Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 20, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

02:09:28

Kari Lake Election Contest GOING TO TRIAL! Twitter Files CONTINUE! & MORE!Taco Tuesday with Viva!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	- Day 80 of being a girl.
	- Yes.
	- And I'm with my all-time role model.
	This is the person that made me-- You're my role model.
	- No, no, no.
	- You can't be my role model.
	- No, no, no, no, no, no.
	- You inspired me to start making content.
	And so accept that.
	- Yes, I accept it.
	- This is Jeffrey Marsh.
	- Will you accept that you're an inspiration?
	And I love you very much.
	- Fine, thank you.
	I love him very much.
	I have a little gift for you, my signature.
	- I saw that.
	- Little sunglasses.
	- Hi.
	- Hi.
	- This is Jeffrey.
	What are your pronouns?
	They, them.
	Okay, I'm she, they.
	And I wanted to know, as a non-binary human, do you have any relationship to the concept of girlhood?
	I'm going to stop there.
	I'm going to come back to this.
	I'm going to stop there just to make sure that my mic is the good mic.
	It is.
	And then I'm going to stop there to highlight the pronouns.
	Which, above and beyond being Non-biological, which is fine.
	Absolutely illogical.
	How does one go by the pronouns she, them?
	Other than turning this into a joke of a game, to see how far along other good-natured people are going to play, how can one's pronouns be she and them?
	That is to say, the individual...
	Dylan Mulvaney on the left and Jeff Marsh on the right, both of whom I think have made it into the White House, goes by she because he identifies as a she, but in the...
	I mean, unless it's she, her, they, them...
	Dylan Mulvaney is telling us that he goes by she, they.
	So even in the...
	What is it?
	She would be the third party.
	Her would be the possessive.
	So he goes by she in the third party and they in the possessive.
	Because he identifies as a woman, but also as they.
	And by the way, it keeps going.
	It keeps going.
	Hold on.
	I've lost my window.
	It keeps going and it gets worse.
	Here it is.
	It was posted by Clown World.
	Trademark, by the way.
	I absolutely do.
	I find girlhood to be inspiring.
	I find girlhood to be inspiring.
	What realm of reality are we living in where an adult male with a four o 'clock shadow because of facial hair is talking about girlhood being inspiring and people aren't dialing 911 on their phone and then waiting to hit send?
	I'm not a judgmental person.
	I'm a rational, logical person where if I went around as a man who identifies as...
	I don't identify as anything.
	I am he, him because I was born as a male.
	I might think I'm the Prince of Scotland.
	I don't even know if that exists.
	If I started talking about the inspirational aspect of girlhood...
	I would expect to start losing a few friends and start maybe having neighbors that didn't feel quite comfortable letting their kids come over for playdates.
	...who are girls who transcend what their gender is supposed to be.
	Yes.
	And that, to me, is something I draw strength from and excitement from.
	Absolutely.
	What you inspire me...
	Listen to this.
	...the way that you inspire me, one of the ways, is that...
	Girlhood is this ultimate expression of humanity.
	It's so much more than gender.
	Girlhood is an expression, the ultimate expression of humanity.
	This, I mean, it has to be a joke.
	And I'm not saying everyone's proclivities, everyone's preferences, you know, what they do in their bedrooms is none of my business so long as it's lawful and doesn't involve girlhood.
	This sounds like a joke.
	Like someone says, okay, we're going to make a funny, ridiculous video as though we just smoked pot and are now riffing with absurdities.
	Girlhood is the ultimate expression of humanity.
	A great many of my senses are tingling right now.
	None of them are good.
	And I think what I would love is for there to be a place for specifically for non-binary people, too, because I think we can't forget that non-binary people do have that divine feminine energy and they deserve to.
	Dylan Mulvaney was in the White House talking to Joe Biden.
	Jeff Marsh on the right, I couldn't find the video, did this funny "A Day in the Life" when he went to the White House and Jen Psaki was in the video as well.
	It will be over soon.
	This video.
	This video will be over.
	Part of girlhood too.
	Girlhood becomes stronger when there's more of us behind it.
	Girlhood becomes stronger when there's more of us biological males in their late 20s or 30s by the looks of it.
	Girlhood becomes stronger when there's more of us behind.
	Behind it.
	Make it make sense.
	It can't.
	And I'm going to end after this next video.
	Only certain people are allowed in?
	Only certain people are allowed in.
	But who's allowing?
	That's the real question.
	Only certain people are allowed in to girlhood.
	But who's doing the allowing?
	If I believed in a singular God or a religious God, I might say God.
	If I believed in semantics, if I were sort of a Chomsky-esque sort of linguist, I would say language defines it.
	If I were a logical adult, I would say it's obvious and no one needs to ask the questions.
	And by asking the question, you're making me feel a little bit uncomfortable.
	Who gets to be involved in girlhood?
	Really?
	Girlhood is stronger.
	No, thank you.
	And these are now...
	This is not what someone does in their spare time.
	Someone just expressing their beliefs.
	These have become influencers of presidents.
	Dylan Mulvaney sat down with the president and is now...
	Talking about things, the role of biological males in their 30s in girlhood.
	And one is called all sorts of names.
	I see Carly Ellison is in the house, but bearing in mind that I'm still thoroughly convinced that Carly is in fact a double-fakey troll.
	Someone is showing his, her, their phobia.
	Carly, I don't know if you have kids.
	But if you don't...
	Find it a little bit uncomfortable to see adult men talking about enjoying the joys of girlhood.
	You can call it phobia, and a lot of other people are going to call it something else quite logical.
	And these are people who are trying to influence policy.
	And where does that policy go?
	I can tell you where that policy goes.
	It goes to empowering children.
	Whose frontal lobes are not developed to make decisions altering their physical body for the rest of their lives because they are being exploited by people who think they're being tolerant like Carly Ellison.
	Oh, don't show your transphobia.
	Let a teenager change their sex through hormone blockers, top surgery, bottom surgery.
	You don't want to be a phobe.
	And they are influencing policy to exploit the vulnerable minds of young boys and girls.
	Ah.
	I didn't want to start off the week enraged with Neil Oliver's poignant observations about the revelations, the recent revelations about the Jibby Jab, what was known, what was not known,
	what still is not known, despite the fact that you got your politicians sitting around pushing this thing, pushing the Jibby Jab, while the pharmaceutical companies, two of the three of whom have been ordered to pay The biggest criminal fines in history for concealing the devastating impacts of some of their medications,
	Johnson& Johnson and Pfizer, within the last decade, I don't know what, Johnson& Johnson was definitely the last decade, as was Pfizer, ordered to pay billions in criminal fines because of their criminal wrongful conduct.
	They're still carrying out the trials now to determine if the jibby-jab causes myocarditis, while you have the pathological Psychotic.
	And I dare say, I know that I'm projecting because I know that I already feel it, but I see evil in the eyes.
	It might be projection and I know I'm not supposed to impute intent, but let me...
	Let me just...
	Let's zoom in.
	I mean, we...
	The eyes are the window to the soul.
	And when I stare in these eyes, I feel like I'm looking at the eyes of like a crocodile.
	Something that does not have...
	Actual human emotions behind the facade.
	This is what we would call either a fake smile or an actual scared face or someone who is emotionless, soulless, pitching the jibby jab.
	Let's get to it.
	Because, by the way, a few things I love about this picture.
	This is Chrystia Freeland, or Chrystia Freeland, as she specifically pointed out the pronunciation of her name during the convoy protests.
	Proudly announcing that.
	I don't know what number she's on, if this is even...
	There's a lot of people who suggest this is just salient solution.
	I have no knowledge of that or whether or not they even do that.
	Whatever number she's on.
	Pitching the jibby jabs.
	Soulless eyes.
	The face of terror or the face of callousness.
	And I was going to make a joke about historical figures who had had facial expressions like this, but I thought it might have been a little too insensitive or a little too callous.
	You got a pharmacist who apparently is not wearing gloves.
	I'm no medical practitioner expert thingy guy.
	I'm not sure how normal that is.
	It looks like they're putting in the needle because...
	Oh, sorry, pulling it out.
	And that there's a lot of skin tension, which is why they have to make it look real.
	Either that or it's like glued to the skin.
	I found the level of trash underneath the desk to be somewhat problematic.
	But I just...
	Oh, here we go.
	Here we go.
	My family and I got our boosters and our flu shots tonight.
	If you haven't already, make sure to get yours.
	It's the best way we can protect each other this holiday season.
	Christian Freeland, at the risk of stating the obvious and repeating what has already been repeated, if the Jibby Jab doesn't prevent transmission, and it doesn't because we know it doesn't, how does getting...
	Vaccinated protect each other.
	How does that protect anybody else if I'm, by all accounts, just as likely to get the Jibby Jab, the Rona, but if I get it, perhaps my symptoms will be lesser, unless it gives me another issue that's known to be a problem for young men.
	How does it protect others?
	Unless there's a study that I missed that showed that one is less infectious, less contagious.
	By virtue of having got the jibby jab.
	When, by all accounts, it would seem to be the opposite in that some people might not even know they're carrying the Rona and then still transmit it despite the fact not knowing it because they're not showing symptoms if that's even the case anymore.
	You got your booster?
	That's nice.
	This was yesterday.
	December 19th.
	Yeah, this was yesterday.
	And I just asked the obvious question.
	Look, I didn't ask for your vaccination status, Christopher Freeland.
	I didn't ask.
	You elected it.
	As did a great number of other people who then had sudden issues.
	Collapsed during convoy hearings.
	Dropped dead suddenly from cardiac arrest.
	The author of that book, Julia and Julie.
	A great many people who were very proud to announce that they got the shot, the jab, the boost, and then subsequently had heart issues.
	Bill Odenkirk is another one that comes to mind.
	I didn't ask your status.
	You offered it.
	If something happens to you in the future now, Christopher, and I say God forbid, I meant to say God forbid, but it's probably a good typo that it had an S, so I'm referring to the gods and not a god.
	God forbid something should happen to you.
	Can we then ask the question?
	Oh, no, no, that would make us crazy conspiracy theorists.
	It's none of your business.
	Her vaccination status is none of your business.
	Yours is her business.
	Now, if you don't get the jibby jab, I mean, everybody gets to ask you if you're vaccinated if you want to get a cup of coffee, if you want to go into a movie theater.
	If you want to go into a retail store, but drop dead suddenly from cardiac arrest at the age of 40, and it's none of your business whether or not the person's vaccinated.
	How dare you ask that, you conspiracy theorists?
	So you've made a public announcement, as have a great many other people who subsequently had sudden problems.
	Do we get to ask the question then?
	All right, well, that rant went longer than expected.
	Okay, I've caved today also.
	I'm having Red Bull.
	Red Bull with diluted...
	What is this stuff?
	Razz Cranberry Carbonated Water.
	Not the sponsor of today's video.
	But there is a sponsor of today's video and it's a product in as much as I'd love...
	I can't sponsor Red Bull because I think it's bad for you and I wouldn't want to encourage other people to drink it even if I love it.
	I have bad unhealthy habits.
	Today's sponsor, everybody...
	Shout out Home Title Lock.
	You all know them because I've been talking about it for a while because many of you know that we are new.
	We're not emigres to America.
	I'm still a Canadian citizen.
	I'm on a visa for three years, which I may choose to renew in two and a half years' time or choose to turn into a permanent resident application status if I so try.
	We'll see.
	Got to see what happens with the world and with Rumble.
	But we've moved down for at least three years as of the time that we moved down.
	One thing I discovered when we got a place is there's a, it's a wild west, especially out in Florida, but in America, there's a wild west for a great many things.
	Health insurance, car insurance, home insurance, and from what I learned, home title fraud.
	And the way the fraud works is they don't change the title of the house and come and kick you out and say, we live here now.
	Somebody pulls up your deed.
	From the local registry, forges your signature to borrow money against the equity in your house.
	They go to a bank.
	They take out a loan on your house.
	You don't know about it until the creditors come.
	Then you find out about it.
	Home title lock basically is 24-7 digital surveillance.
	Someone goes and pulls your deed for no good reason.
	If they pull your deed, you're going to get notified.
	There's going to be a freeze and no one will be able to borrow against your house.
	So you're not going to get stuck holding a big empty bag of dirty dog do of a debt.
	I asked our home insurance.
	If it's legit threats and legit protection, was confirmed that it is.
	Spent time on the phone with them.
