem with Fauci's denials and his speculation about an academic motive in Collins' order is that they are provably false.
	Do you know what that means?
	You were either wrong, Fauci, Or you lied, Fauci.
	Spoiler alert, he lied.
	The original emails show that Fauci and Collins jumped into action to smear and discredit the Great Barrington Declaration in the media.
	They went directly to the national press, labeling its authors Martin Kuldorf, Sinatra Gupta, and Jay Bhattacharya as, quote, fringe epidemiologists, end quote, and branding the declaration itself as, quote, Nonsense.
	In Fauci's words.
	Well, I'll tell you one thing.
	The predictions in the Great Barrington Declaration have sure as hell come more to fruition than the predictions of Anthony Fauci et al.
	Imagine this, by the way.
	Once upon a time, they say, well, you're not even a doctor.
	You're just a PhD.
	Oh, okay, you're a doctor, but you're not an epidemiologist.
	Oh, you are an epidemiologist?
	Well, you're a fringe epidemiologist.
	Let's discredit what you have to say, Jay Batataria.
	Oh, let's say, you only...
	Invented MRNA technology, but in a previous iteration?
	You're a fringe lunatic, Dr. Malone.
	Then we go into it.
	Liar.
	He lied about it.
	He lied about demonizing the authors, suppressing, responding, discrediting the Great Barrington Declaration, which has proven to be more prophetic than anything Fauci has said.
	And then we can go on here.
	Fringe epidemiologists, yada, yada, yada.
	In a private email to Fauci, he boasted, my quotes are accurate but will not be appreciated in the White House.
	Fauci quipped in response that they are too busy with other things to worry about this.
	a plausible reference to Trump having been diagnosed with COVID.
	Oh.
	When the records resume on October 16, 2020, they contain a partially redacted email to Deborah Birx.
	In which Fauci speculates that Scott Atlas' anti-lockdown foil on the White House COVID Task Force, his anti-lockdown foil on the White House COVID Task Force would attempt to sway the White House into endorsing the Great Barrington Declaration.
	Over the course of the week, I have come very strongly against the Great Barrington Declaration, Fauci declared, an action that he conveniently has no memory of doing, according to his statement under oath from the Missouri lawsuit deposition.
	And it goes on.
	That said, the email records we do possess contain ample evidence of Fauci's involvement in the, quote, takedown, end quote, order, plainly contradicting his sworn deposition.
	In those emails, we see Collins colluding with Fauci while fantastically ceasing Lawrence Tabak.
	Deputy Ethics Counselor at NIH to craft talking points against the GBD in the media.
	And you're going to see how the shifting goalposts...
	I never lied about...
	I never suppressed the article.
	Okay, I suppressed the article, but I didn't do it for political reasons.
	Okay, I did it for political reasons, but I did it because I believed in the science and this was a great danger to the public that we had to protect the public from.
	If they believed this, they wouldn't go along with our lockdown measures and it was necessary for public order.
	Wait until that goalpost moves.
	Behind the scenes, we see him working with Deborah Birx to keep the Great Barrington Declaration off the White House COVID task force agenda.
	We see Fauci's instructions to Folkers to assemble a list of media op-eds attacking the GBD with the apparent intent of parroting them back to the very same press as official talking points from the NIH.
	And it goes on.
	Well, the guy's name is Philip W. Magnus.
	That's too close to MAGA.
	That man clearly must be.
	A Mega Man.
	Are there Russia bots in the chat?
	Okay, so that's one article highlighting Fauci's lies.
	But don't worry, it doesn't stop there, people.
	It doesn't stop there.
	I've done my homework.
	This is off of congress.gov, by the way.
	Now, as far as I can tell, this is not an official congressional document.
	It's an exhibit from what I can understand or surmise.
	It's an article.
	But that is an exhibit in some meeting in Congress, hence why I was able to find this on congress.gov website, where it said meeting house, and it has a date, I think, or something close.
	But it's on the Congress website.
	It's not an official congressional document.
	I think it's an exhibit or a document referred to in a meeting.
	But it's an article.
	Fauci was, quote, untruthful.
	When is this from, this article?
	It said it here.
	Oh, it's from December 2021.
	Fauci was untruthful to Congress about the Wuhan lab.
	No, it looks like it's from September 2021.
	New documents appear to show.
	The National Institute of Health has denied funding studies that would make a coronavirus more dangerous to humans after it was accused of doing so following a press...
	The documents were obtained and released by The Intercept on Tuesday after it launched a Freedom of Information Access lawsuit.
	Richard Ebright, Board of Governors, told Newsweek these documents show unequivocally that NIH, Fauci, the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIH, I-A-I-D, which is part of the NIH, told Congress in May that the NIH, quote, has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
	Notice what's going to be a sticking point here.
	They do not now and have never funded gain-of-function, which we're going to see is a highly fluid definition of a word.
	It's almost as fluid as...
	The preferred pronouns and gender identity.
	It depends on who's asking the question and who's defining the term as if it doesn't have a definition.
	Because liar, liar, pants on fire, Fauci is going to weasel out of this later when he gets caught with the lie by saying, okay, we did that, but that's not gain of function.
	I have a paper here that says it's not gain of function.
	We didn't do gain of function, whatever we're going to interpret that to mean, in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
	We might have done gain of function in another lab in China or elsewhere.
	We might have done it in America.
	But we didn't do gain-of-function in Wuhan.
	How do you pronounce that?
	Ebright said the documents make it clear that assertions by the NIH director, Francis Collins, and the NIA director, Fauci, that the NIH did not support gain-of-function research, yada, yada, yada.
	They were untruthful.
	Where does it say here?
	What the NIH has denied is funding...
	Oh, so gain-of-function research, that's the GOF, involves modifying a biological agent, like a virus, so that it becomes more active.
	For obvious reasons, gain-of-function research on influenza or coronaviruses has been the subject of substantial scrutiny by the NIH's own admission, as it potentially makes the virus more dangerous to humans.
	It's called biological warfare, by the way, just so we can call a spade a spade.
	And remember that whole thing about Fauci trying to suppress and...
	You know, crush the Great Barrington Declaration.
	Did the same thing with the idea that they might have been tinkering with gain-of-function in the lab in Wuhan, China.
	What the NIH has denied is funding gain-of-function research that would make a coronavirus more dangerous, such as by improving its lethality or transmissibility.
	In 2014, the NIH said it paused funding for gain-of-function research that was, quote, reasonably anticipated to confer attributes to influenza, Middle East respiratory, MERS, and SARS that would make them more transmissible to humans.
	Multiple...
	Speaking to Newsweek, Ebright said this appeared to be false by his interpretation of the documents released by The Intercept.
	Multiple sections of the grant proposals and grant progress reports make it clear that the grants funded gain-of-function research of concern in Wuhan, he said.
	He said these sections of the documents show that NIH grants supported the construction of mutant SARS-related coronaviruses that involve blending different types together.
	The result was a lab-generated virus that could infect human cells, he said, adding that at least three of the label-generated viruses exhibited higher viral loads in humanized mice.
	A humanized mouse is a mouse that has been bioengineered to mimic certain biological characteristics similar to humans, such as the immune system, so that they can be tested on in labs as a human surrogate.
	Where does it go from here?
	Then we had the whole Rand Paul thing.
	That's not gain-of-function.
	That's something else, and I got a paper here that says it's not gain-of-function, so it's not gain-of-function, dummy.
	Go away with this question.
	Oh, fine.
	And then we had that whole epic tape.
	So that's another article.
