Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 19, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

01:57:23

Rebel News Confronts Bourla in Davos; Crowder v. Daily Wire Saga Twist & MORE! Viva Frei Live

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	A year after the convoy came to the Capitol, can you reflect on where you think the movement is right now?
	I mean, there's clearly a heightened police presence here.
	There are protesters outside Do you feel the movement has grown?
	Do you feel it's abated?
	What's your read on what's happened over the past 12 months?
	Did you notice that smirk?
	I think that's a better question to ask Mr. Polyev.
	He seems a lot closer to the convoy.
	My approach is very much on making sure We're not going to go through the full five minutes of this, people.
	Five minutes!
	And 38 seconds.
	I guess maybe a little less if you include the question at the beginning.
	Five minutes of psychopathy.
	Notice the question was...
	Your reflections on the protest?
	I'm going to leave that to Pierre Paulievre and now I'm going to go on to a five-minute unhinged tirade.
	It's for Canadians.
	We know people are worried and even frustrated about how the world is unfolding around them.
	No, no, no, no.
	Do you notice that?
	When I...
	Call Justin Trudeau a psychopath, a narcissist.
	It's not a clinical diagnosis.
	It's an observational opinion.
	Do you notice how one element of personality disorder, narcissism, sociopathy, whatever you want to call it, it's never taking responsibility.
	It's always deflecting and passing the buck of responsibility onto somebody else.
	What does he do here?
	What does he do here?
	Worried and even frustrated about how the world is unfolding around them.
	Worried about how the world is unfolding around them.
	No, Justin Trudeau.
	I'm worried and concerned and frustrated about how you are destroying my country.
	I'm concerned, upset, and enraged about what you, through your policy, have done to my fellow citizens, to my friends, to my family, to me.
	Not the world unfolding around me like you have no active part in it.
	You psycho.
	I'm going to get angry and I'm going to get frustrated and people say, Viva, you shouldn't call Justin Trudeau a psychopath.
	I've had friends say, yeah, that language is too hyperbolic.
	It's too over the top.
	If you don't watch this and understand that you are listening to an actual psychopath talking, then we have differences of opinions and I prefer mine.
	And as a politician, you have two choices.
	You can either try and amplify those fears, make people even matter, reflect that anger, that uncertainty that people are legitimately feeling because the world is changing in unpredictable ways.
	You can either amplify that, which I didn't do when I said those people are putting us all at risk.
	They're putting at risk their children and they're putting at risk our children.
	Those people are putting us all, oh no, I didn't amplify it.
	I didn't direct the rage.
	I wasn't the source of promoting vitriol.
	They're racist.
	They're misogynist.
	They're anti-gay.
	They're anti-Semitic.
	Oh, no, I didn't do any of that.
	If you thought you heard that, if you thought that I slapped you, it's in your head.
	Reflect that back at them without offering real solutions.
	Or you can choose to buckle down and deliver on the kinds of things that are going to make people feel confident in their own future, in their kids' future, in their community's future, in their jobs.
	In their jobs.
	Make people feel confident and secure in their future and their jobs while we fire people for medical decisions based on policy that I, as Prime Minister...
	I can't go the entire way on this.
	I listen to it.
	It's gaslighting.
	It's someone who has been abusing you saying, no, that bruise, you had that bruise before.
	And by the way, notice the way his voice also changes.
	It's getting lower.
	He gets more guttural.
	He's using catchphrases.
	What was the catchphrase?
	It doesn't matter.
	We'll get it again because he repeats the same catchphrases.
	It's the choices you have to make as a leader.
	Quite frankly, when...
	I did it for you.
	It's choices I had to make as a leader.
	You think I like doing this to you?
	I mean, it is abuse.
	Mutatus, mutandus.
	You think I like doing...
	You made me hurt you.
	If you had just gotten the damn shot, none of this would have had to happen to you.
	Mr. Polyev's best solution to inflation is to buy cryptocurrency?
	That's not responsible leadership.
	What the hell are you talking...
	What answer...
	What question are you answering right now?
	Cryptocurrency?
	Do you have any reflections on the protest?
	Cryptocurrency!
	People had bought crypto when he told them that was the best way to opt out of inflation.
	They would have lost half of their life savings.
	Oh, and you know what's amazing?
	Justin Trudeau, had they bought crypto last week, they would have been up 25%.
	I'm an idiot.
	Every decision I've ever made with crypto has been the wrong one.
	It's legalized gambling.
	I'm not touching it.
	My investments are with a professional, not with a compulsive idiot like myself.
	Oh, if they had bought crypto when he said it, they'd be down 50%.
	Well, if they bought crypto last week, they'd be up 25%.
	So it depends on the time frame you want to make your statement, Trudeau.
	That's how it works.
	That's not a solution.
	What we're talking about here, rolling up our sleeves, doing the hard work, investing.
	Pulling up our sleeves, doing the hard work, locking you down, firing you, penalizing you.
	It's for your own good.
	Good jobs on assembly lines like this one that are building the products that not just Canadians want, but the world wants.
	Doing it with cleaner energy.
	Doing it in an environmentally responsible way and putting workers and communities at the center of what they do.
	Listen, there are always going to be politicians out there who try to exploit legitimate anger and concerns that people have.
	Can you believe that he's making this statement?
	Expecting us to understand that he's not talking about himself.
	He's trying to convince us that he is not one of those politicians that exploited legitimate grievances that we have.
	...out there who try to exploit legitimate anger and concerns that people have.
	Try to exploit the legitimate anger that people have.
	You know, like when he said those people are putting us all at risk?
	When he said those people can't get on planes and trains in a country that's...
	4,000 kilometers coast to coast.
	When he basically said people should be penalized, discriminated against, shun.
	They shouldn't be tolerated.
	How do we tolerate these people?
	Oh, and he's going to lecture us about the politicians who exploit anger?
	But that's not the way to get something built.
	I can't do it.
	Okay, I can't do it.
	We've done enough?
	I can't do it anymore.
	It goes on for five minutes of the most unhinged tirade you've ever heard, says the guy who some people say has been on an unhinged tirade for how many minutes now?
	For five minutes.
	I have self-reflection, people, to a flaw, okay?
	I have it to a compulsive, obsessive disorder, some might say.
	Now, he gave this speech, and I don't know the time frame within which he gave it as relates to Jacinda, whatever her name is, Jacinda Ardem from New Zealand resigning, tearfully resigning.
	We're expected to feel bad for her.
	I don't know when he gave it in respect of that, but I would have great difficulty believing that Trudeau did not know that Jacinda Ardem was about to resign or had already done it.
	And so maybe I'm reading a little too much into it, but I'm reading absolute despair.
	I'm reading absolute loss of control.
	He knows the gig is up.
	And the tides are turning.
	And people are not putting up with this horse poop anymore.
	I'm self-censoring because I don't want to swear because it doesn't make me feel good when I swear.
	And sometimes it doesn't make people in the crowd feel good.
	I don't know if he knew that Jacinda Ardem had already resigned.
	And I suspect even if she hadn't already, he knew it was coming because they all know it's coming now.
	They know they've gone too far for too long and there's no going back.