	Home title lock, $19.95 a month.
	If something happens, someone pulls your deed, you get notified that no one can borrow against your house.
	They offer a quarter of a million dollars in legal defense should something happen.
	People's homes are typically their biggest asset, so for the $20 a month, it's well worth the protection.
	Hometitlelock.com slash Viva, and promo code Viva will get you a free title assessment.
	And then after that...
	20 bucks a month to sleep well at night.
	Hometidelock.com slash Viva.
	A product that I actually use.
	Now, caps make it loud.
	You know what the funny thing is?
	You know what the funny thing is?
	Caps make it loud, but they also do make it easier to read.
	And I don't actually ever read caps as screaming.
	I read caps as my aunt is writing.
	She's 80 some odd years old.
	And she can't...
	And she can't read it.
	She can't see that.
	Well, so she writes in caps and I just see it as a loving thing.
	Who is that clean cut chap in the ad pic?
	Why that was Viva Frye when Viva ran for federal office.
	Troy Pacelli, thank you very much.
	That was when I ran for federal office.
	That picture was taken in front of my house, my former house in Montreal.
	My wife took it with an iPhone, ran for federal office.
	If you can imagine, that picture is from September 2021.
	Things have grown, changed a little bit since then.
	Oh, loud and proud.
	Ginny Howe.
	Thanks, Viva.
	Only 52. I think we're talking about it.
	Oh, I get it now.
	And now look what's happening.
	We break up your monotony.
	Viva, the truly's jab refugee.
	Well, I...
	Okay.
	Oh, yeah, by the way, about those super chats.
	YouTube takes 30%.
	So if you don't like that, we should be and or are, in fact, simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	Where we will be going exclusively, I don't know, in a few minutes, we're 3,600 strong on Rumble and 1,200 strong on YouTube.
	Okay, so, people, that was an opening rant, but that's also news.
	We're entering a realm where rational, critical thought is being criminalized, demonized, phobified.
	Oh, yeah, you say...
	Marriage shouldn't be between an adult and a child, and you're going to be called a mat phone.
	We're living in a world where words are being criminalized, logic is being criminalized, and criminality is being normalized.
	As we have seen with the latest Twitter files, what are we at now?
	Volume 7?
	Criminality and corruption.
	For those of you who don't know, we're going to get into talking about criminality and corruption being normalized.
	We're going to get into the Carrie Lake judgment.
	Carrie Lake, for those of you who don't know, filed an election contest with 10 causes of action, headers, claims.
	Yesterday, depending on who you asked, Carrie Lake either had a roaring success or a crushing defeat in that Eight of her ten claims were dismissed on a motion to dismiss, and we're going to go over it because at least two of them are patently absurd.
	But if you ask Carrie Lake and you ask others, two of her ten claims for the election contest are going to trial tomorrow and the day after.
	So we're going to go through that.
	Just the Twitter files.
	Let me see here.
	Let's bring this here.
	So Schellenberger...
	What day are we now?
	This was yesterday.
	December 19, 1.36pm.
	Yeah, this was yesterday.
	I'm going to screen grab this one because when I say we're entering a realm of normalized corruption, we have entered a realm where social media is not just being influenced by government actors.
	They have been overtly Infiltrated by government actors.
	And I mean infiltrated in that we just learned that when it came to Matt Taibbi's first Twitter files dump, that was the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story.
	We found out on the Sunday after the Friday dump that Jim Baker, who used to be, I don't know, head counselor, he used to have a high up position in Twitter, used to work with the FBI.
	Well, he was telling Matt Taibbi, I need to vet what you put out before you put it out.
	And Elon Musk didn't even know it.
	Let's just remind me, we're getting back to number 46 sooner than later, and I don't want to go through this painstakingly.
	Robert Gouveia did it.
	A number of people have done it, but we're going to do it so that we can get to the pièce de la résistance of the corruption.
	Before we do that, let me make sure that I haven't forgotten anything here.
	Okay.
	And in Rumble, we're good.
	Okay, now we're over 4,000 in Rumble.
	Beautiful, beautiful.
	Okay, let's just go through this for a little bit.
	Twitter files part seven.
	FBI and the Hunter Biden laptop.
	Bottom line, FBI actively involved and they've infiltrated Twitter and they're actually paying influencers or paying Twitter to suppress content.
	We'll get there.
	There's a lot of preamble.
	And it goes into...
	You all know the story.
	For the backdrop, the story begins in December 19 when a Delaware computer store owner named John Pate, J.P. MacIsaac, contacts the FBI about a laptop that Hunter Biden left with him.
	J.P. MacIsaac is the store owner, apparently legally blind or visually impaired, gets this laptop.
	Hunter Biden brings it in for repairs.
	Apparently he needed an external drive in order to retrieve the documents on one of the computers.
	Doesn't come back to pick up the computer.
	There's a signature that he left it off there.
	I don't know what his first name is, but it's R. Hunter Biden.
	And then leaves it there.
	This guy, J.P. MacIsaac, who is cursed now with this laptop from hell, in looking it over after it's been abandoned.
	So bear that in mind.
	We all know that there was no hacking, no nothing, because it was abandoned property under the law.
	J.P. McIsaac sees some very, very nasty stuff in this computer, so nasty and so potentially incriminating, he contacts the FBI.
	FBI has this from, what was it, October 2019?
	December 2019.
	So December 2019, December to January, February, March, April, May, June, July.
	August, September.
	It's a damn near year they had this before the New York Post writes its article, October Surprise 2020, right before the elections.
	So the FBI has known about it.
	They've had it.
	They've known about the authenticity of it.
	They did nothing about it for a year, so much so, give or take, that J.P. MacIsaac also sent it to Rudy Giuliani, who we now know is also under FBI surveillance.
	We're going to get back to the FBI surveillance after all of this because it's not just a question of the FBI.
	Not acting when they had the information.
	Lying to the general public about the provenance of this computer.
	Meeting with Twitter, Facebook, social media to suppress this computer.
	Surreptitiously.
	Paying members of Twitter to suppress the story.
	Apparently we're going to get there.
	This is the same FBI.
	Recall.
	Kleinsmith.
	FBI lawyer.
	Falsified evidence to...
	Falsely modify the status of one Carter Page as not being an asset when he was a CIA asset so that they could obtain the unlawful renewal of an unlawfully obtained FISA spy warrant on Carter Page so they could spy on Trump in 2016.
	This is the same FBI.
	Okay, we know the whole story about Censoring it.
	We know about Zuckerberg going on Joe Rogan talking about how the FBI met with him.
	Don't need to go over all of this.
	In fact, I don't think we need to go over any of it.
	It's all new.
	August 11, FBI's Chan shares information with Twitter's Roth.
	This is August 2020.
	Relating to the Russian hacking organization.
	Chan was deposed in this Missouri lawsuit.
	We've learned a ton.
	A ton of stuff.
	Listen to this.
	This is good.
	Yul Roth, who at first was reluctant and reticent to heed to this FBI involvement, turned very quickly.
	You guys want to talk about conspiracy theory?
	I'm going to give you one.
	We know that the FBI has been tolerating...
	Let me just bring this out for one second.
	We know that the FBI has been tolerating a lot of illegal content on the platform.
	We know that they've been...
	Tolerating a lot of illegal.
	Of the most horrendous nature.
	We covered the lawsuits.
	Victims of bad stuff with their videos on Twitter.
	Asking Twitter to take it down under the former VJ God.
	Asking them to take down the videos of them being minor victims of very, very, very bad stuff.
	Didn't.
	Okay.
	The FBI, we now know, has been intimately involved with Twitter.
	And so they were undoubtedly aware of the nasty content on Twitter.
	One could, you know, if one wants to think of the Elroy novels, what's the novels that Barnes always reads?
	If one wanted to think about that, one could think that they deliberately allow some of a certain nature of content on the platform or use that as blackmail against others to get them to heed to their corrupt demands.
	I don't know this to be the case, but it's just a thought that I had.
	Now let's listen to what Yul Roth, who at first...
	He was reluctant to heed to the FBI's requests that go find evidence of foreign interference, you know, official state propaganda on Twitter.
	Go find it.
	And Yule comes back and says, we don't, there's none of it here.
	And the FBI says, go look again.
	Because the Washington Post said, or the Wall Street Journal, whatever journal, they said there was.
	And we don't try, we don't like your answer, so go find it.
	And then Yule comes back and says, oh yeah, yeah, we found it.
	We found it shortly thereafter.
	But listen to this.
	Recently, Yule Roth told...
	Kara Swisher, that he had been primed to think about the Russian hacking group, okay, yeah, yeah, before the news of the Hunter Biden laptop came out.
	When it did, Roth said it set off every single one of my finely tuned hack and leap campaign alarm bells.
	Let's listen.
	We learn about DC leaks, and we learn about the intersection between APT-28, a unit of Russian military intelligence, a hacking group, and so the mourning of the Hunter Biden story in the New York Post happens.
	And it was weird, right?
	We didn't know what to believe.
	We didn't know what was true.
	There was smoke.
	And ultimately, for me, it didn't reach a place where I was comfortable removing this content from Twitter.
	But it set off every single one of my finely tuned APT28 hack and leak campaign alarm bells.
	So it looked possibly, probably.
	Everything about it looked like a hack and leak.
	You know what the only problem...
	Stop, stop, stop.
	Do you know what the only problem with that is?
	How do I get out of that?
	There we go.
	You know what the only problem with that is?
	It set off every one of yours.
	Hack and leak.
	Spidey senses because he had been primed to think that by the FBI.
	By the way, the idea that he had been psychologically primed to think something by the FBI.
	That's interesting.
	Psychological manipulation, the use of...
	Human nature to get the response you want out of your subject without telling them how to respond specifically?
	Sounds like something intelligence has done in the past consistently, but set that aside.
	Yole had been primed by the FBI.
	You know the only problem?
	The FBI knew that it was all authentic.
	They knew by that time that it was legit, authentic information, emails.
	Highly, highly damning stuff.
	Not just the smoking crack and the foot jobs from someone who looked like they might have been underage, but isn't.
	From what I've been...
	From what everyone says, apparently the person was 19 years old.
	This is according to Marco Polo.
	So some people, you might not want to repeat that piece of misinformation, but it doesn't look good.
	But set aside all of the awful, but not still illegal, but not corrupt stuff.
	Although it could be easily used for blackmail.
	They knew about the emails disclosing Hunter Biden's business relationships with China.
	Joe Biden now had demonstrably lied about it, unless he didn't lie when he said, I don't have any knowledge of my son's dealings because I've forgotten them because I'm demented, given the benefit of the doubt.
	When he said, I don't know anything about my son's business, I've never had any involvement with it.
	They knew it was a lie.
	The FBI, after having primed people to do their lying for them, knew it was authentic.
	But they get, you know, psychologically weak individuals, prime them to have a response so they can then do it, and they did it of their own volition.
	It wasn't the FBI telling them what to do, or was it?
	This is number 25 from Schellenberger.
	In August 2020, FBI's Chan asks Twitter, does anyone have the top secret clearance?
	When someone mentions Jim Baker, Chan responds, I don't know how I forgot him.
	An odd claim given Chan's job is to monitor Twinner, not to mention that they worked together at the FBI, because James Baker, who has his own history of problems, going back to Sussman, works at the FBI.
	That's called infiltration.
	Oh, no, he's not an FBI agent anymore.
	Now he's a Twitter executive who's rubber-stamping FBI requests of that social media company at which he's an executive.
	Who's Jim Baker?
	He's the former general counsel of the FBI 2014-2018 and one of the most powerful men in the U.S. intel community.
	Baker has moved in and out of government for 30 years, serving stints at CNN, Bridgewater, $140 billion asset management.
	As general counsel, Baker played a central role in making the case internally for an investigation of Donald Trump.
	But that was 2016.
	He's out of the FBI now.
	The old expression, you're never out of intelligence.
	Baker wasn't the only senior FBI exec involved at the Trump investigation to go to Twitter.
	And then some others did.
	Infiltrated.
	Infiltrated.
	Let's just skip through all of this.
	We know the rest.
	October 14, shortly after the New York Post publishes its article.
	This is number 34 from Schellenberger's...
	Twitter leaks.
	Not Twitter leaks.
	Twitter files.
	Roth says it isn't clearly violative of the hacked materials policy, nor is it clear...
	This is when they're trying to fabricate an excuse to censor the story.