	Lied about suppressing the Great Barrington Declaration.
	Which was more predictive than anything that has come out of Fauci's mouth.
	Lied about the gain of function on semantics.
	Got caught on funding through third parties, not directly.
	Liar.
	Liar, liar, pants on fire.
	But you cannot criticize him and you cannot suggest he get prosecuted because he's a public health official.
	And you're the one.
	You're the aggressor if you say prosecute Anthony Fauci for his potential crimes, if nothing else other than perjury.
	But when they say prosecute Trump, his son.
	His family.
	His businesses.
	That's okay.
	Chet Chisholm and a $1 rumble rant says, in the summer of 2019, Chinese spies were arrested by the RCMP after they were caught sending stuff to the Wuhan lab from the Level 4 lab in Winnipeg.
	The story seems to have been swept under the rug.
	I remember reading about that or hearing about that.
	It's just...
	I can't affirm that and haven't found enough to confirm.
	Chet Chisholm, another $1 rumble rant.
	Would you consider having Preston Manning on?
	To talk about the National Citizens Inquiry.
	Preston Manning.
	Oh, I'm thinking of a football player.
	You're not talking about...
	That's Peyton Manning.
	I would have anybody on the channel if there's something interesting to talk about.
	And, you know, they're not going to come out here and...
	I don't know.
	I would even have Ye on to grill him on his admiration.
	For Nazis.
	If there's something interesting to talk about, I am a curious individual who would have pretty much anybody on to have an intellectual, curious discussion with them.
	So Fauci's a liar, period.
	Proven.
	Demonstrable.
	And the harder he comes up, he says, I take offense to that, Mr. Paul.
	You don't know what you're talking about.
	And I find it very offensive.
	Well, thanks.
	Ad hominem and me thinks thou dost protest this too much.
	Stick to the issues.
	It wasn't gain of function because it's not what I understand gain of function to be, even though it's what everyone else understands gain of function to be.
	We didn't fund it because it went through a third-party NGO.
	It wasn't in Wuhan, China.
	It was in another prefecture that I don't know where it is, but it wasn't in Wuhan.
	So we didn't fund gain of function in Wuhan.
	Liars through and through.
	Okay, now that's the lawsuit.
	Okay.
	What do we want to do here?
	I think we're going to work into Sam Bankman-Fried.
	So Sam Bankman-Fried has been arrested now in the Bahamas.
	I think they're looking for extradition.
	The day after he gave a lackluster...
	I mean, lackluster is an understatement of the year.
	The day after he gave an infuriating, vapid Q&A to Unusual Whales, which is a crypto firm.
	Dog digger says, still waiting for the RFK Jr. interview.
	There is no sinister reason for which we're not doing it.
	I'm not afraid of censorship.
	I'm not afraid of associating myself with or having a discussion with RFK.
	It has strictly been...
	It has been scheduled two or three times and then last minute stuff.
	Nothing more than that.
	So don't anyone think anything more than that.
	And if there were something else, I wouldn't necessarily tell you that there was something else, but I would not lie to you and tell you that there's nothing else.
	RFK, it's just scheduling has not worked out and it will happen.
	As will Brooke Jackson.
	I don't mind having unpopular people on the channel and, you know, worse comes to worse.
	Do it exclusively on Rumble and I will not post the interview to YouTube if I think it's...
	Invariably going to get removed for medical disinformation.
	Yeah, Dog Digger says $37 million to $1 billion to the Democrat Party.
	Let's get into...
	So Sam Bankman-Free did an interview with Unusual Whales yesterday on Twitter Space.
	I love Twitter Space.
	If they can find a way to get video in there, if they can find a way to integrate it with Rumble.
	I'm not saying it would work well.
	I'm just saying there's something.
	Elon Musk should talk to Chris Pawlowski.
	The Twitter spaces are very cool.
	It's just a radio show that you tune into.
	You can raise your hand and ask questions.
	They had Sam Bankman Freed on.
	He's not the king of not answering questions because when people don't answer questions properly, it's not so obvious.
	He's the king of...
	He's got issues, man.
	There's no question about it.
	He was playing video games while he was answering questions from people who've lost lots of money because of the alleged fraud for which he has now been sued and arrested.
	I'll just play a couple of clips.
	I'm sitting there having my romantic breakfast with my wife at Bagelworks and I'm listening to Sam Bankman Freed.
	Let me see which one this is.
	Listen to this question.
	Because you were the former CEO of Alameda up until a year...
	Tabarnouche!
	How is it possible that I'm not hearing this?
	Have we not played the video?
	Hold on.
	It's because I think I have the wrong...
	Hold on.
	I don't hear anything.
	Because you were the former CEO of Alameda up until a year...
	Unbelievable that I actually have a problem now.
	You would have known...
	That deposits continually went to Alameda and decided not to do anything.
	It's because the microphone is not my headphone.
	So hold on a second.
	I'm just going to go to settings.
	General.
	Audio.
	Mic.
	Speaker.
	Yeah, I need my external headphones.
	Okay, I think I did it here.
	Geez, if I actually figured out a problem, maybe I'm not as technologically dumb as I think I am.
	Because you were the former CEO of Alameda up until a year ago.
	Hold on.
	Audio.
	Speaker.
	Mic is that.
	Speaker default.
	And test.
	Playing.
	I don't hear any...
	Unless I hope I didn't break my headphones.
	These were expensive, and Eric Hundley gave them to me as a gift.
	The heck?
	Unbelievable!
	Okay, I'm just going to mute myself while I play the video so you can hear it.
	Unbelievable.
	Okay.
	Here, listen to this clip.
	Listen to this non-answer.
	We're going to talk about it after.
	Because you were the former CEO of Alameda up until a year ago, you would have known that deposits continually went to Alameda and decided not to do anything about it, correct?
	Let me give you three answers to your question.
	So, let me give you three answers to your question.
	First of all, first red flag, starting the answer with a so.
	My goodness, this guy does it in spades.
	So, so, so.
	Let me give you three answers to a pretty straightforward question.
	You're about to get lied to, but listen to the three answers.
	One answer to start off with is like, alright, I should have been...
	More aware of what's going on.
	Like that, that, that was a fuck up on my part that, that I was not more aware.
	Um, so part of my answer is like, yeah.
	Um, a second part of my answer is that, um, I, is that, I mean, I didn't do the, like, I wasn't sort of like the chief accountant for it.
	That's not like primarily what I was doing.
	And I sort of like trusted the accounting team to like, you know, confirm that things lined up the third answer.
	And this is something I believe to be true, but It is a little bit of an approximation.
	This is something I believe to be true.
	Oh my god.
	The equivocations in every answer, by the way, are just infuriating.
	I just want to make sure...
	You all hear this, correct?
	You all hear this properly?
	Okay, good.
	Listen to this.
	Take this with a little bit of a grain of salt, but I believe it's the case that...
	As of a year and a half ago, and certainly as of two and a half years ago when I was transitioning out of running Alameda, that as of those times, I believe that it was the case that this number was massively smaller than it ended up by late 2022.
	I don't know exactly how much smaller, but...
	But I think that it was, I don't know, maybe a quarter of the size or something like that.
	To the point where I think it made the difference between being a moderately but not incredibly important number and an incredibly important number.
	I'm not sure exactly when that growth happened in that number, but I kind of think that a lot of it may have happened in the last two years.
	I took for granted maybe everybody already knew what was going on.
	But Sam Bankman-Fried, former CEO of FTX, Alameda.
	FTX is a crypto exchange.