	There's no walking this back at this point.
	They've caused harm to nations, to societies, to communities, and to people, to individuals.
	The people they were, oh, the government's there to protect you when it's not abusing you.
	Oh!
	Okay, so people in the chat said yes, enough.
	Viva gonna hurl.
	All right, I saw a super chat.
	Let me bring in the super chat before I give the standard disclaimers.
	It's amazing how Trudeau can state things which express exactly how they act and try to pin it on his opposition.
	Truly an example of psychopathic actions.
	Thank you very much for the Rumble Rant.
	Super chats, YouTube takes 30% of those on YouTube.
	Rumble Rant has the equivalent.
	We're on Rumble now.
	We're gonna go exclusive after the interview with Ezra.
	They take 20%.
	So if you want to support the channel, that's one way to do it.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com is the best way to do it.
	And what was I going to say?
	Oh yes, before I bring on Ezra for this amazing, amazing...
	Ezra and Rebel News team is in Davos and it's amazing.
	And they caught Albert Bourla by some fluke outside the perimeter, the protected perimeter of Davos.
	They stumbled across him on the street like Marcellus Wallace stumbled across...
	Or that it was...
	Oh, gosh.
	What was his name?
	Bruce Willis.
	Butch.
	Like Butch out of Pulp Fiction coming across Marcellus Wallace at the intersection.
	They just came across Albert Burla.
	But before I do that, I got to thank the sponsor for today's show.
	Today's sponsor is Field of Greens.
	Did I share it yet?
	Here we go.
	Field of Greens, people.
	I have it.
	I have it here.
	And by the way, so everyone should know, I've had two cans of Red Bull in the fridge for a week.
	You know what that means?
	It means I haven't drunk them because I've substituted my unhealthy habit for a healthy habit.
	Most people don't know you're supposed to have five to six or seven servings of raw fruits and vegetables a day.
	It helps with nutrients, antioxidants, regularity for those who are interested.
	Most people don't do it.
	In fact, most people have terrible, terrible habits.
	They don't exercise enough.
	They don't eat healthy enough.
	I exercise almost every day.
	I eat healthy every day.
	But this is a good habit to replace the bad habits.
	Field of Greens.
	Desiccated vegetables.
	It's powdered greens.
	It's the thing.
	If you don't eat five to seven servings of fruits and vegetables a day, one spoonful twice a day, it is one serving of fruits and vegetables with all the antioxidants.
	Full serving, fruits and vegetables.
	Antioxidant power, boosted immunity.
	It is USDA organic, made in America.
	I always say it looks like swamp water, but swamp water is nutrient-rich water.
	It tastes great.
	It's a great habit.
	Go to fieldofgreens.com.
	Promo code VIVA.
	You'll get 15% off your first order and 10% off a subscription.
	And if the link is not in the pinned comment, it will be by the time people watch this on rerun.
	Fieldofgreens.com.
	Thank you very much.
	And good stuff.
	Looks like swamp water.
	Tastes great.
	Good habits.
	And may those two cans of Red Bull stay in my fridge for weeks to come.
	Now I'm going to bring in Ezra.
	I only see a black screen and he was saying the internet.
	Might not be great.
	So I said, just as long as we have the audio, it'll be good enough.
	I hear audio.
	Ezra, how are you doing?
	I'm fine.
	I'm sorry.
	The internet connection here is weak.
	I'm literally at a train station in Davos, and I have to get on the train in about 10 minutes.
	So can you hear me okay in the meantime, though?
	I can hear you perfectly.
	I mean, it's crackling, but it doesn't matter.
	It doesn't matter.
	We're doing this.
	Ezra, first of all, thank you so much.
	What you did yesterday with Avi Yamini, I don't know if they give Pulitzer Prizes.
	I don't know what the appropriate award for that should be.
	You deserve something.
	But just tell us, what are you and your team doing in Davos right now?
	Sure.
	Well, we're here all week covering the World Economic Forum to try and find out a little bit more about the organization, especially the people.
	And one of the ways we do that is we're...
	On the main drag in the town.
	It's not a big town.
	And it's, of course, there's a part that's high security.
	You have to be accredited.
	Basically, only approved voices are in.
	But just beyond those gates are a lot of pavilions.
	It's like a trade show for globalists.
	Everyone's there from BlackRock to Microsoft to Facebook.
	And so you have these VVIPs strolling down this strip.
	And they have their guard down because they think they're amongst friends.
	And, you know, some of them I would recognize on site, like Chrystia Freeland, for example, or Mark Carney.
	And others, you sort of have to spot their name tag.
	Well, one of our entourage said, who is that?
	Because he recognized the face but not the name.
	I looked at them, I said, oh my God, that's Albert Borla.
	CEO of Pfizer, and he just left the green zone, the high security zone, and now he's out here within reach of us peasants.
	Let's just go ask him some questions.
	And I'm lucky that Benji spotted him.
	I'm lucky that I had my mic on me and our camera member there.
	And my first question was, when did he know?
	That his vaccine did not stop transmission, because that was the basis for all the vaccine mandates.
	And then soon my friend Avi Yamini joined in, and we walked and talked with him for about three and a half minutes, which doesn't sound like very long, but when you're asking questions of someone who refuses to say a word to you, it feels like an eternity.
	And that was magnified by his handlers sort of jostling us and trying to get him away.
	And there was this one moment you can see in the video where he tries to go in some little alley or corridor, but there's a chain link fence and he doubles back.
	And I counted afterwards, we asked him 29 questions.
	Now, some of them were rhetorical questions.
	Will you apologize?
	Although that's a real question, by the way.
	You know, he didn't give us a single substantive answer, but we put real and fair questions to him, and the fact that he didn't say a word, he just was in stony silence, is a reminder that this fella had zero accountability for two years, and in fact, I think he was stunned by the experience, because I don't think he's had...
	An unscripted media encounter in his life.
	And I think he was so used to obedient media.
	Earlier that day, he had done the rounds of the accredited media, the approved media at Davos, and obviously they weren't going to ask him about...
	Young men having heart attacks.
	Obviously they weren't going to ask him about myocarditis because that would be unseemly and they might be kicked out of the club.
	So we asked him 29 questions that none of his regime media would ask him.
	And listen, it speaks for itself.
	Last I checked, the video's been seen 4 million times on Twitter alone.
	And it's really the talk of the town wandering around today.
	lot of people you could tell had watched that video.
	It's going to go viral.
	It has gone viral and it deserves to.
	But watching his response, it was like watching Omar Algebra flee your other reporter and I would just walk, smile like a buffoon with a grin on his face.
	Like, have a nice day.
	It's true.
	Your questions were more legitimate questions.
	Avi were rhetorical, but everyone has their style and it has its place.
	He wouldn't even answer when you became aware of the fact that it was not preventing transmission, which, like you observed, was the basis for vaccine mandates, because don't prevent transmission, it no longer makes any sense.
	He had no security on him?
	Not that you're a threat, but he had no security?
	Well, he had a large guy with him who may have been security, but I have to tell you, the police in Switzerland are very respectful of civil liberties, more so than in Canada.
	So the police did not get involved at all.
	And my dealings with private security here is that their bark is worse than their bite.