	In response to Roth, Baker repeatedly insists that the Hunter Biden materials were either faked, hacked, or both, and a violation of Twitter policy.
	Baker does so over email and in Google Doc on October.
	Baker, who...
	Oh, he's not in the FBI.
	He doesn't know that the FBI knows that it's real.
	Bullcrap.
	Jim Baker, one additional comment.
	I've seen some reliable cybersecurity folks question the authenticity of the emails in another way, i.e.
	there is no metadata pertaining to them that has been released, and the folks look like they could be complete fabrications.
	Do we understand what's going on right here, by the way, everybody?
	This is the information laundering that we see with the wrap-up smear type stuff.
	Oh, I've seen some reliable cybersecurity folks question the authenticity of it.
	They didn't say it was fake because that would be a lie.
	They've questioned the authenticity of it using legitimate...
	Oh, well, we haven't seen the metadata.
	And those people that we've seen question the authenticity of it, those 52 liars in the intel community who signed the letter, I presume that's what they're referring to.
	They make a lie that they know to be a lie.
	They publish it.
	It's in the news.
	You get Jim Baker, who's an FBI, ex-FBI...
	Ex-FBI, ex-Intel, working as an exec in Twitter, saying, oh, I saw some people online say something.
	And therefore, it becomes the basis for him to say, well, now we can justify this internally.
	That's information laundering.
	It's a wrap-up smear iteration.
	You leak fake news.
	You rely on the publication of what was fake news when leaked to say, look, I saw this published, to then move on.
	Which is basically what they did with the PP dossier to get the spy warrants against Carter Page and Trump.
	And they do it right here.
	You got Baker, who's neck deep and will always be neck deep in the intelligence community, knows damn well that it was authentic, saying, I didn't see the metadata, so I don't know.
	And I've seen people say it might be fake.
	I mean, it's...
	You can't make fun of Russia anymore.
	I'm sorry.
	These intelligence individuals, this aspect of government, cannot make fun of Russia.
	They cannot make fun of Iran.
	They cannot make fun of East Germany if it existed anymore.
	This is institutionalized corruption and lies of the highest order.
	This is exactly what these intelligence agents accuse Russia of doing.
	They're doing it in real time, and the whole world has seen it now, except some people refuse to open their bloody eyes.
	Others refuse to have it, are not aware of it because the media has refused to spoon-feed it to them.
	Black and white.
	Black and white, literally.
	Okay, then we get into how much they knew about the accuracy of the laptop.
	They knew the laptop was accurate.
	I heard someone say...
	I was listening to Kim.com, Ian Miles Chong.
	They had a Twitter Spaces yesterday.
	I forget who said it.
	It might have been Marco Polo.
	It might have been...
	I don't think it was Taibbi.
	But someone said, look, the New York Post did blow it a little bit when they could have released the metadata on the emails to show that they were, in fact, authentic emails and sort of to cut down this argument before it was raised.
	But they know exactly what they're doing.
	Oh, they didn't show the metadata, so we don't know.
	They could be total fabrications.
	We know that's a lie, but it's not a false, it's not a baseless argument.
	We didn't see the metadata.
	It could be fake.
	I mean, we know it's not, but it could be.
	Then we get into more about the item 41. There is evidence that FBI agents have warned elected officials of foreign influence with the primary goal of leaking the information to the news media.
	This is a political dirty trick used to create the perception of impropriety.
	We've seen this.
	Okay, so where are we getting to there?
	How do you get the wrap-up smear?
	Item 44, Schellenberger's leak.
	I'm sorry, I keep saying leak.
	It's not a leak.
	It's a disclosure.
	Item 44. 44, Thrid or Twed.
	Notably, then-FBI General Counsel Jim Baker was investigated twice in 2017 and 2019 for leaking information to the news media.
	You're saying he's under criminal investigation.
	That's why you're not letting him answer, Meadows asked.
	Okay.
	In the end, number 45, the FBI's influence campaign aimed at executives at news media, Twitter, and other social media companies worked.
	They censored and discredited the Hunter Biden laptop story.
	By December 2020, Baker and his colleagues even sent a note of thanks to the FBI for their work.
	Let's just read this here.
	Do we need to?
	Thanks, Angela.
	This is Jim Baker.
	I'll sign as well.
	I don't know what this is.
	Also, we should be mindful that the letters could leak and will be subject to FOIA, so we should prepare them with that exception in mind.
	Thanks.
	Whatever.
	Here we go.
	46 is where I wanted to get to, and then we're going to move on to Rumble.
	46, the FBI's influence campaign may have been helped by the fact that it was paying Twitter millions of dollars for its staff time.
	Quote, Jim Baker, early 2021.
	I am happy to report we have collected $3,415,323 since October 2019!
	Exclamation point!
	Let me just see what this is here.
	So, Jim, FYI, in 2019 scale instituted a reimbursement program for our legal process response from the FBI.
	Because all of this takes a lot of time.
	When the FBI comes to you and says...
	You've got to go through your documents and find the answers we want.
	Well, that takes a lot of time, so we'll reimburse you for that time so it's not just a wasted expense of time.
	Prior to the start of the program, Twitter chose not to collect under the statutory right of reimbursement for the time spent processing requests from the FBI.
	I'm happy to report we have collected $3.15 million since October 29. This money is used by LP.
	Who's LP?
	For things like TTR and LE training.
	Okay.
	3.4 million to Twitter.
	It's not really that much money at the end of the day.
	But it's...
	FBI is paying Twitter now.
	And FBI is meeting with them.
	FBI is working with them.
	FBI is working in them to spread disinformation, sow the seeds of doubt for the purposes of...
	Crafting a narrative.
	They seem to have successfully manipulated Yoel Roth to get him on board real quick.
	Well, they manipulated a lot of people in public opinion by suppressing true information, accurate information, information which they knew to be true, through means which I don't know who can call them lawful, but I would need to know what crimes they broke before calling it criminal.
	Signing a bogus letter suggesting that that This laptop is Russian.
	It has the hallmarks of Russian disinformation of people who knew that it was authentic.
	Jim Baker can't say something that's a lie.
	He says, look, I've heard that it's inauthentic.
	I haven't seen the metadata, so I don't know.
	While they're working at paying Twitter, it's a coup.
	It's a coup, period.
	Full stop.
	It is actually, in a very meaningful way, exactly what they're accusing Trump of.
	Having tried to do.
	It's a coup.
	If possible, please stream the Carrie Lake.
	I think it is possible and I think we will be doing it.
	I'm not your buddy, guy.
	And Dorsey didn't know, says Jeannie Howell.
	You know, we all made the joke when Dorsey looked haggard after that video conference where he had that beard and he looked like Tom Hanks from Castaway and everyone was making jokes about, you know.
	This is what happens when you lose control of your company.
	This is what happens when the FBI makes you an offer that you can't refuse.
	I think his soul was broken because he knew it happened and he wanted out.
	But once you're in, they don't let you out that easy.
	Everything that they have accused Trump of having done in 2016 and 2020 is exactly what they've done.
	Election interference.
	Undermining the duly elected president in 2016 for three years, interfering with, and not Dominion votes switching the flipping machines, shaping the public consciousness through disinformation, misinformation, mind manipulation.
	It sounds crazy.
	There is no other way of describing it, and we've seen it in real time.
	Okay, how long have we been going for here?
	What time is this?
	Oh, 41 minutes.
	Okay, people, let's move it on over.
	Let's move it on up to the Rumble side.
	I'm going to give you the link.
	I don't know if I pinned it.
	Did I pin the link?
	I don't think I did.
	We're going to move this over.
	We're going to look at the Jan City.
	If you haven't puked in your mouth yet enough today, we're going to go over to Rumble.
	Link to Rumble.
	And we're going to go over a bit of the January 6th hearing committee because it's insufferable.
	It's insufferable, self-congratulatory, self-glamorizing rubbish.
	Insufferable.
	I watched as much as I could, and then I was bouncing back and forth between the Twitter spaces on the release, and insufferable.
	And by the way, nothing new came out of that, except for their four charges against Trump, which are...
	Bullshite, to say it politely in Brit.
	Okay.
	Daryl, if you shat yourself, you might want to look into that.
	Or at the very least, they should sell Jan 6 diapers.
	So that if you're watching something that makes you so angry...
	It makes you so angry, you poop yourself.
	Oh, yeah.
	Best one-liner of all time.
	Somebody pooped my pants.
	Okay, let's do it.
	Move on over to Rumble, if you don't mind.
	And you know what?
	Even if you do mind, I'll ask you to, and you can decide to or not to.
	You can decide to or not to go over to Rumble.
	We're going to go there in three, two, one.
	Boop!
	Oh, I'm an idiot.
	I should have.
	I was just about to...
	Well, we're only on Rumble now, but I forgot to show.
	Do we have...
	Do we have a new shirt?
	Keep, you know, I...
	I don't know if the new shirt is up yet, but people stay tuned for the new shirt.
	And if it's up during this stream, I will show it to you.
	But if anybody wants some good Viva Barnes, Viva Fry merch, go to vivafry.com.
	That's V-I-V-I.
	That's V-I-V-A-F-R-E-I.com.
	For those of you who don't know, Fry is half of my last name.
	Freiheit, which means freedom in German and Germanic languages.
	I think in Dutch it's Freiheit.
	Same origins.
	Dave, shut your mouth.
	Okay, here.
	I'm wearing the who, what, when, why, where Viva Fry shirt.
	One of my favorites.
	My absolute favorite, however, is...
	Let me just get the shirts.
	How do I...
	Okay, so you can see all this.
	View all merch.
	My favorite, although I don't even have one yet, but I think my wife ordered it, is this one.
	Just a cool logo on the side.
	Anyway, vivafried.com, if anybody wants their merch for Christmas, New Year's, Christmas, Kwanzaa, Hanukkah, whatever it is that you celebrate or just to have a nice shirt.
	So when you cross paths with someone on the street who knows what it is and they go like, eh, you watch Viva Fried too.
	I like Viva.
	All right, now.
	Shameless self-promotion aside now.
	Let's move on.
	They are accusing Trump of doing what they've done.
	They've done what they're accusing Trump of having done.
	They have done what they have accused Trump of doing.
	I'm going to play a little bit of the Jan 6th committee just so you all can suffer.
	Inasmuch as I have to suffer as well, plus I want to drink a bit of my Red Bull carbonated water mix.
	Insufferable.
	These people think...
	Of themselves as gods.
	And these people are government officials.
	Nancy Pelosi unveils her monument for the ages.
	Her, ironically enough, holding a gavel in her hands, which looks like a hammer.
	Many, many people made the joke, and I'm not doing it.
	They erect monuments to themselves because they view themselves as gods, as modern gods, erecting monuments to the skies in the ways that Egyptians did.
	5,000 years ago, in the way the church has done...
	And I actually say that with no judgment to the church, because I find churches to be absolutely beautiful.
	The fact that they were billed on the taxes of the poor while the poor were starving and whatever, it's a separate issue.
	As historical monuments, they're beautiful.
	And nonetheless, organized religion, despite all of its faults, still has...
	Better, more productive, more valuable underlying principles than anything the government, no, not anything, than most of what the government has done.
	They view themselves as gods, watching them talk about how heroic they are, how prestigious, how noble.
	Here, enjoy.
	Let's vomit just a little bit, and I'll pause as we go along.
	I'm just going to do the intro.
	Benny Thompson, Liz Cheney, and then I'm going to highlight the fact that this was not...
	An investigation.
	This was not an inquiry.
	This was a Banana Republic kangaroo court where they literally, and I mean literally because it's literally, literally, it's fabricated their own evidence.
	Not fabricate evidence out of thin air, but edit together emotional propaganda videos of highly selected, highly edited, highly manipulated content.
	As their evidence.
	You'll see what I mean when we get there, and we're going to get there now.
	And I won't be able to put up with all of it, but let's just suffer a little bit together.
	The select committee to investigate the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol will be in order.
	Without objection, the chairs are authorized to declare the committee in recess at any point.
	Pursuant to House Deposition Authority Regulation 10, The chair announces the committee's approval to release the deposition material presented during today's meeting.
	And further, it's approval to release deposition material that accompanies release of the select committee's final report.
	They're going to release some, but not all.
	Don't worry about it.
	There's good reasons.
	They're going to release some of their investigative materials, but not the 14,000 hours of video footage, I guess.
	Good afternoon, and may God bless.