	Alameda is a research firm that, I don't know, related companies, undisclosed to investors.
	And what ended up happening, and we're going to see it in the SEC lawsuit, is investors, traders, We're putting money into FTX so they could trade crypto.
	And what FTX was doing was, on the one hand, giving it to Alameda, loaning it out to Alameda client funds, such that when the client said, we're cashing out, we want our money back, FTX says, we don't have your money.
	We've loaned it out to Alameda.
	They have your money.
	Not disclosing that.
	They're related companies through Sam Bankman and others.
	And so the question to him was, what was the question?
	Damn it, I shut the thing down.
	It said, you knew that client monies were going to Alameda.
	As of when did you know and how much was it?
	He's like, I don't know.
	In the beginning, it was less until we realized that we could fraudulently take out all of the client funds, put them in Alameda, and then loan them out to myself to buy properties in the Bahamas, to donate to philanthropic...
	Entities.
	And then the way to make it look like we still have the liquidity is FTX issues its tokens to Alameda, who then says, well, we have the assets.
	It's the assets that we have are in this fake fabricated token with FTX.
	When did you know how much client funds were at Alameda's?
	I don't really know.
	I was trusting the accountants.
	I was trusting them.
	Liar.
	And it's just alleged fraud.
	It's just alleged fraud.
	It works so long as people don't take their money out.
	It works so long as crypto retains a certain value or these fabricated tokens out of thin air retain their fake value to begin with.
	That was one answer which was indicative of the level of evasion and dishonesty that you were going to get at us.
	Listen to this one.
	This is another one.
	The full interview, by the way, you can go listen to it.
	It's an hour and 14 minutes long.
	Sam said he had to jump off the call.
	But it's on the Unusual Whales website on YouTube.
	Listen to this.
	This is when, I think this is the clip where someone who sounds like they lost some money in this is a little angry that Sam Bankman-Fried is playing flipping video games while answering questions about his How much was it?
	Billions of dollars of fraud.
	They sounded a little frustrated.
	Thank you.
	So first of all, Sam, I find it incredibly disrespectful that you're playing video games while you're talking to us.
	I know that you said it's more important tomorrow when you talk to Congress, and I hope so.
	I hope you're not playing video games tomorrow when you're trying to dissuade Congress from seeing...
	First of all, tomorrow's testimony didn't come because he got arrested.
	Do you have a question?
	Do you have a question?
	I mean, it's clinical, so it's not even something to make fun of.
	It's not like this is an act of, I don't know how, at what point people stop being responsible for their own conduct because it's clinical.
	This is clinical.
	Sociopathic.
	The man has lost billions of dollars of other people's money and when they express their...
	Do you have a question?
	You're playing freaking video games.
	I might have lost $50,000.
	That guy might have lost more than he could possibly hope to lose.
	It might be partially his fault.
	Do you have a question?
	But wait for it.
	Listen to this.
	I have a question.
	So first of all, I think...
	Moonstone Bank, it sounded like you basically described a quid pro quo to me.
	So you guys invested $11.5 million, and then you deposited roughly $80 million.
	Is that right?
	I'm not sure that that could be right.
	That could be right.
	I'm legitimately not sure, but that doesn't sound...
	You're not sure, but I'm confused.
	Like, this is one of your banks.
	So what do you mean it's one of our banks?
	As in, it's a bank that we have an account at?
	That's my question for you.
	$78 million to $80 million was deposited right after you guys invested $11.5 million.
	Was that your money?
	Sorry, was deposited by who?
	Was it deposited by Alameda and FTX or not?
	I legitimately don't know the answer to your question.
	It's a totally reasonable question.
	Who are your banking partners?
	It's a totally legitimate question.
	I need to understand the Moonstone thing.
	There's another rabbit hole with Moonhole.
	With Moonstone and another cryptocurrency scam that just occurred.
	We'll bookmark that for a little bit.
	Who are your bankers?
	It's a legitimate question.
	I'm sorry, I don't know the answer.
	Who were you guys banking with?
	Where was this money going?
	Was it going to Moonstone and Dell Tech?
	Who were your banking partners?
	Can you tell me?
	There were a lot.
	We probably had like 40 payment processors when you put them all together or something like that for FTX.
	Banking partners.
	Banking partners, not payment processors.
	Banking partners.
	So, none of the ones you've named were like the banking partners that I believe the most volume went through?
	It is...
	This is like borderline personality.
	This is BPD.
	Or something.
	Notice the manipulation, the evasion.
	It's not a hard question to answer, but there's so much gaslighting and just evasion.
	It makes you want to puke at best.
	Can you tell me who those were then?
	I mean, I think if you look at the, like...
	Evasion?
	It's like what you would see if you looked at wire deposit instructions on FTX.
	What are their names?
	My guess is it would be, you know, you'd be looking at Silvergate's signature.
	Places like that in the United States, and then a whole host of other depository institutions globally, because when you're trying to onboard customers from different jurisdictions, you often need different banking rails.
	Too much detail in a very simple question.
	Oh, it could be any of the payment processors.
	Too much information.
	Live.
	But it's so obvious and it's so easy.
	It's just the attitude.
	Playing video games while on this call where people lost life savings.
	I don't know how much the, I don't know why Canadian Teachers Association are investing in these, I won't say scams, but highly risky things in the first place.
	But he took people's money.
	And then, do you have a question?
	Do you have a question?
	I'm playing video games, okay?
	While we're talking about the most serious stuff on earth, arguably.
	Listen to another example of the pathological...
	That's a perfectly legitimate question, and I wish I had an answer, but...
	Caroline, Alameda's CEO, confirmed that, and I quote directly, quote, over the recent months, Alameda had taken out loans and used the money to make VC investments, among other expenditures, to the New York Times.
	Caroline also confirmed that, quote, around the time the crypto markets crashed this spring, lenders moved to recall those loans, but the funds that Alameda spent was no longer easily available.
	A look at FTX's user...
	Lenders, people who are lending the money for their business purposes, they call their money in, but they don't have it anymore because it's been spent.
	On what, you might ask?
	38 million to 1 billion.
	By the way, the amount that they gave to Democrats is, I believe it's no less than 70 million.
	SBF gave 40 million.
	The only question is whether or not 90% of it went to the Democrats or the full 40. Two of the other executives, I think they gave like 30 and change.
	That's 70 right off the bat.
	There's going to be another 140 million that went to Mind the Gap or that Mind the Gap got, which is his mother's company.
	That got people out to vote where they got their money from.
	Questions about that?
	Philanthropic studies on COVID pandemic prevention.
	So after they get all this money and then funnel it out for political or politicized purposes, there's nothing left.
	Carrying on with the question.
	...fund wallet reveals, after May's crypto crash, Alameda's borrowing limit was increased from FTX and also approved by the exchange.
	Caroline herself told reporters that FTX knew of Alameda's liabilities and increases.
	Sorry, unmuting myself.
	Alameda was borrowing from FTX.
	I mean, it's like...
	It's not like...
	We don't need an analogy.
	Alameda is Bankman Freed's company.
	It's borrowing from FTX, which is Bankman's company.
	Taking the money that is client monies out of FTX to put into Alameda to be dispersed elsewhere or invested elsewhere.
	You can call that what you think it is.
	It looks like the SEC thinks it's fraud.
	Can you tell me who made that approval, Sam?
	I wish I could.
	I wish I could.
	I think that speaks a little bit to one of my fuck-ups that I don't have a good answer to that question.
	That's a pretty reasonable question to be asking me and expecting a clear answer to.