	And I wasn't doing anything wrong.
	I was not physically stopping him.
	I was not touching him.
	I was not threatening him.
	I wasn't even shouting at him.
	I was just speaking forcefully.
	So I have to say that unless you're in private property where they can eject you...
	Doing that sort of street scrum that we did is completely lawful.
	And in fact, I dare say that you have more freedom to do that in Switzerland with their police than in Canada.
	So yes, he had a big guy with him.
	I don't know if that was security, but he didn't do anything.
	And I think that was wise.
	I should tell you, and we haven't put the video up yet, but we had a...
	A similar scrum, a walking scrum today, and we're just putting the final touches on the video now, with Greta Thunberg.
	These people, you can find them literally walking the streets here, and that's why we came here, because it is, for a news watcher and a political talker, this is a target-rich environment.
	You have a lot of VVIPs.
	You have cabinet ministers.
	You have prime ministers.
	You have princesses.
	You have tycoons.
	Larry Fink of BlackRock is here.
	I had a brief question to former Secretary John Kerry.
	He had a bodyguard with him, but again, the security has a very light touch here.
	In fact, let me make a personal invitation to you.
	To come to Davos next year, either with us or on your own, and just to linger in the downtown.
	Because you would have a different list of people you would find interesting than I do.
	And given that there are hundreds or even thousands of interesting VVIPs, you would visually recognize quite a few.
	And some would be friendly and some would be hostile.
	For someone who cares about the news and has strong opinions about news makers, it's like fishing in the best fishing hole around.
	Now, the fish don't necessarily like that.
	Albert Bourla didn't like it, but I think you personally would love the experience, and I'd be delighted to...
	To show you the ropes as much as I know them.
	We'll see what the world looks like next year, Ezra.
	I might take you up on that.
	Now, one question.
	At the end of the interview, you said you were sort of a little out of breath.
	My reading of that is you are not out of breath due to physical activity.
	I lose my breath when I get enraged.
	Now, did you feel a sense of rage when you're asking them these questions?
	Were you nervous?
	Or were you just overwhelmed by the moment?
	Were you enraged?
	You know what?
	I was thinking about that because I...
	I mean, we weren't going that fast, and I am fat, but I'm not that unfit.
	I think it was an emotional tension for a few reasons.
	First of all, this is someone who I've been thinking about and talking about for two years, and my questions were valid.
	I am mad at him.
	I think he has a lot of explaining to do, and I think he's gotten away with terrible things.
	So there was some emotional anger there.
	Also, I was projecting and trying to think smart on the fly.
	When the video starts, it was about literally five seconds after I saw him.
	So I didn't have time.
	So you're right, Avi and I, some of our questions weren't perfect.
	But I say again, we had five seconds notice.
	And then we thought, and we didn't want any dead air, so to speak.
	We didn't want to waste a moment.
	So it was like we were brainstorming our questions in real time, which is a little tougher than it sounds.
	Like suddenly you see Mark Carney, suddenly you see John Kerry, suddenly you see the vice president of Microsoft, so you've certainly got to shift gears and think of questions, and you might only have 30 seconds.
	So I think it was a combination of stress, my emotional anger towards this character, and that it was a bit of physical exertion, walking quickly and projecting.
	Yeah, it's a bit of adrenaline because this is a VVIP.
	And you've got him for about one minute.
	Now, I've got to tell you, I've got to step on the train.
	And I apologize for leaving your show soon.
	But I just have to get on this train.
	I'm going to be delayed.
	Thank you for having me on.
	And I very much appreciate your support.
	Absolutely.
	And I'm going to show some of the video, but not all of it.
	But Ezra, keep it up.
	Amazing stuff.
	Thank you, my friend.
	Bye-bye.
	All right.
	Have a good day.
	All right.
	That's it.
	Oh, first of all, his questions were perfect for different reasons for all the questions, and perfect also because of its on-the-fly imperfection.
	If it were too polished, it wouldn't have been the same on-the-street interview.
	But I know that when I got that call from the government telling me that I had to quarantine my healthy 12-year-old daughter for two weeks because...
	We came over the border and she's not vaccinated even though we had recently been infected and had negative tests.
	I couldn't catch my breath while I'm sitting in the car because I'm like...
	You get that tightness in your chest where you're just enraged at the situation.
	Share the link to the full video.
	Hold on.
	I'll show...
	I'm going to show some of it but not all of it because everybody's got to go.
	I'm going to share it in the link.
	Give me one second to pull it up.
	Rebel News confronts...
	No, that's my stream.
	Hold on one second.
	Present.
	Share.
	Chrome tab.
	And by the way, I just read the news about Alec Baldwin charged.
	I haven't even read the article yet.
	Okay.
	Going to do this.
	Boom shakalaka.
	We're sharing it.
	Look at this, people.
	Albert Bourla.
	By the way, I just love to also just take random guesses.
	How much does that scarf cost?
	How much does that jacket cost?
	I have never been one to care about clothing.
	Mr. Borla, can I ask you, when did you know that the vaccines didn't stop transmission?
	How long did you know that without saying it publicly?
	Thank you very much.
	Thank you.
	No, that's not the answer.
	Albert, that's not the answer.
	Thank you very much is what you say to the government when they keep shipping you billions of taxpayer dollars for a product that doesn't function as intended or, as some people might believe, functions exactly as intended.
	That question.
	I mean, we now know that the vaccines didn't stop transmission, but why did you keep it secret?
	Thank you very much.
	You said it was 100% effective, then 90%, then 80%, then 70%, but we now know that the vaccines...
	He's so freaking cool.
	So well-dressed, lap of luxury, Switzerland, my scarf, my hat, not my hat, my tie, my glasses.
	Do not stop transmission.
	Why did you keep that secret?
	Oh, by the way, there you look at Ezra.
	Like, if you know Ezra, you know when he's angry.
	Why did you keep that secret?
	Have a nice day.
	Have a nice day.
	I won't have a nice day until I know the answer.
	Why did you have a nice day?
	Oh, what's behind him?
	Palantir?
	Have a nice day.
	Thank you.
	I don't answer the questions from you, pleb.
	You rabble.
	You're not one of us.
	I'll answer your questions.
	I poopoo in your general direction.
	Here, I'll put the link in both Rumble and...
	Yeah, go watch it because I don't want you getting the entirety of the free view here.
	Go show...
	It's glorious.
	And then you get Avi Yamini there.
	The badass of all badasses.
	I mean, everybody at Rebel News, you have to have cojones, proverbial cojones to do what they do.
	But I would be too afraid of just getting tackled and cuffed and arrested and tased.
	Don't tase me.
	Don't tase me, bro!
	But it's amazing.
	It goes on for five minutes.
	The extent of Albert Bourla's accountability.
	Thank you very much.
	Have a nice day.
	Now let me go count my money.
	Unbelievable.
	So that's it.
	That was Ezra Levant.
	That's what's going on in Davos.
	They have a perimeter.
	So only the good journalists like Brian Stelter can get their way in to host.
	Panels on disinformation.
	If you guys don't know about that, I talked about it yesterday.
	So that's it.
	It's glorious.