	The United States of America.
	That angers me because I will occasionally use God's name in vain, but I don't consider myself to be a religious person.
	When they say, may God bless the United States of America, as they literally tear it limb from limb and desecrate the very documents that they purport to be upholding, it makes me incredibly angry, incredibly frustrated.
	But in as much as...
	You know, the FBI intelligence, the government, accuses others of doing what they are doing.
	They feign what they know they should be feigning to cloak what they're actually doing.
	This committee, this bipartisan committee, has been nothing but a sham of a committee, a kangaroo of a court, with one objective in mind from day one.
	However they get there, it didn't matter.
	They were going to get there.
	And they were arguing in reverse.
	To cast a vote in the United States is an act of faith and hope.
	When we drop that ballot in the ballot box, we expect the people named on the ballot are going to uphold their end of the deal.
	And by the way, they craft their own speeches, and then they cite themselves as though...
	They are Abraham Lincolns, as though they are Mark Twain's, as though they're Aristotle's.
	The January 6th committee clipped or they transcribed this portion of Benny Thompson's intro as though it's like the most, the sagest of philosophical enunciations the world has ever seen.
	They're heroes.
	They're heroes in their own mind.
	The winner swears an oath and opposes it.
	Those who come up short ultimately accept.
	The results.
	And abide by the rule of law.
	Oh, do they now?
	Oh, do they?
	Those who come up short accept it.
	Hillary Clinton ran around complaining and alleging that Trump stole the 2016 election.
	That he colluded with Russians to win the election.
	That he was an invalid president.
	What did they say about Bush?
	Selected, not elected?
	Liars!
	Bald-faced liars and these lies could only work in the face of people who are too ignorant.
	I'm not saying stupid.
	Ignorant.
	Too ill-informed or too partisan to care that they're being lied to.
	They love it.
	Lap it up.
	It makes them feel so morally superior to judge others for doing exact...
	Sorry.
	To judge others for allegedly doing exactly what they have in fact done.
	This is why, by the way, I couldn't do this live yesterday because I would have been shouting over this the entire time.
	That faith in our system is the foundation of American democracy.
	If the faith is broken, so is our democracy.
	Benny, the faith is broken right now.
	Whether you like it or not, or whether you think that it's right or wrong, the faith is broken.
	And having judges turn down one lawsuit after another on latches, on mootness, on ripeness, having them refuse to hear on the merits.
	Any of these cases, or I think they might have heard one that got passed, that doesn't do anything to reestablish the loss of faith.
	The faith has been lost, and rightly so.
	Because even if it wasn't Dominion vote-flipping machines, servers in China or Germany, even if it wasn't that level of cartoonish corruption, we now know the level of cartoonish corruption that in fact occurred as you're speaking these words, Benny.
	The world is learning of the overt corruption to tamper with, to interfere with an election.
	At the same time, you're saying, put the screens up together.
	Donald Trump broke that faith.
	He lost the 2020 election and knew it.
	But he chose to try to stay in office through a multi-part scheme to overturn the results and block the transfer of power.
	Block.
	Block the transfer of power by exercising constitutional means to challenge the certification.
	Let that sink in.
	What one person knows to be a constitutional remedy to these people who uphold the Constitution is blocking.
	Criminal obstruction of an official proceeding.
	I mean, it's too much.
	In the end, he summoned a mob to Washington and knowingly they were armed and angry, pointed them to the Capitol and told them to fight like hell.
	There's no doubt about this.
	He told the mob, knowing they were armed.
	He knew they were armed, knowing it.
	Told them to go and fight like hell.
	Do you know what deceit through omission is, Benny Thompson?
	I mean, we all know what lying through omission is.
	A fight like hell.
	And he acutely omitted two of the last, I don't know, six tweets that Trump had on the platform before he was yeeted for inciting an erection, according to Chuck Schumer.
	This afternoon, my colleagues will present our key findings, reminding you of some of the information.
	We present it in earlier hearings and telling you how it fits in our broader conclusions.
	Broader conclusions.
	They're saying, they're going to tell you how they manipulated it to fit.
	They took a square peg and they jammed it into a circle hole because that circle hole was recommending crimes against Trump.
	And they were going to get there if they had to shave away and round the edges of that square peg.
	Inclusions have helped shape the committee's final report, which we'll adopt today pursuant to House Resolution 503, which establishes the select committee nearly a year and a half ago.
	A year and a half.
	They spent three years investigating the Russiagate hoax.
	They spent two impeachments of Trump.
	They spent a year and a half of this sham committee investigation.
	Oh, well, hey, they got paid.
	They got paid.
	You paid them to investigate a man that 71 million people voted for.
	I expect our found work will be filed with the clerk of the House and made public later this week.
	Beyond that release, the select committee intends to make public the bulk of its non-sensitive records before the end of the year.
	By the way, just appreciate what he just said.
	They intend...
	To make public the bulk of their nonsensitive records.
	So they're not undertaking to release all of the nonsensitive materials, whatever that means.
	They intend to release the bulk.
	They might choose not to release some of their nonsensitive, even though it's nonsensitive.
	And in all of that, they're not releasing all of the information.
	These transcripts and documents will allow the American people to see for themselves the body of evidence we've gathered and continue to explore the information that has led us to our conclusions.
	Continue to explore and after a year and a half of how many people?
	This is Don Quixote chasing windmills.
	This is Kafkaesque.
	Absurdity.
	This is George Orwell.
	The war was not meant to be won.
	It was meant to be perpetual.
	But wait for the kicker.
	This committee is nearing the end of its work.
	But as the country, we remain in strange and uncharted waters.
	We've never had a president of the United States stir up a violent attempt to block the transfer of power.
	Fact check.
	Anyone want to fact check that?
	I said it yesterday, the most violent transfer of power was Obama to Trump.
	Judicially violent, intelligence violent, constitutionally violent.
	And the violence was exacerbated by the fact that it was so subtle, so quiet, so unknown, and absolutely so sinister.
	I believe nearly two years later...
	This is still a time of reflection and reckoning.
	If we are to survive as a nation of laws and democracy, this can never happen again.
	What's the this?
	How do we stop it?
	How do we stop it?
	This committee will lay out a number of recommendations in this final report, but beyond any specific details and recommendations we present.
	There's one factor I believe is most important in preventing another January 6th, accountability.
	So today, beyond our findings, we will also show that evidence we've gathered points to further action beyond the power of this committee.
	Beyond the power of this committee, we don't have the power to press criminal charges.
	We're going to recommend it.
	The bipartisan committee.
	The only two Republicans on the committee were hand-selected by Nancy Pelosi and were not re-elected to represent Republicans.
	Or the Congress to help ensure accountability under law.
	Accountability that can only...
	Forget it.
	Let's just get to Liz Schenney.
	Let's just get to the butt-kissing.
	They just kiss each other's butts.
	Oh, do you have one, Liz?
	Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your tremendous leadership of this committee.
	You're a hero, Benny.
	Thank you for your tremendous...
	You're a god among men, Benny.
	And when it's time for you to speak again, I expect you to make me a goddess among women.
	A goddess of the modern-day Nefertiti.
	You're a hero, as am I. As is Kinzinger.
	Loyally defending our country by...
	Doing whatever it takes to make sure that half the country can't vote for the person that they want to vote for.
	I know we all have benefited greatly from your wisdom and your wise counsel, so thank you very much.
	In April of 1861, when Abraham Lincoln issued the first call for volunteers for the Union Army, my great, great grandfather, Samuel Fletcher Cheney, Joined the 21st Ohio Volunteer Infantry.
	How things have changed, Madam Cheney, but...
	Oh, okay.
	He fought through all four years of the Civil War, from Chickamauga to Stones River to Atlanta.
	He marched with his unit in the Grand Review of Troops up Pennsylvania Avenue in May of 1865, past a reviewing stand where President Johnson...
	And General Grant were seated.
	Silas Canfield, the Regimental Historian of the 21st Ohio Volunteer Infantry, described the men in the unit this way.
	Skip it.
	Forget it.
	I can't do it.
	Painted by John Trumbull, depicts the moment in 1793 when George Washington resigned his commission, handing control of the Continental Army back to Congress.
	Trumbull called this, quote, one of the highest moral lessons ever given the world.
	Can't do it.
	Okay.
	Liz Cheney goes on.
	I don't remember the thing.
	In our report, this was an utter moral failure.
	The electoral count was halted, and the lives of those in the Capitol were put at risk.
	In addition to being unlawful, as described in our report, this was an utter moral failure and a clear dereliction of duty.
	Evidence of this can be seen in the testimony of President Trump's own White House counsel and several other White House witnesses.
	No man who would behave that way at that moment in time can ever serve in any position of authority in our nation again.
	I'm sorry, Madam Cheney.
	Who the hell do you think you are?
	Just asking the question like that.
	Who do you think you are to say who can ever serve again?
	Again.
	Is there going to be the Liz Cheney litmus test for who can run on a ballot?
	I don't like that person.
	I'm pretty sure the Constitution provides for who can run for president.
	Liz?
	And it's not the Constitution of your discretion?
	No man who's ever acted like that again can ever hold a position of power again.
	And I'm sure it's hell going to do everything I can to make sure that it doesn't happen again.
	In the name of democracy.
	Just imagine the audacity it takes to say this.
	And a clear dereliction of duty.
	Evidence of this can be seen in the testimony of President Trump's own White House counsel and several other White House witnesses.
	Here we go.
	Listen to this.
	No man who would behave that way at that moment in time can ever serve in any position of authority in our nation again.
	Lord Shady has spoken.
	No man that does something that she doesn't like can ever run for...
	Constitution be damned.
	I know there's a provision in the Constitution for who can run for the President of the United States.
	We're here to uphold the Constitution, you dumb bums.
	And in upholding the Constitution, we are telling you who can run for President despite what the Constitution says.
	What's so hard to understand about this?
	It's purely logical.
	I was going to say it's Democrat logic, but Cheney's a Republican.
	It's a bipartisan committee.
	This is...
	This is logic.
	We're going to desecrate the Constitution to uphold the Constitution.
	No man who has ever done something mean can run for office again.
	I mean, sure, they can drone bomb American citizens with no due process.
	I mean, they can build cages for migrants.
	They can, you know, do nasty things in the Oval Office.
	But no, no, no.
	This, this.
	In addition to what we know, that man can never run for office again.
	I don't care what the Constitution says.
	We're defending the Constitution.
	He is unfit for any office.
	Thanks.
	Thank you for your opinion.
	The committee recognizes that our work has only begun.
	It's only the initial step in addressing President Trump's effort to remain in office illegally.
	Prosecutors are considering the implications of the conduct that we describe in our report.
	Okay.
	As are citizens all across our nation.
	Okay.
	We're done with her.
	We're done with this.
	These are people who think they are the law now.
	These are the judge dreads of democracy.
	The best part is this.
	Benny Thompson talking about the evidence.
	And I'm not going to go through the whole thing.
	I'm not sure if there's music in it that might actually make for copyright issues, which would really...
	Let's just listen to this.
	But before we do so, it's important to remember what we've learned.
	Critically, exactly what happened at the United States Capitol on January 6th.
	Without objection, I include in the record a video presentation of some of the key evidence our investigation has uncovered.
	Appreciate that when he says, without objection?
	He would be the one to object.
	Without objection, I am admitting my own self-serving, highly edited evidence to support the conclusions that we came to a year and a half ago.
	Without objection.
	Watch the propaganda.
	Watch this.
	This is their evidence.
	highly edited, manipulated evidence.
	There were officers on the ground.
	They were bleeding.
	They were throwing up.
	I mean, I saw friends with blood all over their faces.
	I was slipping in people's blood.
	It's amazing that even though that's her testimony, and they're showing presumably what are the most damning of all the photos that they have, they still don't have photos to corroborate that evidence, that testimony.
	As I was swarmed by a violent mob, they ripped off my badge.
	They grabbed and stripped me of my radio.
	They seized ammunition that was secured to my body.
	They began to beat me with their fists and with what felt like hard metal objects.
	The presentation of this evidence is like a wedding video.
	This made me think of my wedding video that my brother made for me with my wife.
	Have a little Coldplay in the background.
	Chapters.
	Trump knew he lost.
	This isn't an essay.
	This is evidence.
	This isn't a partisan argument.
	This is the evidence to support the conclusion.
	Just appreciate that.
	I don't think they use...