	That is gaslighting manipulation.
	That's a very, very reasonable question to be asking me and expecting a clear answer to.
	Good for you for asking the question.
	Okay.
	Can I have an answer now?
	It's a great question that you just asked.
	Isn't that compliment going to get you off my back?
	It's a great question.
	You're within your rights to expect me to have an answer to that question.
	Wouldn't it essentially be you as the CEO of FTX that would have to give that approval?
	Wouldn't it have been you as the FTX CEO that gave that approval?
	Not necessarily.
	Now, obviously, independent of who physically gave the approval for it, as CEO, I did bear ultimate responsibility for Making sure that we did the right things as a company.
	And I had a massive failure there, no matter what.
	I did have ultimate responsibility in the sense that I was ultimately responsible for the company doing the right things.
	But it was not the case that I was that like I was involved in, you know, every like that I was actually involved in every one of those decisions or like was mandated to be involved.
	Although I think one could reasonably think that maybe I should have been.
	Thank you.
	Can you all appreciate what he just said?
	Can you appreciate the word salad of diarrhea?
	I didn't actually hit enter on the computer button.
	When it was to approve the loan from my company to my company with monies that wasn't mine, I didn't actually hit the send.
	I mean, nobody even asked me, really.
	I wasn't mandated, even though I was the executive CEO, whatever position, in both companies that controlled and approved it.
	I don't know what I did.
	You're understanding what's going on here.
	I mean, it's fraud of the most transparent order.
	It's just amazing that, you know.
	Shit hits the fan a week after the midterms after however many hundreds of millions of dollars has been siphoned for political or politicized purposes.
	We're not going to go through the entire lawsuit because I don't think we need to.
	I'm going to get my notes.
	Here.
	The SEC lawsuit.
	We'll skip to the end just for the time being.
	Someone just sent me an article, which we're going to probably have to look at now about what's going on in Canada.
	We're not going to bury it.
	We're just going to get to the end.
	The charges.
	Fraud in the offer or sale of securities.
	And count two.
	Fraud in connection with the purchase or sale of securities.
	Okay.
	We don't need to go through the whole thing.
	I just want to show you a couple things.
	Are we seeing the same thing?
	We are seeing the same thing.
	Let's just go here.
	I didn't do this yet.
	A word beginning with demic appears zero times in this entire document.
	Word starting with political.
	Let's do political.
	See if it's donations every time.
	Political donations comes up twice.
	What were the four occurrences of political?
	Political donations, political contributions, support political campaigns, and political donations.
	So the word political all relate to donations, contributions, campaigns, comes up four times in this suit.
	The word Democrat, zero.
	And just to be Rupa, Rupa, zero.
	Now, I'm doing it to be fair.
	In reality, it's not symmetrical regardless because One article said that 90% of the political contributions went to the Democrats.
	And another article said it was a full $39 million from SBF and $28 or $30-some-odd million from other executives.
	Summary.
	Pretty much all you need to really know, although we know it now.
	From at least May 2019 through November 2022, Bankman Freed engaged in a scheme to defraud equity investors in FTX Trading, the crypto asset trading platform of which he was CEO and co-founder.
	At the same time that he was also defrauding the platform's customers, Bankman Freed raised more than $1.8 billion from investors, including U.S. investors, who bought an equity stake in FTX, believing that FTX had appropriate controls and risk management measures.
	Unbeknownst to those investors, And to FTX trading customers, regular everyday clients, Bankman Freed was orchestrating a massive years-long fraud, diverting billions of dollars of the trading platform's customer funds for his own personal benefit and to help grow his crypto empire.
	Portrayed himself as a responsible leader, yada, yada, yada.
	Bankman Freed hid all...
	Okay, sorry.
	Customers around the world believed his lies and sent billions of dollars to FTX, believing their assets were secure on the FTX trading platform.
	But from the start, Bankman freed and properly diverted customer assets to his privately held crypto hedge fund, Alameda Research, and then used those customer funds to make undisclosed venture investments, lavish real estate purchases, and large political donations.
	They go into detail as to how the whole scheme fell apart.
	There were large investors who were given tokens, the FTT.
	They started getting very uncomfortable and liquidated their tokens, which caused a massive sell-off.
	And FTX was sitting there saying, we don't have the money to give back to the client funds.
	We don't really need to get into that because it's complicated but also simple.
	FTX, Bankman Freed, however he did this, and those are the notes that I'm going to get at, however he did this, set up a scheme in which he set up a bunch of companies, a crypto exchange in FTX, which said, hey guys, come trade crypto on my platform, put thousands of dollars in, and you can trade crypto, you can even get our FTT tokens.
	He then took those client funds, siphoned them off to Alameda, which was a company that he privately owned, undisclosed to investors.
	Alameda, then, is another company in research.
	What did they say they did?
	Undisclosed venture investments.
	Alameda, I don't know what that means.
	Lavish real estate purchases.
	Apparently, Bankman and Family were purchasing some properties.
	And large political donations.
	They don't mention to whom yet.
	Let me just see about family.
	The word family.
	I thought family came up in here.
	Whatever.
	Bankman hit all this, yada, yada, yada.
	While he spent lavishly on office space and condominiums in the Bahamas and sank billions of dollars of customer funds into speculative venture investments, Bankman-Fried's house of cards began to crumble.
	When prices of crypto plummeted in May 2022, Alameda's lenders demanded repayment of billions of dollars of loans, despite the fact that Alameda had by this point already taken billions of dollars from FTX customer assets.
	It was unable to satisfy its loan obligations.
	SBF Bankman diverted billions in customer assets to Alameda to ensure that Alameda maintained its lending relationships and that money could continue to flow in from lenders and other investors.
	Didn't stop there.
	Even as it was increasingly clear that Alameda and FTX could not make customers whole, Bankman Freed continued to misappropriate FTX customer funds.
	Through the summer of 2022, he directed hundreds of millions in FTX customer funds to Alameda, which he then used for additional venture investments and for loans to himself and other FTX executives.
	All the while, he continued to make misleading statements to investors about FTX financial condition and risk management, even in November 2022, faced with billions of dollars in customer withdrawals.
	Bankman freed misled investors from whom he needed money to plug a multi-billion dollar hole.
	His brazen multi-year scheme finally came to an end when FTX, Alameda, and their tangled web of affiliated entities filed for bankruptcy.
	Let me just get...
	One of the first paragraphs that I think is interesting to read.
	The interconnected web of companies grew to include over 100 separate entities with Bankman Freed at the top and Alameda, his crypto hedge fund, at the center.
	Throughout the relevant period, In multiple statements, Bankman Freed held himself out as a visionary, yada, yada, touted his efforts to create a regulated and thriving crypto market.
	He conducted an extensive public relations campaign to brand himself and his companies as honest stewards of crypto.
	The interconnected web of companies grew to include over 100 separate entities with Bankman Freed at the top and Alameda, his other company, at the center.
	Who set that up?
	Who set up that interconnected web of companies?
	That doesn't happen overnight, and that's not easy to set up.
	Paragraph 26, the reality was very different from the start.
	Contrary to what FTX investors and trading customers were told, Bankman Fried continually diverted customer funds, we know that, to Alameda, and then used those funds to continue growing his empire, using billions of dollars to make undisclosed private venture investments.
	Political contributions and real estate purposes.
	You know that I'm only interested in political contributions.
	To whom?
	Paragraph 30. Bankman Fries used Alameda to carry out his fraudulent scheme.