	There's one other thing which is equally glorious.
	Speaking of plebs, and I know that he's going to snip and clip this portion of the stream.
	As well he should.
	Because it's glorious.
	For those of you who don't know pleb, I interviewed him when we were over the Christmas holidays.
	He started off as a parody account and then, you know, got into analysis because he actually has insightful things to say.
	Even if I disagree with pretty much all of his take, which I'm convinced now is a troll on the PPC bros and vote splitting.
	And if you vote for Maxime Bernier in the PPC, you're re-electing Trudeau.
	I disagree with him on that.
	But I actually believe that he might be a PPC mole.
	Getting people to go to the PPC by highlighting the fact that Pierre Poiliev might be something of a little of a hypocrite.
	Something.
	Set that aside.
	He has been blocked by Rachel Gilmore, which is a feat.
	And he put out a video, a goodbye video, which I'm going to share with everybody.
	I'm not going to play...
	You know, I don't even want to play any of it because I will get a copy strike for the audio.
	Here.
	He comes on to lament in a robe and no shirt to lament.
	It's going to be a hard video.
	Okay.
	That's all I want to show because the music stuff is bullshit.
	I'm not working for the copyright holder of...
	I don't know what song that is, but I'm not working for them.
	So what I...
	Get out of there!
	Sorry.
	What I will do is go watch it.
	It's three and a half minutes of the most hilarious gloriousness or the most glorious hilarity.
	Excuse me.
	You'll see.
	26 minutes, 50 seconds.
	It's time to move over to Rumble exclusively, but let me just read.
	Oh, I get a call from the government.
	And it's some...
	I don't want to demean...
	It's some buffoon with a day of training.
	Here are my checkpoints to tell you to imprison your healthy 12-year-old daughter.
	Government-sanctioned child abuse is what it would be in any other realm of the universe.
	Okay, I missed the super chat.
	Cease out or viva.
	Don't change.
	So many creators get caught up and fall in line.
	You are my favorite because you're passionate and have your own views.
	We're going to talk about this because people are going to accuse me of censoring for the algorithm, which I've never done.
	I've self-censored because I don't want to be an a-hole and I don't like swearing all that much.
	I know kids do watch the show even though, hey kids, adults swear all the time.
	When adults tell kids not to swear, it's not hypocrisy.
	It's not hierarchy.
	What it is, is it's a subset of a rule that you don't know about.
	When kids swear, it sounds terrible.
	When adults swear, they know the context and it sounds funny.
	Salty Cracker is funny.
	Who was I listening to that was swearing the other day?
	I forget who.
	It might have been crowded.
	There's room for swearing as an adult, but when kids do it, it sounds terrible.
	But we're going to talk about the self-censorship and censorship at large when we get into Stephen Crowder Daily Wire because there have been developments.
	And Barnes, for anybody who's following us, at vivabarneslaw.locals.com has an amazingly insightful position on it.
	Slightly different than what I think, but my goodness, do I appreciate his position.
	And here's a make a quote of it.
	When two smart people or parties disagree, chances that one party is entirely wrong and totally idiotic Decrease exponentially.
	When two reasonably educated parties disagree on something, chances are they both have legitimate points.
	It's not like the type of thing where censorship, good or bad.
	No.
	It's not like hormone replacement therapy for minors who can't consent to drinking alcohol or tattoos.
	Okay.
	There might be a gray zone, but on the essence of that debate, there's no really, yeah, maybe both sides have some decent points.
	Exceptions aside.
	When it comes to the matter of Daily Wire versus Steven Crowder, you're dealing with educated, sophisticated people who have thought out their positions.
	Chances are that one is entirely evil, one is entirely good, one is entirely right, one is entirely bad.
	Very unlikely.
	But by the way, S. Cowder, Cooter, Suter, C. Suter.
	I'm seeing Steven Crowder everywhere.
	C. Suter, thank you very much.
	There were a couple of other...
	Alec Baldwin charged with involuntary manslaughter.
	Dude, I got the article up in the background on Fox News.
	David Tomes.
	Happy New Year, Viva.
	Justin Trudeau has broken the law, yet seems to be exempt from any repercussions.
	How is it possible?
	It's not illegal when the government breaks the law.
	That's it.
	That's the only subsection to that rule.
	It's not illegal when those who make the laws break the laws.
	GOV.
	Can't disagree with that.
	So before we go over to Rumble exclusively, fieldofgreens.com, promo code Viva.
	Thank you very much.
	See, I had a glass of water, and I was going to do it on screen, but I don't want to spill.
	Liquids and powders around a computer, not a good idea, but link will be in the description.
	Viva, what is it?
	It's fieldofgreens.com, promo code Viva.
	Okay, let us now go to Rumble exclusively in three.
	The link is pinned, people, in YouTube.
	Two.
	One.
	Oh, wait, I didn't do it yet.
	Darn it.
	Okay, hold on.
	Elon Musk's tweet.
	What is Elon Musk's tweet?
	Elon Musk.
	See this?
	Elon Musk.
	Five hours ago, it says...
	Okay, I don't see any tweet from Elon Musk.
	Okay.
	What do we start with?
	Do we start with Alec Baldwin?
	No, let's do the Daily Wire.
	Stephen Crowder dispute and the latest of it.
	Okay.
	First of all, let me just back up one second.
	Let me go to the chat here.
	There's a rumble rant.
	$10 from HPR Man.
	No more Trudeau clips, please.
	I've thrown up my lunch already.
	You know what would be good for that?
	A glass of Field of Greens for your daily dose of vegetables if you've already vomited your vegetables due to the...
	Whenever I watch these videos, I picture Lloyd Christmas out of Dumb and Dumber when he sees Harry dating his girl.
	That's it.
	That's all I can see.
	Oh, Veritas.
	Okay, that's the Elon Musk tweet.
	He tweeted Veritas.
	Is that a reference to Project Veritas?
	Anyhow, okay.
	Steven Crowder, Daily Wire.
	The latest.
	The 30,000-foot overview, for those of you who didn't watch yesterday and don't know what's going on, a few days ago, Steven Crowder put out a tweet, said, I'm done being quiet.
	The obvious joke being, when has Steven Crowder ever been quiet?
	Comes out with a video yesterday or the day before.
	I might be off on the date, doesn't really matter.
	A video detailing what he believes to be soft censorship or collusion with...
	A big tech censorship of conservative voices coming from an unnamed party based on a contract that Steven Crowder was negotiating or had stopped negotiating with this third party subsequent to his announcement that he's leaving the blaze.
	Steven Crowder was on the blaze.
	Louder with Crowder.
	Mug Club.
	Everybody knows Steven Crowder.
	He's awesome.
	Content-wise, awesome.
	Even if you don't always agree with it, even if it's not your method of doing things, awesome.
	Was on the blaze.
	Not renewing his contract.
	Typically, at this level, it's because of money and there's no shame in that.
	People are entitled to get paid what they're worth and not make money for other people without making money for themselves.
	Announces he's not renewing with the Blaze.
	Alex Stein, Primetime 99, Pimp on a Blimp, or Shrimp on a Blimp, he's coming onto the Blaze, so they'll retain that market of niche content.