	The key thing to do is to claim victory.
	No, we won.
	Fuck you.
	Sorry.
	Over.
	We won.
	You're wrong.
	Fuck you.
	Oh, God forbid.
	God forbid someone should have that opinion.
	Right out of the box on election night, the president...
	Claimed that there was major fraud underway.
	I mean, this happened as far as I could tell before there was actually any potential of looking at evidence.
	Hey, Billy, did you know about the Hunter Biden laptop manipulation?
	Oh, it's so nice that they got to run with that Dominion stuff so they could ignore the actual corruption, the actual election interference.
	Isn't it very convenient?
	I mean, this is at the same time.
	This is January 2021.
	Bill Barr, I haven't investigated and I found no evidence of fraud.
	I didn't think what was happening was necessarily honest or professional at that point in time.
	So that led to me stepping away.
	Generally discussed on that topic was whether it be fraud, maladministration, abuse, or irregularities.
	If aggregated and read most favorably to the campaign, would that be outcome-determinant?
	And I think everyone's assessment in the room, at least amongst the staff, Mark Short, myself, and Greg Jacob, was that it was not sufficient to be outcome-determinant.
	Well, that means that you have a very bad opinion because it is now pretty much accepted fact that had the Hunter Biden story I told him that I did believe,
	yes, that once those legal processes were run, if fraud had not been established, it had affected the outcome of the election, then unfortunately I believed it.
	What had to be done was concede the outcome.
	What were the chances of President Trump winning the election?
	After that point?
	Yes.
	None.
	Trump pressured state officials to over it.
	We're going to end it there.
	If anybody wants to go punish themselves, you can go watch some more of it.
	That's the evidence, by the way.
	That's not like a child's essay.
	That's not like, I don't know, the most partisan of partisan hacks trying to build the argument.
	That's the committee's finding.
	That's the highlight of their most damning evidence.
	Somebody said, I didn't think there was enough to move on.
	He should concede.
	Oh, okay.
	Oh.
	So that's it.
	Hold on.
	I see a $2 rumble rant in here.
	Coming in late.
	What did I miss?
	Come on, man.
	You missed everything.
	Well, you missed...
	This is from Rastlin9000.
	You missed...
	Twitter Files, Volume 7. You missed Dylan Mulvaney and Jeff Marsh intro.
	And now you missed the highlights from the Jan 6th Committee.
	Oh yeah, so by the way, their ultimate recommendation after all of that, it's kangaroo court propaganda.
	They begrudgingly, in the name of protecting democracy and upholding the Constitution, they've decided that they need to press charges.
	They need to recommend, sorry, recommend.
	Hold on.
	Who was it that tweeted?
	It was Jake Tapper.
	Jake Tapper.
	Here we go.
	January 6th committee.
	After having come to the conclusion that they undoubtedly were not convinced they were going to come to from day one, they've come to the following.
	Let me see something.
	I've got a couple of calls that I missed.
	Darn it.
	Obstruction of an official proceeding.
	Bear in mind, Trump wasn't on the Capitol.
	He wasn't in the building.
	Obstruction of an official...
	These are the four recommendations for criminal charges.
	Conspiracy to defraud the United States.
	Conspiracy to make a false statement.
	Inciting, assisting, or aiding.
	Comforting on insurrection.
	No one was convicted of insurrection.
	No one was even charged with insurrection.
	There was a charge and conviction.
	Shockingly enough, the district that's batting basically 100, there was a conviction for a seditious conspiracy, which is a separate criminal infraction from insurrection, which is basically planning for but no violence.
	But that's the recommendation for Trump.
	And the evidence.
	We saw the evidence.
	We saw the evidence.
	But just in case you didn't see the evidence, because they didn't put up all of it.
	In case you didn't see all of it, you know, he told them to go down and fight like hell.
	And the committee had this beautiful picture, you know, that screen above them and the bipartisan committee got Kinzinger and Cheney, handpicked anti-Trump Republicans.
	Cheney got voted out of office in a humiliating fashion.
	Kinzinger, I don't think, ran again.
	That's the bipartisan committee.
	So they had this screen in the background and they're putting up all their self-serving evidence.
	The one thing that they failed to mention, and I didn't even splice these two tweets together.
	They came right after each other in Twitter.
	Donald Trump, in two of his last tweets before he got booted from the platform.
	That had nothing to do with...
	There was no interference there now that we know that the FBI was...
	Neck deep in Twitter.
	Donald Trump.
	I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful.
	No violence.
	Remember, we are the party of law and order.
	Respect the law and our great men and women in blue.
	Thank you.
	Oh, sorry.
	I'll do the second one.
	Please support our Capitol Police and law enforcement.
	They are truly on the side of our country.
	Stay peaceful.
	Didn't see the committee bring up those tweets.
	And the whole outrageous irony, the outrageous irony in all of this.
	They cut off Trump's Twitter feed.
	They shut down his account because he reached so many people, he was using it to promote violence, allegedly.
	They fault Trump for not having, I don't know, done something to tell the people to be peaceful and to leave the Capitol.
	They fault him for not having said that, for not having specifically told the protesters to remain peaceful, which he specifically did on the platform on which he has the broadest, widest impact, where he reaches the most people.
	You put that announcement on TV, it'll reach fewer people than it would on his Twitter account.
	So they fault him for not having done something, which he did, on the platform that reached the most people, which is exactly why they needed to...
	Shut him down on Twitter because he was reaching too many people inciting the insurrection.
	Liars, liars, and liars.
	Period.
	Now they're going to go recommend for crimes.
	Because he didn't...
	What was it?
	I don't know.
	Aiding and abetting.
	Stay peaceful.
	Back the blue.
	We are the party of law and order.
	I tell you, it's a good thing they had a few...
	If the FBI infiltrated Twitter and we know it...
	We know that they also infiltrated the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, the two entities which they allege were involved in seditious conspiracy.
	We know that they have a history of infiltrating these types of events.
	That one man who was once on the FBI's most wanted list, and then, I don't know, seemed to have dropped off, Ray Epps, the one who was saying, we need to go into the Capitol.
	No charges against him.
	One can come to some conclusions.
	Let me read a couple of Rumble rants.
	Raiceland9000 says, Here for the Carrie Lake legalese, I knew they were going to be corrupt on Trump stuff.
	Nike7, Viva Russell Brand interviewed Barry Weiss.
	Check it out for sure.
	Will do.
	That was from Nike7.
	That was a $2 Rumble rant, and now we're getting to a $10 Rumble rant.
	Yours, 8243.
	Viva, do you want to mention the Times article, please?
	I know you read it.
	The Times.
	Oh, gosh.
	No, I read that.
	How they fortified an election, a secret group, a cabal of wealthy, well-connected people working secretly to change the rules, control the flow of information.
	There was an article I wanted to bring up that I will bring up.
	I just want everyone to see this one more time.
	Inciting an insurrection.
	Obstruction of whatever.
	I'm asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful.
	No violence.
	Remember, we are the party of law and order.
	Respect the law and our great men and women in blue.
	Thank you.
	Please support our Capitol Police and law enforcement.
	They are truly on the side of our country.
	Stay peaceful.
	Violence.
	On the account that had to be shut down because he reached so many people with it.
	Okay, we're going to get to the Carrie Lake legalese in a sec.
	Let me just make sure that I got...
	I just want to get to some wonderful takes.
	Just some wonderful takes.
	The people who have been lying to you for years, why would they stop?
	Jen Psaki.
	While we watch this summary of testimony, today is also the two-year anniversary of the Trump tweet encouraging supporters to be there, will be wild, on January 6th.
	Oh.
	Oh.
	Oh, I thought this guy, Victor, I thought this was a joke.
	Wow, this man must be indicted now.
	I thought that was a satire.
	It's not.
	We're going to get to that tweet.
	Sure, Jen Psaki talks about be there, we'll be wild.
	Let's go see that tweet, actually.
	And stay tuned for an announcement because we'll be wild is now criminal speak in the United States.
	I think it was this one?
	Oh yeah, here we go.
	Jake Tapper.
	Two years ago today.
	Trump calls his supporters to come to D.C. to protest on January 6th.
	We'll be wild.
	We'll be wild.
	Let's also read the tweet.
	Peter Navarro releases a 36-page report alleging election fraud more than sufficient to swing victory to Trump.
	A great report by Peter.
	Statistically impossible to have lost the 2020 election.
	Big protest in D.C. on January 6th.
	Be there.
	We'll be wild.
	Can you understand that anybody who could read that as a call to violence is sick in the head?
	Will be wild.
	It'll be wild.
	That was wild.
	It's the most innocuous way of describing an event that is incredible.
	That is a once-in-a-lifetime.
	Will be wild.
	Calls for an insurrection.
	The two tweets where he says, stay peaceful, we're on the side of law and order.
	Don't mention those.
	We've got a narrative to push here.
	We'll be wild.
	And when I read that, I thought Jake Tapper was referencing that as a joke, as a joke to show how absurd it is.
	We'll be wild.
	Oh God, that's insurrectionist speak right there.
	Imagine now they are equating, saying, it'll be wild.
	What a wild show.
	It will be wild.
	Is now evidence of insurrection criminal behavior.
	Nothing wrong with that.
	And if you think there's nothing wrong with that, you might be a Democrat.
	Upholding the Constitution.
	Forget that thing called the First Amendment, freedom of speech.
	Congress now is now concluding.
	We'll be wild is insurrectionist.
	Of course, maybe not the words themselves, the context.
	Come down for a protest.
	It's going to be wild.
	But be peaceful.
	Peacefully protest.
	We're on the side of law and order.
	Back the blue.
	Respect the police.
	They are on our side.
	Those are dog whistles.
	He means actually beat them up and be violent.
	That's what he means.
	Okay, and I think that about wraps up the committee.
	Let me see.
	Government paid Twitter.
	No, we got that.
	Oh, here's another one.
	Sorry, I have to.
	Close your eyes, everybody, for one second.
	Because Al Franken.
	Al Franken.
	Such a lack of self-awareness and insight.
	He comes out and says, after watching the January 6th committee today, my overwhelming reaction is just how profoundly sad.
	It is that Donald Trump was POTUS.
	Oh, it's sad.
	It's shameful.
	He's a disgrace.
	He's a disgrace to the office that he held.
	Lowest unemployment in history.
	No new wars.
	Would have actually wound down a few wars, except his own officials were lying to him about how many military people he had in certain countries.
	Oh, no.
	Al Franken is so sad.
	He's just profoundly sad and disgraced that Donald Trump was president.
	Oh, is this you, Al Franken?
	Grabbing the boobs of a sleeping soldier?
	Taking a picture of it, no less?
	Is this?
	Oh, no, I know, but the defense is he's not actually touching them.
	He's just, you can see by the shadow, he's close, but not touching them.
	First of all, that right hand is awful close because I don't see shadow under the fingertips.
	But this filthy pervert, and this is what he was caught on camera for, by the way.
	Like, what did he do that wasn't caught on camera?
	That's what I'd like to know.
	This is bad, and it's caught on camera.
	You know there's worse.
	That was never caught on camera.
	It was just a joke.
	Oh, no, but this is the nincompoop who's going to try to shame President Trump.
	Even President Trump never had a picture of him grabbing anything.
	It was an audio, arguable what he meant by what was in that audio.
	Hey, grab him by the P word.
	The whore grabbing by the B word with a picture to boot.
	That smirking, perverted face right there.
	Look at this.
	I'm doing it.
	She's a sleeping, young woman.
	This is my good judgment.
	As a grown adult, and he's going to try to shame Trump.
	Oh my God, do you have to not have any self-awareness to think that that's not going to be the first response from anybody who knows that it happened.
	And I'm not forgetting anytime soon.
	Al Franken.
	Because I guarantee, in my humble opinion, if that's what they caught on camera, there's a lot worse out there.
	Yeah, I think that actually does it.
	Oh, and just one more wonderful thing here.
	You know, Operation Mockingbird probably has never ended when intelligence infiltrated the New York Times.
	When was this from?
	Oh yeah, this is from March 17, 2022.
	Maggie Haberman.
	Being a real journalist, reposting with correct date via New York Times colleagues, a deep dive into the Hunter Biden investigation, including that the emails released in late 2020 and characterized as possible Russian disinformation by some were authentic.
	Oh, thank you.
	You're only a year and a half late.
	You're only a year and a half into the presidency that ought to have never been late.