	Alameda and its many subsidiaries served a number of essential function in Bankman's growing web of companies.
	We don't need it together.
	Who created this?
	Web of companies.
	It doesn't happen overnight.
	It doesn't happen without planning, and it doesn't happen without assistance.
	We'll see.
	To be continued.
	35. At least some of these bank accounts were not in Alameda's names, but rather in the name of North Dimension Inc., an Alameda subsidiary.
	North Dimension's website does not disclose any connection to Alameda.
	Bankman Freed directed FTX to have customers send funds to North Dimension in an effort to hide the fact that the funds were being sent to an account controlled by Alameda.
	I'm going to have to pull up an article on Mind the Gap because I recall reading an article on how Mind the Gap, his mother's get-out-the-vote campaign, raised $140 million.
	And I recall...
	Something in there about SBF directing investors or directing clients to send money by the way of Mind the Gap.
	I think I'll have to pull that up.
	Who set this up?
	Just him.
	Doubtful 43 people.
	This is another interesting paragraph.
	Where are we?
	42, 43. Alameda diverted billions.
	In FTX customer assets.
	Starting in around 2021, Bankman Freed directed Alameda to borrow billions of dollars from third-party crypto asset lending firms in order to fund Bankman Freed's venture investments and first personal use.
	Certain of these loans included provisions permitting the lenders to demand repayment at the time.
	At any time.
	Why did I circle that?
	In around May 2022, as crypto assets were dropping, several of these lenders demanded repayment.
	Oh, this is how the House of Cards came collapsing.
	Because Alameda did not have sufficient assets to cover all of these obligations, Bankman Freed directed Alameda to draw on a line of credit from FTX, and billions were taken from...
	It's just a classic Ponzi scheme.
	It works so long as nobody asks for their money back, and until it comes time to pay it.
	FTX investors were provided with FTX audited financial statements, and FTX represented in its purchase agreement that those financial statements were fairly present in all material respects to the financial condition and operating results of FTX.
	These audited financial statements, which do not include information about Alameda's undocumented line of credit from FTX and other information discussed herein, were at the very least materially misleading.
	Indeed, FTX's current CEO has voiced substantial concern as to the information presented in these audited financial statements.
	We're going to come back to that because my question there is, who was that auditor that prepared those statements?
	Audited financial statements are not nothing.
	They cost tens of thousands of dollars to prepare, depending on the company, for how many years you want to do them.
	Publicly, not publicly, sorry.
	Publicly traded companies are required by law to do them.
	Private companies, at least in Canada, are not required to do them if they get the approval of all the shareholders.
	But once you prepare audited financial statements, it's not something you can just willy-nilly draw on a napkin at the corner of a table over lunch.
	We're going to get back to who the audited statement was, because I think people in the internet, the aggregate knowledge of the internet, are going to find...
	We know who the auditors were at that time.
	I found it in another article.
	The question is connections.
	The question is connections, if any.
	Political connections, family connections, or whatever.
	Or whether or not auditors were just known scoundrels in the industry and will prepare any audited financial statements at the request of the directors.
	Because the auditors say, look, we're just preparing the statements based on the information the company gives us.
	We make the owners sign a disclaimer that says they're giving us all the information.
	If our audited financial statements are inaccurate and it's because of misinformation provided to us by the company, well, then it's on them.
	We'll see.
	And then the last one, paragraph 63. How did they do this?
	This is the beautiful part.
	The collateral that Alameda had on deposit consisting largely of enormous positions in illiquid crypto assets issued by FTX.
	This is the token.
	Compounded the undisclosed risk to FTX's investors.
	Bankman, Freed, and FTX's system valued this collateral at trading prices.
	They issue their own FTT tokens, give them a value, sell them to, I think it's to Alameda, at an inflated price so they can say, look, we have all of these other tokens valued at X because we sold it to a company that we're related to without disclosing that to you, so we're worth X times however many more tokens we have.
	It's fabricated money.
	It doesn't exist.
	It never existed, except on paper.
	Bankman Freed's and FTX's system valued this collateral at trading prices, but the collateral deposited by Alameda was not worth the value assigned to it.
	Alameda and FTX collectively owned the majority of these tokens, and only a small portion of FTX-affiliated tokens were in circulation.
	As such, the tokens were illiquid.
	And as Bankman Freed knew or was reckless in not knowing if Alameda or FTX tried to sell the holdings, market prices for the tokens would fall because nobody was actually buying it.
	Because the only people who were buying it at inflated prices was Alameda and the few suckers who got whatever few tokens were put in the market, thereby driving down the value of their collateral.
	As a result, even if FTX had liquidated Alameda's portfolio, the sales of those...
	Thinly traded tokens would not have generated sufficient funds to cover the amount Alameda borrowed from FTX.
	Fraud.
	Alleged fraud.
	Sorry.
	Like my money.
	Imaginary says, where did it go?
	Counter Moon.
	Hey, we're going to create a token.
	We're going to sell a thousand on the open market.
	We'll create a million tokens.
	We'll sell 10,000 on the open market, but only after we've sold a million.
	Wait a minute, how many did I say?
	We'll create 100 million tokens.
	We'll sell a million to Alameda, my own company, which we're going to buy, oddly enough, with client funds in the first place, probably.
	We'll buy a million of those tokens for a dollar.
	Now you're worth $100 million.
	Now that someone bought the tokens at a dollar, we can put 10,000 on the market and say, those are worth a dollar.
	Some sucker buys them for $10, a dollar each.
	And now they're worth five cents, two cents.
	But now they get to say, look, the tokens are worth X. This company's worth X because it's however many millions of tokens we have based on the market value that our related company, Undisclosed, bought them for.
	It's like it's just making fake money.
	There's nothing more to it.
	The accountants, let me get to my Twitter account because there was an article that I pulled up.
	Oh, I can't do that there.
	Let's see.
	Did we get demonetized on this one?
	Speaking of fake money.
	No, we're still green.
	Twitter.
	I just want to get the accountant's name, and then the interwebs can decide.
	Oh, Prager Metis.
	Okay, so let me just show my homework so that nobody accuses me of making stuff up.
	They have a current auditor, which is different than the auditor that prepared the statements.
	What I found was FTX and FTX Trading, which Ray refers to in Thursday's bankruptcy filings as the group's.com silo, had their financial statements audited by the certified public accountant Prager Metis.
	And that's from Business Insider.
	Prager Metty, I've never heard of him.
	I don't know if people know if it's notoriously sketchy of a CPA.
	People think, you know, chartered public accountants can't be bad.
	Prager Metty, here we go.
	Ray said he hadn't previously heard of Prager Metty, but noted that they claimed in January to be the first ever CPA firm to open an office in Metaverse through a partnership with Decentraland Platform.
	All of this sounds like scammish to me.
	It all sounds like a total scam.
	So Prager Metis, I think, is going to be under scrutiny now as to whether or not they have any familial ties to Bankman, Fried, and family, and whether or not their known hired gun tool will prepare audited financial statements for whatever the reason.
	Mind the Gap.
	It was called Mind the Gap.
	Okay.
	Mind the Gap.
	140 million SPF.
	Let me see here.
	I think it was in an article.
	We're going to bring this up in real time because I don't remember this article.
	Add to stream?
	No, that's not the right one.
	Let's get this out of here.
	Here, FTX.
	Is it going to make me go to...
	I'm going to have to do this here.
	Okay.
	Thank you.
	Okay, we've last archived.
	FTX bankruptcy means 73 million in political donations at risk of being clawed back.