	Starts looking to contract with other parties.
	Gets outraged by negotiations he had with an unnamed party, but everybody knew it was the Daily Wire.
	He didn't mention it when he went through the contract and said, look at this there.
	It's exploitive.
	It's unduly punitive on content creators.
	It seeks to censor them.
	It basically says if YouTube or other platforms demonetize your content, that we pay you less under the contract.
	And people were, rightly, based on that information at that stage of the discussion, rightly enraged.
	Crowder comes out with a contract.
	It's redacted the names.
	That basically says, if you get demonetized on YouTube, we're going to pay you 25% less than what we owe you under the contract.
	If you get demonetized on Spotify, 10%.
	Apple, 20%.
	I don't know, whatever it is.
	There was a whole section.
	And he says, look, this is a conservative outlet that prides itself, that promotes itself on being free speech, supporting independent thought.
	And now I've seen behind the curtains and they exploit their creators.
	They make them work exorbitant.
	You know, exorbitant amounts.
	They give them onerous terms of contract that penalize them if they are sick, if they miss a day.
	That onerous terms of contract that penalize them if they get demonetized subsequent to flagging, brigading, whatever.
	And then seeks to pass the buck of the penalty onto the creator, thus doing YouTube's censorship and bidding for them.
	And he's not entirely wrong in that assessment to some extent.
	Everybody knew it was the Daily Wire.
	Although it wasn't confirmed, which, you know, some people say, to Crowder's credit, he didn't name the party.
	But if we want to argue both sides of that, steel man both sides of it, yes, he didn't name the party, even though everybody knew who he was talking about.
	Also, not naming the party is not necessarily even more fair because he probably couldn't due to confidentiality provisions.
	Not naming the party is not necessarily all that much better because it causes suspicion among the community at large.
	Was he talking about...
	He couldn't have been talking about Rumble because Rumble was one of the platforms in the contract that they would have monetized his content.
	Was he talking about OAN, Fox News?
	So it creates suspicion within the community, other than making accusations publicly, which fights among allies, among ideological allies to some extent, should be fought privately.
	There's the old expression, compliment publicly, criticize privately.
	Not naming the party, it's a double-edged sword.
	Some could say everybody knew who you were talking about.
	By not naming them, you were still naming them.
	Others can say by not naming them, you're creating suspicion at large, which is not fair to the other non-implicated parties, whatever.
	So Steven Crowder puts out this video and starts a website called Stop the Con, predicated on the notion that purported conservative outlets...
	Are actually working hand-in-hand with social media, big tech censorship, to censure independent voices through the terms of that contract.
	Well, yesterday, The Daily Wire comes out with their video and says, yeah, it's us.
	Yeah, that's our contract.
	And yeah, we think it's a good contract and we don't think we've done anything wrong.
	And they put out...
	What's my problem here?
	They put out a 52-minute video, which I've now watched twice.
	Once to understand...
	And twice to timestamp so I could actually pull up the relevant sections.
	And they put out...
	I say, like, you may not be convinced or swayed by it, but they put out a rather compelling, a rather defensible position.
	On the one hand, they allege that Crowder just misunderstood certain provisions of the contract.
	And on the other hand, they also say...
	They do some things which are...
	They're not dirty.
	They're moves that they're allowed to make because Crowder did what...
	Crowder not pulled the first punch, but Crowder made the first move.
	So they're playing chess now.
	You had a set table of chess.
	And it's like, okay, well, I'll play you if you play.
	I don't really want to play.
	Oh, well, I just moved first, so now I get to move.
	Now we're in a game of chess.
	This is influence chess, social media chess.
	And at the end of the day, business chess, because at the end of the day, this comes down to money to some extent, and not in a cynical, unjust way, just in a realistic, nobody's running charities here.
	Not Steven Crowder, not Daily Wire.
	So Crowder moved first, and one could have anticipated what's going to be the next move.
	Well, Daily Wire comes out.
	I forget the guy's name, Joseph.
	Oh yeah, Joseph Boring.
	That's an unfortunate name.
	Oh, we'll call him Bearing.
	We'll call him Bearing.
	He comes out and now because Crowder made the first move, Barron comes out and says, look, this is our contract.
	We don't need people to defend us for this.
	We're proud of it.
	And by the way, we were offering Crowder $50 million over four years and $25 million for a renewal of two years if we decide to renew.
	That $50 million, just so nobody says Viva is being disingenuous, that $50 million is not like net to Crowder.
	That $50 million is so that Crowder can produce his own show that the Daily Wire would...
	I have intellectual propriety ownership over during the term of the contract.
	So like they say, Crowder says, look, I don't want you guys producing my show.
	I want to produce it.
	I have my team.
	I have my style.
	I have everything.
	I'll produce it.
	You give me $50 million a year.
	I will guarantee...
	Sorry, not $50 million a year.
	$50 million over four years.
	I will assume the costs of producing, employing everything, my own show.
	And I will deliver to you 192 shows a year.
	And if it costs Crowder...
	You know, the margins here, depending on who you ask, will vary.
	If it costs Crowder 20% to produce the show, well, then that's 80% that, in theory, Crowder and others split.
	If it costs him 50% to produce the show, well, then that's 50%.
	And whatever it is, if there's $2 million left over for the annual $12.5 million for production of the show, the $192 million, that goes to Crowder.
	I've heard varying estimates as to what the costs of production of Crowder's show would have been.
	But that's it.
	So now...
	Daily Wire comes out, and they get to say, look, it's our contract.
	We like it.
	And by the way, no one mentioned it before.
	We had offered Crowder $50 million, and then there were some other odds and ends in there, to produce his own show, $192 a year, along with other stuff.
	We get to monetize his channel and content during the agreement.
	We get to monetize his old content during the agreement, but after the agreement, that old content reverts back to Crowder.
	We get to monetize social media platforms that we create during the context of this agreement.
	We own the content that he creates during this agreement.
	So Crowder, here's 50 million bucks.
	You may not be an employee.
	You might be a subcontractor or whatever, but your work product for the duration of this agreement where we pay you $50 million a year to produce it belongs to us.
	Some of you might not like these terms.
	And in which case, the obvious thing would be, thank you, but no thank you.
	I don't agree to this.
	And let's move on.
	Where, hold on, let me just get to the notes.
	So where there were particular issues were the penalties that would result from potential demonetization because Daily Wire is saying, we get to monetize all the content.
	We own the content you create under the terms of this agreement.
	We get to monetize what you created before, but you will own it after the agreement.
	But if you get demonetized or if your content ceases being monetizable on certain platforms because of the things you say, We're going to apply certain penalties.
	And it was 25% for YouTube, 10% for the...
	But bottom line, it doesn't matter what the numbers are.
	If it gets demonetized on Spotify or canceled, if it gets demonetized elsewhere, Daily Wire is going to apply a penalty because we're paying you $50 million so that we can monetize your content during the term of the agreement.
	If we can no longer monetize it, we can't pay you the...
	We're not going to pay you the amount that we guaranteed to pay you on the basis that we could monetize it and therefore recoup the investment of the $50 million.
	Like it or don't like it, that's the idea, and it's not irrational.