	Isn't that convenient?
	Well, isn't that special?
	Okay.
	What you all came here for.
	Carrie Lake, people.
	There's going to be a hearing tomorrow.
	I think it's going to be broadcast, so I think we're going to be live-streaming it.
	I don't think I'm going to be able to live-stream Thursday because I might be in transit.
	Hold on a second.
	So I think I'm going to be live-streaming it tomorrow with Barnes, but I might have other issues of a child with a sniffle or something.
	We'll see.
	Carrie Lake filed an election contest lawsuit in Arizona, Maricopa County.
	I'm not going to pull up the video of Bill Gates talking about how they're having problems with some tabulators.
	They're at about 20% of the locations.
	We're having problems with the tabulators.
	When you put in the thing, it's not reading it.
	And so it's causing problems as to whether or not it might be getting processed.
	It's causing massive lineups, which are pushing people away from voting on election day, which tend to be overwhelmingly Republican.
	Don't worry.
	You can go find another location to vote at.
	It'll be fine.
	You know, if you can.
	And if you don't and you decide to go home, it'll be even better because I never liked those ultra-mega candidates anyhow.
	I'm not going to play that video again.
	I'm not going to play the video of Mark Elias basically confirming everything that Carrie Lake was alleging.
	I might.
	You know what?
	I will.
	The video of Mark Elias confirming basically everything that Carrie Lake was alleging in her lawsuit.
	Voter disenfranchisement.
	Long lines.
	And so on and so forth.
	Hold on.
	When was it?
	I know I re-showed it to Mark Elias last night, and he replied this time.
	Which is nice.
	It was December 19th.
	It was yesterday.
	It was after...
	It was after this.
	Give me one second, because we'll start with that, because I want everyone to have in the back of their minds...
	Mark Elias basically presented the most compelling argument.
	In support of everything Carrie Lake said.
	I just have to find the video.
	Here it is.
	Okay, good.
	Got it.
	You may have already seen it.
	But there's nothing wrong with repetition.
	Repetition is how you learn.
	Repetition is my job.
	I am paid to repeat myself.
	Repetition is what I do.
	Anybody get that reference?
	It's a Simpsons joke.
	Here we go.
	This is Mark Elias, a Democrat attorney.
	He's a smart guy, by the way.
	The problem is not that he's not smart.
	The problem might be that he is smart.
	I mean, if you look up the term chutzpah in the dictionary, you find the idea that Carrie Lake is saying that there is voter suppression.
	So he's saying chutzpah, which means audacity, to say that Carrie Lake is saying that there's voter suppression.
	His conclusion is not that there is no voter suppression or that there was no voter suppression.
	His entire premise is that it takes audacity for Carrie Lake to complain about it because it's in fact there, as he's going to go through meticulously, but it's the Republicans' fault.
	So listen to this.
	That Carrie Lake is saying that there is voter suppression.
	They're complaining that there are long lines.
	Well, you know why there are long lines?
	There are long lines because the Carrie Lakes and the Republicans have been making it harder to vote.
	There were long lines.
	Thank you.
	In Arizona.
	They're complaining that voters were disenfranchised due to voter registration laws.
	You know why?
	They were disenfranchised due to voter, whatever he said.
	They were disenfranchised.
	There were long lines.
	They were disenfranchised.
	You know why?
	It's their fault.
	Because Carrie Lake and the Republicans have made it harder to register in Arizona.
	They're claiming that ballots were thrown out due to mismatched signatures.
	You know why?
	It happened.
	You know why it happened?
	Because when we sued Arizona to make signature matching more accurate and make it easier for people to cure their ballots, they opposed us.
	And by the way, on the long lines point, while they're crying crocodile tears about people waiting in line for an hour or two in Maricopa County, where are they talking about the students who waited for six hours in the cold in Michigan?
	To vote in their election.
	What the heck does Arizona have to do with Michigan?
	So yeah, there were long lines.
	There were apparently voter mismatched signatures.
	And there was voter disenfranchisement.
	But it's Carrie Lake's fault, apparently, who's never been in office.
	And the Republicans' fault.
	By the way...
	Okay.
	I don't care whose fault it is.
	Fix it.
	But anyways, Mark Elias made the most compelling argument to support all of Carrie Lake's claims.
	So she filed...
	An election contest, which is going to a hearing on the merits tomorrow.
	The defendants, Katie Hobbs, Maricopa County, Arizona, filed a motion to dismiss.
	And the ruling was released yesterday.
	And I'm looking for it because I have it.
	The ruling came out yesterday.
	We're not going to go through the whole thing.
	I'm going to go through.
	It's not that long.
	The link was posted on our vivabarneslaw.locals.com right there.
	Everybody should also just go become a member, a non-paying member of the community.
	Tons of amazing stuff, a great community.
	And if you want to support the work that Robert and I do, off-platform and on-platform, $70 a year.
	It'll be $7 a month.
	And if you buy a year up front, you get two months off.
	Well worth it if I do say so myself.
	Humbly.
	Let me pull up the...
	Decision.
	I know I have to go to Windows.
	I know I have to go here.
	PDF.
	This is it.
	So this has been posted on our Locals community.
	Barnes did a...
	I believe he did the highlighted version.
	Okay, it's good.
	We can see it.
	And we're going to go through this.
	Okay, so the bottom line, there were 10 claims, 10 causes of action, 8 of which were thrown out.
	The two that I care to focus on, one was for...
	The signature issue.
	And one was for the free speech issue.
	Because as part of the Twitter files that we now know about, we also know that Katie Hobbs was using Twitter back channels to take down posts leading up to the election.
	And so according to the judge, That's not problematic behavior for the purposes of...
	What's the word?
	For violating of the rules...
	For violating the rules that they were accused of violating.
	I'm going to pull up some notes here.
	It was...
	Manipulation of free speech.
	It's not election misconduct under Arizona law.
	I had to get the election misconduct word.
	So let me bring up...
	Oh, it's there.
	Okay, I forgot about that.
	Let me find it again.
	This is the decision.
	Under advisement ruling, after considering the filings and arguments of the parties and considering all alleged facts and drawing reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-moved contestants, the court finds as follows.
	It's a motion to dismiss from the defendants, which means that they have to basically take for granted the allegations made by the plaintiff and interpret them in the most favorable light before deciding...
	Excuse me.
	Before deciding to dismiss, because the plaintiff has not yet had a chance to adduce evidence on those claims, so they have to interpret them in the manner most favorable to rejecting the dismissal, the request for dismissal.
	Background.
	Okay.
	Contestant Carrie Lake initiated this election contest with the filing of her complaint in special action and verified statement, yada, yada, naming defendants Katie Hobbs personally and in her capacity as Secretary of State.
	No misconduct there for being the Secretary of State who needs to certify the election in which she's running as a candidate.
	What could possibly go wrong?
	And the following identified people, yada, yada, yada.
	Bill Gates, the one that we saw has a slight problem at 20% of the locations, okay?
	And a bunch of other people.
	And Maricopa County, yada, yada.
	On December 5th, 2022, Secretary of State Katie Hobbs published the official canvas for the general election.
	1,270,000 votes for the plaintiff.
	And 1,287,000.
	Let's just call it 18,000 vote.
	No, 17,100 vote difference.
	17,000 vote difference of an aggregate of, what do we have, 2.5 million.
	After we know that Katie Hobbs...
	And others used social media, used Twitter to take down posts, either critical of her or in support of Carrie Legg.
	We know it.
	We know that there were long lineups on Election Day because the vote tabulators weren't working.
	We know that.
	And the difference was 17,000 votes, nonetheless.
	Pending before the court are three motions to dismiss, yada, yada, yada.
	Okay.
	And then we get into the discussion of the motion to dismiss.
	Let's see this here.
	Okay, there's nothing.
	They go over what is required for motions to dismiss.
	You got to interpret all of the allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, yada, yada, yada.
	Are there enough allegations in the four corners of the suit interpreted most favorably to the plaintiff in a manner that would justify prematurely dismissing the lawsuit?
	A to the 10. You got violation of free speech, count one.
	Illegal tabulator configurations, count two.
	Just remember these, we'll come back.
	Invalid signatures on mail-in ballots, count three.
	Ballot chain custody, count four.
	Equal protections in count five, due process.
	Secrecy clause, incorrect certification, inadequate remedy.
	Okay, whatever.
	Constitutional rights.
	You'll notice that all of them except for two get dismissed.
	That's good enough in a very meaningful sense, but violation of freedom of speech.
	Let's focus on this one.
	Plaintiffs' first count alleges that defendant Hobbes and Risher's actions constitute per se violations of the First Amendment that merit invalidation of the election results.
	Not only does the verified statement fail to set forth an unconstitutional infringement on plaintiffs.
	Why?
	Because Twitter did it.
	We didn't do it.
	We didn't make them do it.
	Was Katie Hobbs paying Twitter to do it as well?
	And even if it did, it would not set forth misconduct under Arizona law.
	Even if, listen to this, people.
	Not only does the claim not set forth an unconstitutional infringement on plaintiff's speech, even if it did, it would not set forth misconduct.
	Even if it did set forth unconstitutional infringement on plaintiff, it would not be election misconduct under.
	Let that trickle down into your soul and be digested into the rubbish that that conclusion of law, I believe, is respectfully submitted.
	plaintiff complaints of two acts the secretary and recorder's censorship of certain social media posts by reporting them to the Department of Homeland Security and Center For internet security, electronic misinformation reporting portal.
	Why do they have a reporting portal to Twitter?
	And the recorder's presentation of CISA on the needs of election officials concerning purported election misinformation.
	It is unclear after briefing what legal argument plaintiff is attempting to make by use of the word censorship.
	In their response to defendant's motion to dismiss, plaintiff argued that she need not set forth a First Amendment claim to prevail, but then argues that the challenged acts were illegal.
	On what basis illegality of these acts could be argued apart from an alleged infringement on the freedom of speech, the verified statement does not say.
	It's very poetic to put the second half of the sentence first.
	On what basis it could be illegal, it does not say.
	And I like green eggs and ham, I do.
	Though the quintessential censorship prior restraint, when the government says you cannot publish that, take it down before, makes no appearance in the verified statement, given that the verified statement frames this as a First Amendment.
	Challenge.
	The court will proceed on that basis.
	It is certainly true that a government has no power to restrict expression.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	Do we need to go to the end of this?
	I should read it.
	It's subject matter or its content.
	Indeed, content-based laws that target speech based on its communicative content are presumptively unconstitutional and must pass muster under the strict scrutiny.
	But this analysis is premised on state action.
	It's not the state doing it.
	It was just the state asking Twitter to do it, and Twitter did it.
	It's a private actor who happens to be funded by the FBI, infiltrated by the FBI.
	FBI agents working there.
	Set that aside.
	It's a private actor.
	This is the key deficiency with the claim against the recorders and the secretary's respective reports to the election misinformation portal.
	After the report is made, there is no further conceivable state action.
	Who's the judge?
	Who's the judge?
	I just want to get the name for the purposes of my joke here.
	Well, who the heck is the judge?
	Madam or Mr. Judge, may I introduce you to the Twitter files?
	There's no further conceivable state action.
	Twitter.
	To take one example, takes down the posts that offend its terms of service after a report is made and neither the recorder nor the secretary are alleged to have control over the process or alleged to have the authority to compel such a takedown.
	Isn't it so convenient?
	They can ask it.
	Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
	You have a nice social media company there.
	Be ashamed if something happened to it.
	We have people on the inside.
	Would you be so kind as to look into this?
	I'm only the...
	What was she?
	The Secretary General?
	Clown world.
	Nor does the First Amendment restrain the government from engaging in speak contrary to the views of some constituents, a proposition which defeats the claim under the recorder for his presentation to CISA.
	At the United States Supreme Court held in Mattel versus Tam, when a government entity embarks on a course of action, it necessarily takes a particular viewpoint and rejects others.
	The free speech clause does not require government to maintain viewpoint neutrality when its officers and employees speak about that venture.
	Okay.
	To the extent that the verified statement raises the Arizona constituent's independent and broader guarantee of free speech, they do not defend this argument in the briefing.
	I hate when the judges say that.
	Like, oh, you didn't say this.
	Had you said this, maybe it would have been different.
	I don't think there's anything they could have said.
	Even if it were an unconstitutional violation, it wouldn't be election misconduct under Arizona law.