	I don't often talk about my practice of law, but I had, I would call it relatively extensive experience in, I call it low-level bankruptcy law in Canada because I was involved in a client, involved in a file that went on for years.
	Involving bankruptcy.
	And the old expression, hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
	The actual expression should be hell hath no fury like a lawyer scorned.
	Because when a lawyer once upon a time didn't get paid, oh, they were going to find some money to get paid.
	It led to a bankruptcy proceeding that lasted a couple of years.
	Clawback, I don't know if it's the same thing as preferential payments or reviewable transactions, but payments that go out.
	Within a certain timeframe of a company being insolvent can be reviewed.
	Payments made to not-at-arms-length companies within a certain timeframe can be reviewed.
	There's a number of ways to review certain transactions that might have been made at relevant stages of insolvency or known insolvency.
	And it goes further back when they're made to related companies or not arm's length transactions.
	So I suspect that's what clawback means here.
	FTX bankruptcy means $73 million in political donations at risk of being clawed back.
	Well, now we know that we're past $40 million.
	At least $73 million of political donations are tied to FTX.
	At least!
	That's almost $100 million.
	And that is going to be a drop in the bucket.
	Money went to Democrats and Republicans.
	Mostly through political action committees.
	It went to both.
	It went to both.
	What was the amount?
	At least 73 million of political donations tied to Sam Bankman-Fried's FTX may be at risk of being clawed back as bankruptcy lawyers sort through the remnants.
	The wide-ranging contributions from Bankman-Fried and two of his top lieutenants include more than $6 million to Super Political Action Committee for House Democrats, $3.5 million for the GOP's Senate leadership, and $3 million for the GOP's Senate leadership.
	For a fund that backs Senate Democrats.
	So that $3.5 million is a lot.
	But $3.5 million of $70 million, that looks like the 10% that some articles were saying.
	So you've got $6 million to super PACs for Democrats.
	$3 million for Senate Democrats.
	That's nearly $10 million.
	$3.5 million for GOP leadership.
	Okay.
	Let's see what else.
	Washington's brief but intense flirtation with FTX donors.
	Ended backfiring spectacularly, damaging the reputations of politicians who benefited from large contributions while some FTX exchange users faced losing their life savings.
	It's another layer in the fallout.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	Well, this is interesting.
	This is very interesting.
	$1 million went to mind the gap.
	Why do I think that we're going to have more than that?
	What's clear from public records is that donors tied to FTX gave to Senator Mitch McConnell and Representative McCarthy, the top Republicans in the House, they gave Hakeem Jeffries, now Democrat leader in the House, and Dick Durbin, in total doling out $73 million in federal races.
	Jeffries, And Durbin have both said they donated the money to their campaigns by FTX to charity.
	Ah, so noble of them.
	So they said they gave out $73 million, and by the count here we've got, let's just say $1 million.
	Let's just round it, $3.5 million.
	You've got $7 million to political, to what they call Senate Republicans.
	Support Republicans, sorry.
	About $7 million to Republicans.
	And 73 million in total donations.
	That might be the 90% figure that we saw elsewhere.
	That wasn't the article, but that gives you an idea.
	And I'll try to dig up the article because there was an issue as to how Mind the Gap raised $140 million this cycle.
	Mind the Gap.
	Others, get out the vote campaign.
	140 million.
	140 million.
	New York Post.
	I'll give up after this.
	Here.
	Okay, so I'm not going crazy.
	I'll just show you what I remember having seen.
	Is this it?
	This is it.
	Okay.
	SPF's mother, Stanford law professor.
	Barbara Freed, also co-founder of the left-wing political action committee Mind the Gap, which raised a reported $140 million to help Democrats win the election through the Get Out to Vote scheme.
	The grift, sorry.
	So where was the other mind in this?
	So Mind the Gap this year raised $140 million.
	In 2020, they raised like $20 million.
	The question is how they account for that massive increase in funds.
	Okay.
	That's Sam Bankman-Fried, everybody.
	I think that's the latest we have on that.
	What else do we have here?
	Oh, we're going to see where that goes.
	Okay, let's do the sexually...
	Dog-faced pony soldiers.
	The photos of dog-masked soldiers in bondage gear while in uniform under investigation.
	You've all seen the pictures.
	I did not retweet those pictures on Twitter because I thought they were already out there and maybe it was a Halloween costume and there's going to be some innocuous explanation.
	The photos are real and they're under investigation.
	The photos which have appeared on social media show male soldiers in uniform or parts of uniforms wearing dog masks, leather, and chains.
	The dog-faced pony soldier joke just writes itself with this.
	Soldiers who wore bondage gear...
	This is from USA Today.
	And dog masks in sexually explicit photos while in uniform are under investigation, an army confirmed Monday.
	The photos which have appeared on social media show male soldiers in uniform or parts of it wearing dog's masks led to change.
	Some of the photos depict poses of submission and sexual acts.
	Another photo shows a soldier in combat fatigue wearing a dog mask on the airfield.
	Could have been hazing.
	I don't know.
	There are explanations for it.
	It's not necessarily...
	What people might think it was, or want it to be right offhand, but doesn't necessarily make it any better.
	Internal Pentagon email traffic obtained by USA Today shows Army officials believe some of the photos appear to have been taken at a base gym in Hawaii.
	The source of the email was not authorized to release it.
	The email notes that reactions to the photos have been hyper-politicized.
	No shiots.
	That's aware of the content, and it's invested.
	Okay.
	It's under investigation.
	Military law prohibits conduct by an officer that disgraces them personally or brings dishonor.
	You have brought dishonor on the military profession.
	There are a range of punches.
	Okay, whatever.
	So that's it.
	It's true.
	The pictures are accurate.
	It was not.
	The only question is going to be, is there anything remotely potentially Contextually justifiable.
	Was it Halloween costumes?
	Was it hazing?
	Was it initiation?
	Was it a dare gone bad?
	Who knows?
	But it's real, and they're investigating.
	But it might not be furry ideology or LGBTQ2IA plus ideology infiltrating the military.
	Or who knows?
	Maybe it is.
	Maybe it's part of the tolerance, diversity, equity, and inclusion.
	Programs that are being offered in the military right now.
	But I'll tell you one thing.
	I'm certain that Putin is laughing his bloody ass off at all of this.
	All right, do we finish up on the latest of the Twitter files?
	Let's finish up on the latest of the Twitter files.
	The latest, it's not, you know, we've had...
	Five Twitter dumps now.
	I don't know if there's one today.
	My only critique to Elon Musk is have a schedule with this because I don't know when they drop and I don't know what I've missed.
	It's been a little...
	Not fast and furious.
	It's just been unscheduled.
	So we don't know.
	But we've had five dumps.
	One was the Hunter Biden dump.
	The other was a shadow banning dump.
	The other one was...
	Shadow banning dump.
	The other one was Trump de-plantforming dump.
	What else?
	I forget.
	But let's just pull up a few of this and...
	Oh!
	Hold on, I'll get to that afterwards.
	Let's pull up a few of these.
	The people knew what they were doing was wrong.
	Going back full circle to the beginning of the stream, Anthony Fauci is not a victim here.
	He's arguably the abuser.
	Saying that people can't criticize him or...
	To say that they can't do that because that puts public scrutiny on him is to shield the alleged abusers, the potential criminals, from their own abusive and potentially criminal conduct.
	It's a way to allow the abusers to pretend to be the victims when the victims of their abuse criticize them for their abuse.
	People have been railing against Yol Ra, against Vijay Gha because of what they did.