	It actually kind of makes decent business sense.
	The issue is, as some are making a compelling argument, is the Daily Wire doing the censorship for YouTube?
	In the video, Jeff says, look, we're not taking the money away from them.
	YouTube is.
	Well, that's six of one way, half a dozen the other, because YouTube takes it away, then you take it away, so it kind of is you doing it for YouTube.
	The question is, though, Is that actually suppressing free speech?
	Are they trying to lock Crowder in so they can then slowly whittle down his independent voice, control the content that he creates, so on and so forth?
	I really brought that screen up too early because I want to go back to Rumble and just see what the chat's saying there.
	I think that's a fair assessment.
	I think that's a fair assessment.
	Let me see here.
	50 million over four years, correct.
	50 million over four years.
	If I said $50 million a year, I think I said that by accident.
	It's $50 million over four years, plus $25 million for a two-year renewal at the sole discretion of Daily Wire.
	Okay.
	Go watch Ricardo Law.
	He has a different opinion of the scope of the contract.
	Well, I didn't get to watch Ricardo Law.
	I watched Barnes, and Barnes makes a very, very compelling argument, which I'm going to get to in a second, and then we're going to discuss it Sunday night.
	Okay.
	The monetization is the issue.
	Daily Wire knows YouTube demonetizes Crowder a lot.
	Well, MK Geiger, 1968, that's a fair point.
	We're going to get to it because the Daily Wire addresses it.
	Some people are saying, well, Crowder's already demonetized on YouTube, so it makes no sense.
	And the guy, let me get to that part of the video.
	I took notes again, people.
	Gosh darn it.
	I don't remember where the part of...
	He said, we understand that and it wouldn't make sense for Crowder to start signing a contract that starts off with a 25% penalty.
	So these were negotiations that can go back and forth because I have a sneaking suspicion and as much as that contract was long and thoroughly drafted, there's a lot of boilerplate provisions in it that you negotiate afterwards and the guy from Daily Wire's ultimate point was this was our initial letter of intent, our initial...
	Offer, open-ended offer, where you don't commit to everything in the first draft.
	You certainly don't give everything the other party's asking in the first LOI.
	And we would have gone back and forth, not have Crowder do what he did, which probably burnt a lot of bridges.
	Speaker McCarthy, channel YouTube, offer to Crowder.
	Here we go.
	I'm going to go through the points of note that I took.
	And we'll get to it.
	And Barnes has a very, very good point, which Barnes is a smart guy.
	And beyond smart as an understatement, it's a thoroughly justified and supported position.
	It doesn't mean that there's no rebuttals to Barnes's arguments.
	So I suspect Barnes and Mercada are espousing a similar view on this.
	Okay, so hold on.
	Let's just start off at the beginning here.
	All right.
	Our friend Stephen Crowder has launched a new initiative called Stop Big Con.
	And in the video announcing the launch of the project, he talked about...
	Leaving the blaze and all the different offers that he filled it from other conservative organizations and what he thought were the real problems with those offers.
	And that's led a lot of people to speculate about whether or not the Daily Wire is one of the people who made him an offer.
	In particular, are we the ones who made the offer that he put up on the screen and talked about at length?
	Let me just start off with the Our Friend.
	That's passive-aggressive.
	Let's not...
	This guy, what's his name?
	Jeremy gives a very, very polished performance.
	He gives a polished presentation.
	This guy's not dumb.
	This guy didn't get to where he is by being dumb.
	And I don't think he got to where he is by being dishonest either because you only go so far in life by being dishonest.
	But starting off with our friend...
	There are several elements of passive aggressiveness in here, but quite obvious, because I think he'd like to be aggressive if he could.
	The answer is yes, that offer did come from the Daily Wire.
	I'm not trying to hide that fact.
	I'm not ashamed of that fact.
	In fact, I think it's a very good offer.
	But I think there's a lot of...
	Well, of course, he would think it's a good offer because they would make money and they would be able to minimize their risk.
	That's business.
	Here's the document.
	The non-binding confidential term sheet.
	I'm just going to walk you through it.
	Non-binding.
	And he didn't mention confidential term sheet by accident.
	Non-binding confidential term sheet.
	And the argument is going to be whether or not...
	At the end of the video, he says, well, Crowder didn't sign, so there's no confidentiality binding the parties.
	He mentioned it.
	That also is another dig.
	Six minutes.
	Oh, in the six minutes, we get the terms of the agreement.
	So this is for anybody who doesn't want to watch this.
	They're going to beat it up a little bit.
	They're going to say, well, this should be higher and this should be lower.
	He's talking about the negotiations back and forth.
	That would typically be had.
	And you're going to come back and say, no, we're going to stand firm here, but we're willing to compromise there.
	And over time, you either get to a deal or you don't get to a deal.
	But that's how a good faith negotiation always works.
	100% of every interaction I've ever had with any talent, that's the process.
	And so here we go.
	Here was our offer.
	A four-year initial term with two-year renewal at DW's sole discretion.
	That just means Stephen's going to work for DW for four years, and if it's going really well, DW can retain him for an additional two years.
	Two, the fee.
	Remember, this is the minimum number that we thought would get the conversation started with Stephen.
	$50 million for the initial term, plus $25 million for the renewal term, if extended, paid in monthly installments.
	That was, you could hear the audio was a little different.
	That was edited over there.
	So that's the term.
	That's the term.
	Eight minutes, they talk about content and monetization during the term.
	Existing content.
	This just, again, Stephen's going to produce his own content.
	It has to be as good as the stuff that Stephen's audience has come to expect from him.
	And that'll come out of the 50 million.
	So it's not like all of that 50 million goes right in Stephen's pocket.
	He's going to use some of it to pay for...
	Bottom line, so that nobody thinks this is $50 million for Crowder and then Daily Wire produces everything and Crowder's a big greedy bastard.
	$50 million over four years, but Crowder has to assume the cost of production.
	What happens here?
	There's something here.
	For various reasons, right?
	He can disapprove of like 10% of the ones we bring in.
	He can disapprove if he owns equity and a direct competitor of one of the advertisers that we bring him.
	But, point D, if he doesn't read the requested ads within that framework...
	Then the content that he made won't be counted as delivered under the contract because it's all fine and good that he made a piece of content.
	But if we can't make any money off of it, then we're just paying him so that he can make a show.
	We're not paying him so that we can participate in any of the success of that show.
	And so the idea here is he's got to do ad reads.
	He has the right to refuse 10% of the requested ad reads.
	He has the right, obviously, to refuse ad reads that are for competitors.
	And then he has to do the other ones.
	Contractually provided, there'll be a reduction or a penalty, which makes sense because it makes sense to ask for this.
	And then you can negotiate back and forth like, okay, well, I get 10 freebies or whatever.
	This was the initial non-binding offer or letter of intent, however you want to call it.
	And I guess the main criticism from Jeremy is that there was no negotiation.
	Crowder got very angry at the initial offer.
	Replied to him as such and then went public without going public.
	I want to highlight this because he said, I find it offensive four times.
	Subtract a little bit extra.
	And again, you pay somebody $50 million, you should get the work.
	Monthly and quarterly content.