	Moreover, even if plaintiffs have successfully pled a First Amendment challenge, she cannot argue that these alleged First Amendment violations constitute election misconduct.
	Really?
	Please go on.
	The statute requires misconduct on the part of election boards or any members thereof in any of the counties of the state or on the part of any officer making or participating in a canvas for a state election.
	Two types of misconduct are therefore implicated.
	One, by election boards or members.
	And two, any officer making or participating in a canvas.
	What she does on social media is not part of the canvas.
	They're not automatically members of the elections board.
	Okay, whatever.
	So if defendants committed misconduct, it must be done while making or participating in canvas to come within the ambit of A1 under the law.
	Both alleged actions, both actions alleged to be misconduct, took place months prior to canvassing.
	It only influenced the canvas.
	And consequently, it cannot be considered misconduct under the statute, even viewing the allegations in light of the motion.
	Even if they had abused of their position to influence Twitter, to get them to take down stuff that would have been helpful to their political adversaries in a current election, it wouldn't have been election misconduct under the law because it has to be done by the representatives during the canvas, not months before on social media.
	Count one dismissed.
	Illegal tabulator configurations.
	Let me just see if this is the one that I had on my Twitter.
	I want to go through the whole thing.
	You all can go check it out in vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	That's vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Latches.
	Oh, yeah.
	No, count three.
	Let's just skip ahead.
	I think the count two is the one where we get it.
	Hold on.
	Sorry.
	Toggle my windows here.
	Illegal tabulator configurations.
	I think they got this one in part, which is a very good one.
	Yeah, okay, fine.
	So the tabulator configurations.
	We'll read just the first paragraph, and then we'll go to the end.
	Plaintiff alleges that the ballot on demand printers that malfunctioned on the day were not certified and have vulnerabilities that render them susceptible to hacking.
	I'm not a fan of alleging things which are going to be exquisitely difficult to prove, but from what I understand, I think it was the ballot on demand printers malfunctioned which caused delays which disenfranchised voters.
	According to a declaration, plaintiff alleges separately that the ballot on demand printers malfunctioned because of an intentional action to delay voting the day of, which would penalize disproportionately They succeed in part.
	They say, no, the ballots on demand don't need to be certified.
	There's plenty of wheels in the election machine that don't need to be certified.
	But whether or not they were intentionally programmed to have problems If they did that, that might have an impact on election, so you're going to have to prove that at trial.
	So they say here, plaintiff has nonetheless also alleged intentional misconduct sufficient to affect the outcome of an election, and thus has stated an issue of fact that requires going beyond the pleadings.
	The court takes no position as to the evidentiary weight it will give to plaintiffs, proffered experts at trial, and notes that at trial it must indulge all reasonable assumptions in favor of the election.
	When weighing the evidence before it.
	However, evidence is not before the court at the motion to dismiss stage.
	There's no evidence.
	They just take the pleadings at face value.
	Pleadings made under the auspices of Rule 11. Accordingly, plaintiff must show...
	Listen to how the judge narrows down what the plaintiff is going to have to allege.
	Not that they malfunctioned, causing delays which prejudice people's right to vote by neglect, incompetence, or whatever.
	This is what she has to show.
	Accordingly, plaintiff must show at trial that the ballots-on-demand printer malfunctions were intentional.
	And not just that they were intentional.
	They were intentional and directed to affect the results of the election.
	And that such actions did actually affect the outcome.
	That's three ands to prove things which are going to be incredibly difficult to prove.
	Godspeed, Carrie.
	But look at the way the judge narrowed it down.
	Now if they malfunctioned because of neglect, because of incompetence, because of, I don't know, grotesque, grotesque corruption, negligence, whatever, that won't be enough.
	It has to be intentional.
	Whether or not reckless disregard or gross negligence qualifies as intentional, I don't know.
	They had to have been deliberately sabotaged, basically.
	But not just that.
	Recklessness, incompetence, that affected the outcome?
	Not enough.
	It's got to be deliberate.
	And it had to have been deliberate for the purposes of affecting the results of the election.
	Deliberate, I don't know, because you're angry at a location, won't be enough.
	Deliberate because you're an anarchist who just wants to screw things up, might not be enough.
	It has to be deliberate, intentional, and intentionally directed at affecting the results.
	And not just that.
	That it did, in fact, affect the outcome.
	The judge is not placing an impossible burden of proof here.
	The judge is just, you know, being reasonable.
	Accidental, and it probably did affect the outcome, you don't get a new election.
	You don't get remedy.
	Accidental, negligent, definitively impacted the election, you don't get remedy.
	It has to be intentional.
	It has to have been intentionally to affect the results of the election, and it had to have actually, in fact, Affected the outcome.
	I still think that that case can easily be made.
	Easily.
	Invalid signatures on mail-in ballots.
	Listen to this, people.
	Barnes always makes the joke.
	He says it's not ripe by summer.
	It's moot by winter.
	And it's latches by spring.
	It goes from no cause of action because there's no cause of action to moot because the damage has already been done.
	Or to latches you waited too long.
	Listen to this.
	Invalid signatures on mail-in ballots.
	I mean, we heard Mark Elias talk about this.
	You know why?
	That's pretty good, actually.
	We heard Mark Elias talk about this.
	Just going back to the chat for one second.
	Okay, good.
	You know why?
	Because they voted to make it more difficult to...
	We sued to allow us to verify signatures.
	That's why there were problems matching the signatures.
	Well, let's hear what the judge has to say about this.
	Plaintiff next argues that the signature validation methodology utilized by Maricopa County did not comply with statute.
	Specifically, plaintiff argues that the review of the mail-in ballot signatures conducted pursuant to the Maricopa County Election Manual was inadequate.
	You know why?
	Because Republicans made it more difficult.
	She makes reference to Maricopa County Signature Review declarations that are critical of the process used to cure ballots that, at first glance, did not match the signature on file for that voter.
	But the defendants argue that this claim is subject to latches.
	Sorry, hold on a second.
	Do I need to get latches?
	Latches, I'm not going to pull it up.
	It's a common law principle.
	Do I have it still here?
	It's a common law principle in equity.
	And it's derived from French.
	Lache in French means cowardice, technically, or lache, but it also means someone who failed to act.
	In common law legal systems, latches, lache, remissness, dilatoriness, from old French, laches, is a lack of diligence and activity in making a legal claim.
	You waited too long.
	You knew someone was stealing your IP and you wait a year and a half.
	You can't get injunctive relief.
	Okay, that's the idea of latches.
	And by the way, just to distinguish this also, what Mark Elias was arguing was that the Republicans made it harder to cure ballots where the signatures didn't match.
	Here, what they're arguing is the exact opposite in that, I presume, the issue is that the signatures don't match.
	And the ballots were nonetheless counted because the mail-in ballots is primarily how the Democrats took 2020 in some of these midterms.
	So the idea that Mark Elias recognizes there's an issue with matching the ballots, but when he said we sued to make it easier, that was the flip side of what Carrie Lake, I presume, is complaining about in that signatures were not being matched and they were counting ballots that ought not to be counted because there was not a signature match.
	Okay, latches is an equitable doctrine that claims that it can't be brought after an unreasonable delay.
	Let's just hear what the unreasonable delay is here because, spoiler alert, defendant's motion on this count denied.
	Was it count four?
	Did I skip over one?
	Sorry, no, I skipped it over.
	Where was three?
	Sorry, must be dismissed.
	Let's hear their latches.
	Let's see how long it took them to act.
	Considering first plaintiff's delay, plaintiff makes much of a report by Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, issued way back when, in April 2022.
	April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November.
	Seven months earlier.
	That reported that the, quote, early ballot affidavit signature verification system in Arizona, and particularly when applied to Maricopa County, may be insufficient to guard against abuse.
	Again, here, they're not trying to make it easier to match signatures.
	They want to make it easier to dismiss signatures that don't match because it's ripe for abuse, according to Surgeon General, I'm joking, Attorney General Mark Berdovich.
	Hold on a second, I'm going to cough.
	It's not the Rona.
	I just got...
	Just got a tickle in my throat.
	I'm a scoozie.
	Whatever the merits of that...
	I don't even need to consider the merits of that position.
	You waited too long, Carrie.
	Seven months?
	That's an eternity.
	Latches.
	This is like knowing that they were going to bulldoze your house for a year and a half and then filing for an emergency injunction the day they show up with a bulldozer.
	Not.
	Whatever the merits of that position apply to these facts, plaintiff was on notice by April.
	At least of the procedural defects she now raises in her challenge and offers no explanation for the delay.
	I doubt that she offered no explanation for the delay, madam or Mr. Judge, but let me offer an explanation for the delay.
	She did not raise procedural defects.
	She raised a report that flagged potential procedural defects, not actual materialized defects, because it said it might happen.
	Let me just go back and read it.
	Early ballot signature verification system, and particularly when applied to Maricopa County, may be insufficient to guard against abuse.
	Not will be insufficient to guard against actual abuse or has been insufficient to guard against past abuse.
	It may be potentially insufficient to guard against potential abuse that might occur in the future, meaning it hadn't happened.
	And it was all hypothetical at the time this report was issued.
	And lo and behold, it might have materialized during this midterm.
	Nope, not making any statements of fact.
	I'm just arguing logic.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	She didn't offer any explanation as for the delay?
	Well, how about nothing had materialized yet until the actual midterms?
	Maybe just that small detail.
	You knew of a report that flagged a possible potential issue.
	And you didn't sue.
	Back then when nothing had happened yet?
	Shame on you.
	Latches, you're out of here.
	As for prejudice, applying latches to election challenge to the extent she relies on a ballot review conducted of 2020 ballot signatures.
	The report plaintiff relies on was presented in June 2022.
	Again, months before the instant election.
	Yeah!
	The election hadn't happened yet.
	There hadn't been any materialization in this election of potential ballot signature problems.
	How can you sue for something that hasn't happened yet?
	You know what would have happened had Carrie Lake sued in April?
	It would have been dismissed for ripeness.
	No standing.
	I'm sorry, Carrie.
	What prejudice have you suffered?
	Well, none yet.
	I mean, the election hasn't happened for another seven months.
	Oh, I'm sorry, Carrie.
	So you don't actually have any signatures that don't match up that confirm this potential risk?
	No, the election hasn't happened for seven months.
	Oh, wait.
	We'll come back when it happens, if it happens.
	Come back.
	If it happens in seven months.
	And more importantly, the judge might say, well, even if you have proof that it happened in the past, you don't know what's going to happen in the future.
	If it does happen in the future, you don't know if it's going to happen on a scale large enough to impact the results of the election.
	Come back when it happens.
	That's what would have happened.
	The judge would have laughed her out of the courtroom then and probably sanctioned her attorneys, whoever they were, if they filed the suit.
	If they filed the suit.
	On the basis of something that had not yet happened, and even if it were to happen in the future, would not be known to be determined on the outcome of the election, they would have kicked her out of court and sanctioned her lawyers, had she done it then.
	Do it however many months after the election?
	Latches.
	You waited too long.
	You should have done it back before you had a cause of action.
	And had you done it then, you would have been kicked out for no standing, no prejudice.
	Come back when it happens.
	Come back when it happens?
	Oh, I'm sorry, it's no longer not right.
	Now it's latches.
	Judicial nonsense.
	As for prejudice, as another department of this court indicated in dismissing another election claim, any procedural challenge post-election asks us to overturn the will of the people as expressed in the election.
	Not if the will of the people was tainted and affected by signatures that didn't match.
	If it's the result of unmatched signatures that should not have been counted, it's no longer the will of the people, madam or Mr. Judge.
	This isn't rocket science.
	This isn't even judicial science.
	This is common sense.
	Holy crab apples.
	This is an exceedingly high degree of prejudice against both parties.
	If the results do not...
	Accurately reflect the will of the people because they included signatures that ought not to have been included.
	It is not the will of the people as expressed in the election.
	It's the will of the people as manipulated by a defective election.
	So because it's a done deal, we can't undo it now, even if it's a done deal based on having counted ballots that ought not have been counted.
	Count three, dismissed.
	Thank you.
	I don't think we need to go through the rest of this.
	What's the one that they kept?
	Constitutional rights.
	Dismissed.
	Wait a minute.
	Hold on.
	Dismissed.
	Dismissed.
	Count nine.
	Count eight.
	Incorrect certification.
	Dismissed.
	Count seven.
	Dismissed.
	Count four.
	Five and six.
	Dismissed.