	And because of Yehl's PhD thesis, which is of questionable ethics, but set that aside.
	People are railing against them, and rightly so, to the extent it remains righteous, lawful rage, because of what they did.
	They knew what they were doing was wrong at the time, which is why they had to bend over backwards to fabricate justifications to do what they knew they did not have the right to do in the first place.
	And some of these tweets are coming out and like when employees who are themselves from China coming out and saying maybe we shouldn't be doing this.
	Maybe you want to learn from someone who fled a communist regime.
	When people come to me and say, Vivo, you're calling Canada communist.
	Be careful, man.
	You don't know anything about communism.
	Maybe I don't personally.
	But when I talk to people from Hungary, from Venezuela, from the Eastern Bloc who fled communism to come to Canada and then ended up in Ottawa protesting the Canadian draconian measures because it was beginning to too closely resemble the communism from which they fled.
	I listen.
	Listen to this.
	Dissenters who say we should be doing this.
	These are the internal correspondence that Barry Weiss dropped.
	This was yesterday or the day before?
	December 12th.
	Yesterday.
	Maybe because I am from China, I deeply understand how censorship can destroy the public conversation.
	One of the only dissenters within Twitter.
	I understand this fear, but I also think it's important to understand that censorship by a government is very different than censorship.
	Of the government.
	This is, I guess, the same person.
	The First Amendment in the U.S. and similar legislation in other countries with similar concepts exist specifically to prevent the government from silencing people.
	And to all the people saying it's a private company doing its own, no, it isn't, because it's acting in collusion with, at the behest of, or even under the duress of weekly meetings with federal law enforcement.
	So when Chinese employees are telling you, maybe we shouldn't be doing this because we did this in China and it didn't work out so well, maybe you want to listen to them.
	And maybe when they're raising that dissenting voice and you hear it and then you say, well, we're going to find a way to do it anyhow, maybe you're the baddies.
	Maybe.
	Just throwing that out there.
	Another gem from Barry Weiss.
	In the early afternoon of January 8th, the Washington Post published an open letter signed by over 300 Twitter employees to CEO Jack Dorsey demanding Trump's ban.
	We must examine Twitter's complicity in what the president-elect Biden has rightly termed insurrection.
	What we witness through these emails, through this disclosure, at once upon a time, Jack Dorsey looked genuinely beaten down.
	He looked like distressed, downtrodden, depressed.
	And people were saying, Dude looks like he's lost control of his own company.
	He lost control of his own company.
	The patients took over the asylum.
	The criminals took over the jail.
	His employees, spouting lies and disinformation from the very government that was meeting in back channels with Twitter to work on censorship, are telling Dorsey, we're going to revolt if you don't do this.
	By the way, they also told Elon Musk, we're going to revolt and quit if you do this.
	And they did.
	And Twitter has never been better.
	An inflated sense of self-worth, an inflated sense of entitlement to think they get to dictate to the boss how the boss runs this company.
	And lo and behold, the company's operating very fine without those people.
	Citing the Biden's correct insurrection.
	An insurrection pursuant to which no one was convicted of or even charged with the crime of insurrection.
	They got their conviction on seditious conspiracy against the Oath Keepers.
	They are dictating to Elon, not to Elon, to Jack Dorsey what to do with his own company.
	And when you look at the mental gymnastics that they went through to justify Trump's ban, when Trump said he was not going to go to the inauguration, it's because it was a call for violence at the inauguration.
	They bent over backwards to do what they knew they were not allowed to do in order to do it.
	And now they're complaining that the people whose will was manipulated, censored, tainted, Whose voice at the ballot box was interfered with by these privileged actors abusing of their social media monopoly, when those people get angry, they then turn out and say, don't put the attention on us, we're the victims here.
	Bullcrap.
	The anger should remain righteous and lawful, and it must remain righteous and lawful, lest you then become a legitimate boogeyman enemy.
	But to purport to say that putting...
	The wrongdoers on blast for their wrongdoing is wrong is to shield the criminals from the consequences of their criminal conduct.
	I'm using criminal hyperbolically here.
	And it just went on.
	It's not revealing anything that those who have been following this from the beginning didn't know.
	What's this one here?
	Oh yeah, here we go.
	And we got the spin masters.
	Eric Owens.
	Once in conservative media before it was insane.
	Before it went insane.
	Is that?
	I don't know what that movie is.
	Also once a foreign service officer and an attorney.
	My passion is section 230.
	Eric Owens has his revelation.
	Breaking!
	Website owners have the First Amendment right to decide what speech will occur on their website, property, and under what conditions.
	Breaking!
	You're a propagandist!
	Not when they're being pressured by federal law enforcement through weekly meetings, back channels, and overt requests to take down posts and suspend accounts.
	Breaking.
	Not when they're breaking public statements and their own terms of use.
	Breaking.
	That's not exercise of First Amendment rights when done at the demand, request, coercion of the government.
	And it's also not a right you have.
	To curate content while claiming Section 230 immunity.
	Breaking.
	The spinmasters were out hard trying to protect Vijay Gad and Yul Roth and demonize Elon Musk.
	What better way to demonize Elon Musk, by the way?
	We're going to end on this.
	The fake news of the day.
	Y 'all heard the story.
	The fake news was saying, A. Elon was booed at an event, at a Dave Chappelle event when he came on stage.
	There's some truth to that.
	The other part of the fake news, people are being kicked off Twitter, booted from Twitter for posting the video because Elon is a tyrant with thin skin and he doesn't like being embarrassed.
	And the free speech guru, Elon Musk, is censoring people for their free speech by posting videos that make him look bad.
	Bullshit.
	And I tested it, by the way.
	By the way, just, I mean...
	I don't care about impressions.
	I don't care about numbers.
	And there's no but to that.
	It's just to say, it's not, Elon didn't not notice this, by the way, because he did reply to this.
	It's not like Elon didn't see this video on Twitter to take down if he so chose.
	Two million views.
	They didn't take down.
	There is an argument, by the way.
	People don't know this.
	Stand-up bits are copyright protected.
	They're original works.
	And if you record Jerry Seinfeld at a bar doing a shtick and then you post it to the internet, It will get a copyright claim, at least if it doesn't get a strike and get you taken down.
	I put up a video that included 20 seconds of Sarah Silverman, and it got a copy claim.
	I mean, I think it was legitimate fair use, but I snipped it from the stream.
	I don't care.
	Posting a stand-up comics bit is potentially copyright violation.
	I ended this before...
	Any meaningful portion of Dave Chappelle's comedy bit started, but listen to what happened.
	There's definitely booing, and there's definitely cheering.
	San Francisco, by the way, may be introducing someone as the richest man in the world.
	In this day and age, it's not going to win people over necessarily, but...
	Cheers and booze, I think.
	Even Chappelle knows cheers and booze.
	And a good improv joke.
	No material here, by the way.
	Just a newsworthy event.
	I don't know how Dave Chappelle's allowed to smoke on stage.
	It sounds like some of them people you fired in the audience.
	That's good.
	And end.
	So, to dispel a number of fake stories, people were not getting booted for posting a video that embarrassed Elon Musk.
	There might have been other reasons if that even occurred in the first place.
	Dispel fake news number two.
	People were booing.
	People were cheering.
	Even Chappelle in real time.
	We got people booing.
	We got people cheering.
	Because Elon is a controversial character and they're in freaking San Diego or San Francisco.
	And three, that video was there.
	Elon saw it.
	Elon replied to it.
	I didn't get taken down because I didn't violate anybody's copyright to their original performance of a stand-up comedy routine.