	Well, this is more valuable content and there's less of it, so the fee is higher.
	$250,000 if he misses that kind of content.
	Annual content.
	Well, this is the most important, most expensive content.
	If you were supposed to have done a complete documentary this year and you didn't deliver it, well, we're going to subtract a million dollars because that's one of the most important high-value pieces of content that we asked you to make that year.
	And by the way, to explain that, in addition, so $50 million over four years, produce your own content, but he had other obligations for which, well, he would not be remunerated, which were included in that $50 million, and that is that he would have to produce a documentary.
	And a comedy special.
	One special political, one special comedy a year for Daily Wire that they would take care of the marketing the production costs for, but he'd have to do it as part and parcel of his $50 million.
	Over four years would be every year, two specials.
	Political comedy, Daily Wire assumes the costs, advertising, production, everything, but he has to commit to it, and if he doesn't, a million-dollar penalty.
	Again, hey.
	These are not charities.
	This is not the issue in principle.
	This is not the basis of the ideological disputes between Crowder and Daily Wire, and we'll get to it.
	And then just as reset, the fee reduces each calendar year.
	Every year you start over fresh.
	Now I think he says it.
	That brings us to 13. Reduction of fee from lost revenue or boycotts.
	Again, this is one of the points that Stephen really focused on.
	He says we're enforcers for big tech, that we're doing big tech bidding, that we're punishing content creators if they run afoul of big tech.
	And first of all, that's just personally incredibly offensive.
	Don't care.
	Don't care.
	Incredibly offensive to have your friend and ally in 10 years of fighting this fight alongside one another.
	All that to say, nobody cares.
	It's not an argument.
	Being offended is not an argument.
	Especially, nobody cares about your feelings, just to quote Ben Shapiro, or facts don't care about your feelings.
	I understand what he's doing.
	He's trying to humanize the dispute here.
	He's also, probably is, very offended at what happened.
	But he says, I found that offensive four times in this video, which I found that suspicious.
	But it doesn't matter.
	Do I need to go to...
	He says it again at the...
	He said one good thing at 38, which is, I think, part of the disagreement here.
	Continue to pay him.
	Guaranteed money, whether his show makes money or not, and then we lose the business as a result.
	And now, no one pays Steven anything, and no one releases Steven's content.
	He has to go build it all from scratch in crisis.
	Ban.
	The Crowder content cannot be released on any of the major platforms because of his content being banned from those platforms.
	Then we'll reduce the fee if YouTube 20, if Apple 20, if Facebook 10, if Spotify 10. Same kind of concept.
	If the content simply cannot appear and therefore cannot not only be used for marketing, cannot be used to grow the brand, also can't be monetized, well, we can't pay him the same as if it was.
	If you're making 25% of your money on YouTube and now YouTube is permanently gone, you can't make that money anymore.
	It's not punishment.
	This is really what it comes down to.
	Stephen's philosophy seems to be I deserve to be paid millions and millions and millions of dollars Whether my show drives the revenue or not.
	Maybe he does.
	And maybe the revenue from other sources more than compensates for the YouTube.
	Maybe the, what's the word?
	The gravitational pulling of Crowder attracts other bodies to Daily Wire that more than compensate for whatever might be lost on YouTube.
	Those are negotiation questions.
	The issue here is the intent behind these issues.
	The issue here, the disagreement here, is the purported, presumed, or actual intent of these provisions, and that's what we're going to get.
	That's not a business relationship.
	He's not looking for a business relationship.
	He's looking for a benefactor.
	The Daily Wire is not a non-profit.
	It's a good line.
	Like it or not, that's a good line.
	The idea that, basically, Daily Wire is saying, look, Crowder is coming in with the perspective that it doesn't matter whether he's profitable or not, although I think he thinks and knows that he would be.
	He wants X amount of dollars regardless of whether or not we can make money off of his content.
	Crowder is going to say, you're going to make money off of other aspects.
	Whether or not you make money off of monetization on YouTube, it's more than well worth it.
	Points for negotiation in contract negotiations.
	The issue here, and it's the one that Barnes, and I presume Reketa also brought up, Is whether or not this is part and parcel of mainstream conservative media, and that being the Daily Wire, mainstream conservative media, not surreptitiously, but through the back door, directly, indirectly, deliberately, or accidentally, suppressing independent conservative voices.
	That's the issue.
	Why is Daily Wire doing it?
	Is Daily Wire doing it so they can rein in Crowder, suppress his speech, Limit his content, guide his content, thus silencing one of the true few independent conservative voices.
	Because I consider myself to be true and independent, but maybe I'm being stubborn here.
	I don't consider myself to be conservative yet, although I take it as a compliment when people call me that.
	Viva, they want to control him, says DVR Danmark.
	But that's the question.
	And my report, my retorts, and I'm going to talk about it with Barnes on Sunday.
	In that video, Jeremy makes a very good point that whether or not he has to tame it down on YouTube, first of all, Crowder already does that to some extent.
	He is demonetized on YouTube, but he's still on the platform.
	And maybe he does not limit any content that he creates whatsoever simply to continue to remain on the platform.
	Maybe.
	I suspect he probably doesn't.
	There are some jokes which he'll say.
	Even though I've been demonetized, I still won't make those on YouTube.
	There's certain comments I won't make on YouTube because that'll just get me booted from the platform above and beyond already demonetized.
	Jeremy from the Daily Wire's argument in the video is we don't want to silence him, suppress him, curtail what he has to say.
	In fact, the opposite.
	He's got a segment which I now know about called Piss Off YouTube.
	Or he had it on The Blaze.
	The idea that you say, hey guys.
	I can't make these jokes.
	I can't make this commentary on YouTube.
	So come to the blaze or come to the Daily Wire where I'm going to say what would otherwise piss off YouTube.
	That would be the retort.
	And in which case, that's going to maybe put a stick in the spoke of that wheel of an argument that they're trying to control and limit what he has to say.
	If what they're saying is, no, maybe on that platform, just to keep the biggest bullhorn to the biggest audience of 2 billion people while directing them over.
	To the Daily Wire, where he can make his segments piss off YouTube.
	Shit I can't say on YouTube.
	It's a great idea for a segment.
	That's the retort.
	The problem here, and people don't...
	Actually, before I even say the tribalistic arguments, but remind me if I forget.
	The problem here is that you're dealing with track records, you're dealing with histories, you're dealing with individuals, and Robert Barnes made an amazing point on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	You're dealing with an entity that has, traditionally, the Daily Wire Ben Shapiro, been pro-vax until they were not pro-vax, been pro-war, been anti-Trump, and anti-MAGA, anti-pro-Trump candidates.
	And so...
	You know, you're imputing intentions based on history.
	You say, look, Shapiro has been consistently wrong on a number of things where he's limited the discussion.
	And this would be the Daily Wire's effort to take someone like Crowder, who has been vocally anti-vax, vocally pro-Trump, vocally critical of the election.
	What was the other one?
	Vocally critical of the war.
	And silence him.
	Reign him in.
	Tame him like a wild horse.
	Or...
	Maybe just don't get kicked off YouTube so that we can have access to 2 billion people and then defer them over to the Daily Wire.