	Which one was kept?
	Oh, defendants' motions are denied as to count four.
	Sorry.
	So this is...
	Ballot chain of custody.
	Plaintiff's next claim is that the violations of the election.
	So they violated election rules by not having a chain of custody.
	Just a minor thing, you know, like it's 101 of any evidence in criminal proceedings.
	Specifically, plaintiff argues that one, the ability of employees of the county's ballot contractor to add ballots of family members and two, the lack of an inbound receipt of delivery from both constitutes misconduct.
	This is in addition to complaints about the handling of the ballots in 2020.
	The allegations concerning 2020 have no bearing in this context, and the court does not consider them.
	Defendants dispute the lack of compliance with chain of custody laws and claim that plaintiff has misunderstood the forms required.
	Deal with it at trial.
	As presented, whether the county complied with its own manual and applicable statutes is a dispute of fact rather than one of law.
	This is true as to whether such lack of compliance with both intentional and did in fact result in a changed outcome.
	So they have a claim.
	That's it.
	All right, everybody.
	I don't think we need to go into more detail than that, but no, the dismissal...
	The dismissal is some serious judicial gymnastics.
	We'll call it judicial mental gymnastics.
	That's not going to go on a shirt, but...
	Serious judicial mental gymnastics.
	That's it.
	But bottom line, chain of custody, very important.
	And we'll see what the evidence is.
	I'm skeptical because this judge sounds like, I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the defendants that they thought they were complying with the rules and I don't know that it made an outcome.
	What difference does it make if we didn't have chain of custody over tens of thousands of ballots in a contest that was decided by 17,000?
	And the ballot on demand.
	Were they deliberately sabotaged, intentionally problematic, so that they would delay voting the day of so that a bunch of Republicans would have to wait hours on end and many of them would invariably go home because they have families, kids to feed, dogs to walk?
	We'll see.
	But bottom line, tomorrow there's going to be a hearing and we will be live streaming it.
	Okay, let me see what I had here.
	Random stuff.
	Government paid Twitter millions of dollars to censor info from the public.
	Elon Musk.
	And I had asked Elon on Twitter, did you know about the level of FBI involvement before you bought the company?
	A sincere question, because I think it's good if he did, good if he didn't.
	If he knew this and still bought, not just the scene of a crime, but he bought an intelligence extension of the government, good for him for being crazy?
	And if he didn't know, well, my goodness, that might be something that might have been relevant to know before buying the company.
	I'm just going to close some of the windows.
	There's a few more fun stuff.
	Oh, there's a good one.
	Oh, son of a beast.
	I forgot to bring this up.
	This is just the evidence of FBI misconduct.
	The FBI that's influencing elections by pressuring social media companies to take down posts and paying them millions of dollars for their time.
	Also, admit to falsifying evidence, FBI attorney admits altering email use for FISA application during Crossfire Hurricane investigation.
	Former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith pleaded guilty today in the U.S. District for the Court of Lula to a false statement offense stemming from his altering of an email in connection with the submission of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act application announced by John H. James, special attorney.
	He modified an email by deleting from an email and adding to that email that Carter Page was not a government asset when he was an intelligence asset.
	Didn't just delete something from the email that said he was a government asset.
	Deleted it in an email that he was not a party to.
	Didn't receive or send the email.
	Deleted is not an asset.
	Sorry, deleted was an asset.
	Inserted is not an asset.
	Printed up that email, gave it to his boss, who then submitted that falsified document to a secret FISA court to obtain the unlawful renewal of a spy warrant on Carter Page and indirectly the Trump campaign.
	That's the FBI that people are expected to trust now.
	Let's just bring this one up.
	What's this?
	Oh, yeah.
	We brought the picture of Krista Freeland getting the jibby jab or her booster at the beginning of this show.
	She wasn't wearing a mask.
	This is a tweet from the same day.
	I don't know when the picture's from.
	She's wearing a mask here for some reason.
	Kid's not.
	Woman's not.
	Krista Freeland is wearing a mask for this particular photo-op because The Canadian government is a gosh darn gong show.
	And speaking of the gong show that is the Canadian government, before we wind everything up here, Melanie Joly, Deputy MP Ahunswick-Cartierville, Minister of Foreign Affairs.
	Melanie Joly works with the Trudeau government.
	I believe that's her.
	Oh yes, look at this.
	So authentic.
	Oh yes.
	Tell me, Melanie.
	Talk to me about politics.
	Oh, what's that?
	I'm wearing my beautiful quirky socks.
	Am I not just the sexiest man on earth?
	Melanie Jolie, Minister of Foreign Affairs, don't ask how she's qualified for that position.
	And that has nothing to do with anything but the fact that she's grossly unqualified for that position, as evidenced by the fact that it's a joke.
	Tweeted out yesterday, for the first time, Canada will seize and pursue the forfeiture of assets.
	It's also known as stealing, but whatever.
	Worth $26 million, belonging to an oligarch sanctioned for his complicity in Putin's war of choice on Ukraine.
	Putin and his accomplices will not be able to hide from the consequences of their actions.
	Oh, crap.
	The wording of this is so nauseating.
	Putin's war of choice.
	Canada will seize and pursue the forfeiture.
	We're going to seize and sell, collect.
	The assets worth $26 million belonging to an oligarch, a sanctioned oligarch, presumably a Russian oligarch who's been sanctioned under, sanctioned by the Canadian government.
	They're going to see, I mean, they've got to pay for that.
	How much did they just promise over to Ukraine to fix its power grid?
	$115 million?
	Oh yeah, that money, they've got to find that money somewhere.
	So let's go see some assets of people that we've arbitrarily sanctioned.
	For their alleged complicity in Putin's war of choice, whatever the hell that...
	They mean his voluntary invasion of Ukraine.
	You know what's amazing about that tweet?
	The Canadian government offers more due process rights to sanctioned Russian oligarchs than they do to their own citizens.
	They got a taste for how easy it is to seize bank accounts, freeze bank accounts, demand the liquidation of assets.
	In the absence of any court order, in the absence of any conviction, in the absence of any accusations, they've gotten a taste for it.
	But they offer more due process rights to Russian oligarchs because at the very least, they wait until those Russian oligarchs have been sanctioned.
	When it came to Canadian citizens, when it came to their own citizens, they gleefully, willy-nilly, lick their fingers, see where the wind is blowing, invoke the Emergencies Act, and freeze bank accounts and assets with no due process.
	No accusations, no sanctioning, no nothing.
	And that is the absolute state of Canadian politics and the state of the world.
	People?
	That about does it for today.
	Let me go to the chat and see if I've gotten anything.
	Oh, man.
	I'm going to go for an exercise.
	I'm going to go for a jog.
	I think my...
	I should have some kids coming home soon.
	I'm going to go for a jog, get some exercise.
	Everybody?
	The Carrie Lake thing, I think underplaying, downplaying the importance of it going to trial tomorrow on the day after it's scheduled for two days, I think downplaying it is more spin, is more political spin than overplaying it.
	It's quite massive.
	I don't know how the appeal process would work on the two elements where I think it's absurd on its face.
	The latches.
	And even if they did violate First Amendment rights, it wouldn't be election misconduct because it occurred months before on a social media platform.
	Setting aside whatever rights of appeal there might be for that, this is going to be big.
	This is going to be huge.
	If only from a perspective of transparency.
	But I'm going to ask these questions of Robert tomorrow.
	We're going to stream it tomorrow.
	So stay tuned.
	There's cause to be optimistic here, in general.
	I think people are getting wise to the institutionalized level of corruption that is over the top.
	And it happened slowly.
	And then, like all things, it happens all at once.
	So let's just keep hoping that it's going to happen slowly and then happen all at once.
	I want to end something on a good happy note.
	A pumpkin cooking video seems very much out of season.
	Oh, let's see here.
	I'm going to get a good...
	I'll just take a short one here.
	Okay, we're going to live with it.
	Hold on.
	Maybe we could do Viva Fry Christmas.
	Have I ever done a good...
	That ain't going to work.
	Okay, maybe a drone.
	There's been a...
	Oh, yes.
	Let's do...
	Let's do a drone video.
	That's not my video.
	Drone leg wax.
	Let's do this.
	Okay, we'll do the leg waxing video, people.
	568 views.
	This is so cool to go back to old videos.
	It's going to be cringe, but it's going to be funny.
	The white pill, I think the mass awareness.
	And as much as you can have a mass psychosis, you can have a mass awareness.
	All things good and bad tend to happen very slowly than all at once.
	I think we're getting to the all at once portion, but I hope I'm not just being overtly optimistic.
	We'll see what happens tomorrow.
	Christmas is coming, people.
	It's not always an easy time of year for people, but it is still a beautiful time of year.
	Get out there, see some family in as much as, you know, we're allowed to.
	Talk to people, fresh air, sunlight.
	If you're in the Northern Hemisphere...
	There's no amount of natural sunlight that will replenish your levels of vitamin D, so take care of yourselves.
	Check your doctors and check your vitamin D levels.
	But more important than any of that, we're battling monsters.
	We do not want to become the monster.
	When staring into the abyss, the abyss stares back.
	And so, you know, take a gaze away from the abyss, even if I'm not all that good at doing it myself.
	Let's stare away from the abyss and stare at my hairy legs being waxed by drone.
	Because I'm a genius.
	Everybody, enjoy the rest of the day.
	I will see you all tomorrow.
	Peace.
	Very loud.
	Okay, take this.
	We have done this before, but I said we're going to do it right this time, because the last time we didn't do it quite right, I did one strip.
	I'm waxing my legs with the drone.
	But I'm going to do the entire leg and not one little strip.
	Now, come and look at how genius I am.
	Maybe she wants her legs waxed.
	Jan, do you like your legs waxed?
	No, no.
	Okay, so here, check it out.
	I'll show you the setup here.
	It's genius.
	I'm genius.
	Where'd you get that tray?
	Yeah, it's your mom's tray.
	Now, what I've done is reinforced the strips with a little piece of plastic, punched a single hole in it for ease of putting the rope through.
	We're going to run like a little group.
	What happened to the 80-20 rule?
	This is 80 /20.
	Awesomeness.
	We're gonna do a munter hitch.
	Okay, then we are going to firmly affix the wax.
	Oh yeah, there you go.
	Oh yeah, that looks good, eh?
	Okay, let's see here.
	We're gonna start recording on the drone.
	Hold on.
	Adults are doing important things here.
	You ready?
	Three, two, one.
	Yeah, it hurts.
	I kind of like it.
	Hold on.
	That was one.
	That was, we got some.
	Oh yeah, look at that!
	That's pretty good.
	It's gotten a lot of hair.
	Do ladies reuse strips?
	Use them twice?
	Yeah.
	Maybe not if you have that much hair.
	No, I don't get that hair.
	So now we're going to do number two.
	You have to put the wax down.
	Come closer, come closer.
	That is a substantial amount of hair.
	That's disgusting.
	You married me.
	Okay, attempt.
	Before you started waxing.
	Yeah, you didn't do this before.
	Oh, not that I told anybody.
	Okay.
	I think we need more of a momentum run-up this time.
	Yeah!
	Bring it!
	Oh yeah, that's nice and crisp.
	I don't always wax my legs, but when I do, it's with a drone.
	Nope.
	This is for adults only.
	Because waxing your legs with a drone is serious, dangerous business.
	Wait, am I supposed to...
	Is it supposed to go up or like rip up or like up against the grain?
	I've been doing it wrong.
	Is it against the grain?
	No, wait.
	You put it down and then they rip up.
	Three, two, one.
	Yeah!
	Oh, that was the perfect one.
	Look at that strip that it took off.
	Oh my...
	Okay, that's how we have to do it.
	We have a system.
	Okay, we got four more strips to do.
	Three, two, one.
	Oh yeah!
	It's pretty good actually, yeah.
	We might start a salon here.
	three two one Oh yeah!
	Have we ever met before?
	Yes.
	I'm gonna ask you a question.
	I need an honest opinion.
	Look at my legs.
	Which do you prefer?
	And how would you rate this as a wax job?
	Feel it.
	Feel it.
	It's a little...
	It's a pretty good one.
	Pretty good job.
	There are a few patches.
	I missed this spot here.
	Yeah.
	I missed...
	Right there.
	That's the spot.
	Oh, that had a scat.
	That's always the problem area.
	I miss that all the time.
	How much on 10?
	6.5.

▲