	I think we've done everything, people.
	We've done everything.
	Hold on, what's this?
	Last one.
	Oh yeah, these were the auditors.
	Okay, so we got that, I think.
	What's this?
	What's this?
	This tweet was deleted by the owner.
	Oh, okay, fine.
	That's right.
	This is an account that has been recently presented to me.
	Republicans against Trumpism.
	Republicans and conservatives fighting Trump and Trumpism.
	And they've been posting some of the most...
	Pinning Liz Cheney.
	This is an op if there's ever been one.
	But forget that.
	Forget that side.
	Go check out what they're tweeting.
	Just nonsense.
	They tweeted, Elon, free speech advocate, takes down videos and accounts for people posting it.
	And I said, I'm going to go to the limb and say if there's an info missing from this, let's ask the man himself.
	I never got an answer.
	But I've proven it because I put up the video of him getting allegedly booed.
	More to the story than that.
	Not taken down because I didn't violate anybody's copyright.
	Even if there is an argument for fair use in there or a newsworthy event, you don't need more than you need to prove your point.
	That's what fair use is.
	Okay.
	People, we've done good.
	Let's just read some questions and then what time is it?
	3.10.
	I need to exercise.
	I need to do things with kids this afternoon.
	I think we have something.
	It's a liberal-run account, Information Warlord says.
	And it has to be, because it's just preposterous.
	I mean, I don't consider myself...
	I'm not a pro-Trumper by any means.
	I'm not conservative or Republican.
	I just know what even centrist Republicans would post and would not post.
	That Republicans against Trumpism, it's more left-wing propaganda than Brian Stetler's account.
	Okay.
	Has the stench of the Lincoln Project, says Heartland Denizen.
	310 to Yuma.
	All right.
	Okay, well, we've done good.
	Oh, we've got to end the video.
	We've got to end the stream with fun, viva, old school, viva, fry.
	Um.
	Hmm.
	Amen.
	We're going to end with a good video.
	GoPro?
	Do we want to see...
	Have I done anything cool with a GoPro recently?
	I boiled my GoPro.
	I don't even remember this one.
	Let's...
	Holy crap.
	Okay, well, I'm getting a GoPro ad on the video that says I boiled my GoPro.
	We're going to end it with that.
	Everybody, thank you for spending the afternoon with me.
	I hope everyone enjoyed this.
	Jinder Dog says, thanks for you to stay humble and honest.
	I will, because my fear is being thought of as a liar.
	Oh, thank you for reminding me to just mention it.
	I deleted a tweet yesterday because I realized it was just being misinterpreted.
	I tweeted out Justin Trudeau's, a photo up on Justin Trudeau's Twitter feed.
	Where it's a picture of a computer that shows Trudeau on a screen with all of these other world leaders.
	And it's in front of the flags.
	It's in front of like a setup which looks like Trudeau in the back.
	And it's like, this picture doesn't match what I think is the position of the flags behind here.
	And I said, they really think we're stupid, don't we?
	And people were thinking I meant other things or weren't clear what I meant.
	And we're like diving into this video, into this image to, you know, for like Illuminati signs or something.
	They weren't.
	But I mean...
	I was not sufficiently clear in what I thought, in what I was saying they think we're stupid about.
	Another staged setup of a photo op.
	Our government, Justin Trudeau, is nothing but a fake phony photo op of a prime minister.
	That I was going to compare it to the other one when he was eating ice cream back in the day and he was walking around.
	They're walking around with ice cream.
	The ice cream's never melting.
	The ice cream never has a bite out of it.
	And the ice cream seems to have changed color for one of the people who might have eaten it.
	But it's just photo op after photo op for social media credit points.
	But anyhow, totally innocuous.
	But full transparency, I deleted it because I was not clear in the first email.
	And I wasn't leaving any deliberate ambiguity for any particular purpose.
	Be clear and be concise.
	Clear, concise, and don't let it look like you're leaving things ambiguous because there's some mystery to it.
	I don't like that.
	I don't like people thinking I'm doing that.
	Okay, let's watch the video.
	But thank you all for being here.
	Stay the course.
	Have faith, but not blind faith.
	God helps those who help themselves.
	But when battling monsters do not become the monster, because when you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares right back.
	Fight the righteous battle.
	In a way that will make your parents, your children, and your pets proud.
	And you can do no wrong.
	And with that said, enjoy the day.
	I'm going to see if I can get a sidebar for tomorrow night.
	I have a bunch of people that I'm contacting and we'll see.
	But in the meantime, I don't remember this video.
	But I see a GoPro ad on my ad.
	On my video for GoPro.
	The GoPro 7. Here we go.
	Oh gosh, this is me.
	Let's get ready for some cringe, people.
	Enjoy the day.
	I will see you all tomorrow.
	I've been told that this means bad things in other cultures, so I'm going to go peace out, people.
	Enjoy the day.
	See you soon.
	The GoPro 7 is coming out or has just come out.
	And based on Casey Neistat's review, apparently...
	I have to get one.
	The problem is, though, I have a fully functional GoPro Hero 5, and it would be financially and morally irresponsible of me to buy a new GoPro when I have a totally functional working GoPro.
	So today we're going to go and get all the shots that I've always wanted to get but have been too nervous to get because if I destroy the GoPro, that way I can justify getting the new GoPro.
	The downtown squirrel shot.
	I know what some of you are saying right now.
	This is insanity.
	I am staring up a tree looking at a squirrel coming down and sniffing a GoPro and now taking it?
	The rest of you might be saying, this dude has done this 50 times.
	He made his YouTube career off a squirrel stealing a GoPro and carrying it up a tree.
	Regardless, all of you should be liking, sharing, subscribing, hitting the notification bell, and staring at this wonderful moment of the squirrel and its GoPro.
	The pothole can.
	I know what you're saying now.
	This guy's...
	Oh my goodness, that car almost came to me.
	Oh my goodness, that went...
	This guy's crazy.
	He has no respect for his GoPro.
	Oh my goodness.
	Oh, is this car...
	This one's going to be...
	Oh, look at that.
	It hit it, but it still survived.
	Okay, so far so good.
	But I've always wanted to get my GoPro on a construction crane.
	Tell me something.
	I'm doing a video where I try to break my GoPro.
	Is there a place where I can clip it on the car just for 30 seconds and it doesn't bother me if you're going to break it?
	Come on, you're going to break it.
	I know what you're saying right now.
	There's nothing remotely extreme about this.
	This is actually quite lame.
	Trust me people, I tried to find the construction crane.
	Nobody would let me do it.
	These guys were excessively nice to let me do this.
	This isn't a risky shot, but I think I just saw a mouse or a rat under that garbage.
	I know what you're saying now.
	This town is filthy.
	They've got rats running around, but look at this.
	The magical rat is on one foot.
	It's on one foot.
	Look at that.
	And there's a cockroach in the front of the screen now moving up to the left.
	And another rat?
	What is wrong with this city, Montreal?
	Apparently it's because of the construction.
	All the rats...
	Go away.
	It's right there.
	It's right there.
	I bet if I get the new GoPro, the ISO settings will make that ten times better.
	I know that they say you're not supposed to boil your GoPro, and I've always wanted to get the shot of an egg boiling under boiling water.
	Okay, hold it.
	Hold it like here.
	Going where no person has gone before.
	Okay, put it down and hold it up.
	Yes.
	This isn't actually dangerous, I just want to show off.
	Dropping my GoPro off the roof and catching it.

▲