	It's one of the reasons where in my agreement with Rumble, it's not a question of just coming off YouTube and dropping the biggest market on Earth because that's where you need to not siphon the traffic.
	That's where you need to continue to generate the traffic from.
	Now, Barnes said it on Locals yesterday.
	I wouldn't have agreed to any of these.
	Terms either, myself.
	I'm not in the figures of this, but I am in the freedom of this.
	I wouldn't want to have these sort of Democles hanging over my head, but I wouldn't have tolerated those conditions had I seen them.
	But it's not something like even Rumble understands the freedom of expression is the idea.
	You don't come off the biggest platform and cut your nose off to spite your face out of principle.
	That's good for nobody.
	It's not even good for Rumble.
	So that is the discussion.
	Is it an indirect, surreptitious way for the Daily Wire to try to silence an independent voice?
	Or, as the Daily Wire is going to argue, is it a way to amplify that voice while creating parallel infrastructure to give that voice a safe platform?
	Come off YouTube, people.
	We're going to have the nasty show on the Daily Wire.
	Some people are very suspicious of Daily Wire, Ben Shapiro, because of their consistent historical positions, which have proven to be.
	Bad.
	Ben Shapiro has to come out now and, yeah, I got duped on the VACs because I was relying on the experts.
	Well, being too deferential to the authorities is a problem to begin with, but whatever.
	That's the dispute.
	Where do I stand on this?
	I wouldn't have signed that contract.
	I genuinely think Crowder's way of going about this was not the best way.
	For his own best interest as well, the issue is that I mentioned it yesterday, an employee that shits on their former boss, especially when applying for a new job, well, everybody's going to approach that employee with a great deal of skepticism.
	Anytime an employee poops on their former boss, the prospective employer knows that that employee is going to do the same thing about them to another future boss.
	What Crowder's done is made public a private dispute.
	And it's going to be a deterrent, I presume, for other parties.
	And I'm speaking for nobody except for what my rationale would be as a strategist.
	It might be a very big deterrent for Fox News to engage with them, if they ever would.
	Or OAN.
	And so, strategically, I don't like making private disputes public unless there's a damn good reason.
	Secondly, it can allow people to cast dispersions on Crowder's intentions as well.
	Making these accusations, it's not without people viewing it.
	As a potential exploitive technique on its own.
	There are people who are going to say that Crowder's doing this to drum up the drama so he can get email lists of people to log on to his new platform.
	And that his intentions aren't pure.
	Once you start publicly impugning someone else's intentions, people are going to do that to you.
	And whether or not the contract was just exploitive, that Daily Wire is just playing it a little bit too safe by not pissing off the big tech overlords.
	That's a critique of the company.
	And if you don't like the company, you don't like the contract, don't go there.
	But to do this, I mean, the question is going to be, right or wrong, does it make Crowder look good in the long run?
	And are people going to impugn Crowder's intentions to the same degree to which he's impugned the Daily Wires?
	But as far as the concerns go, Barnes makes a damn compelling point.
	This could be a very subtle way.
	Of suppressing, silencing, reigning in truly independent, provocative, conservative voices.
	And I can totally understand that.
	Now, I want to ask him about some of my questions later on, but there's a lot of super rumble rants that I want to get to here.
	And I'm going to go backwards from bottom to top.
	You know, I'll just start at the bottom here.
	He says he's exposing soul suckers from beers.
	Well, Meep Kid says, in the same argument they say, copy the same business model Crowder on...
	Piss off YouTube, kind of counter it.
	In the same argument, they say copy the same business model, Crowder on piss off YouTube, kind of counter it.
	I think so.
	If what you mean by that is piss off YouTube as a concept on the Daily Wire counters the argument that they're kowtowing to YouTube censorship, I agree.
	Okay, then we got JamesJK1234.
	DW, Daily Wire, needs to understand that there is a value add for Crowder.
	Well, I'm sure they do.
	It's not that they don't.
	Whether or not they're getting greedy is another question.
	$50 million, $75 million over six years, plus they assume production costs for the documentaries, which they make money off of, of course, plus they assume advertising costs for all of Crowder's content, which they make money off of and Crowder doesn't.
	They're just trying to figure out a way to make money off their investments.
	That's not sacrilegious.
	They most likely do understand this provision should be considered insulting even everything they know.
	DW is obviously money first.
	Taking an offer that you don't like as an insult, look, you know what it's going to get you?
	It'll maybe make you do something rash that will not be in your best interest in the long run, and it just causes fights among people who should be working together and not fighting each other.
	Do you find it insulting?
	Take a little pill, take a nap, chill out, and then go back to negotiating.
	The idea that you negotiate and everything you don't like is an insult.
	Well, it's a juvenile way of approaching business negotiations.
	You might be insulted.
	Okay.
	And to use the quote, offense is taken, not given.
	You find it insulting?
	How dare they not offer me $100 million?
	A, maybe check yourself.
	And B, maybe just take a deep breath and say, that's good.
	I'm insulted.
	Get over it.
	Go back to negotiating.
	Rob A. Viva, would you take $50 million over four years, the rest to be negotiated?
	Or is that figure too low?
	Let's just assume I even had $50 million.
	My concern for that amount of money is that people think they own you.
	Like $50 million.
	I mean, geez, Louise.
	The other thing is, how much money do you need in your life?
	192 episodes a year for what he does?
	It's a shit ton of work.
	I don't know what his family situation is like.
	I don't know what his personal life is like.
	192 Crowder episodes a year, plus a documentary, plus a comedy special, plus appearances, plus all the stuff.
	I mean, Jesus.
	I don't know what would be left in his life for that amount of money.
	Maybe it's worth it.
	I don't know.
	But for good or for bad, I don't have those problems to deal with.
	Kenzie67.
	$5 RumbleRand says, LWC Louder with Crowder has a base of over $6 million.
	He is a sure bet.
	He smells merch and mug.
	He sells merch and mug club.
	He wasn't looking for an offer.
	He just checked it out.
	Crowder was speaking up for small, younger creators.
	Get it.
	I get it.
	$6 million subs.
	$6 million followers.
	What do you think the conversion rate on...
	What do you think the conversion rate percentages of followers to paid subscribers?
	$6 million subs is good.
	It's free, Kenzie.
	So what do you think is the...
	Realistic conversion rate percentage-wise.
	You have a million subs, and you say, guys, it's going behind the paywall.
	How many do you think join you there?
	5%?
	Way too much.
	By Barnes' own assessment, it's 1% to 2%, which is still big.
	It's 300,000.
	Or sorry, if it's 1% to 2%, 300,000 is...
	The hell's my problem?
	I'm going to embarrass myself.
	Even at 1% to 2%, it's a lot.
	But what do you think the conversion rate?
	Six million free subs does not convert.
	It's not 50%.
	It's not 20%.
	It's not 10%.
	It's 5% at most generous, and it's 1% to 2% realistically.
	Still a lot.
	But then negotiate.
	What's the use of blowing up the ship?
	What's the use of blowing up the ship and imputing the illest of intentions to the Daily Wire?
	Genkin says he wouldn't be punished, just penalties will apply.
	That makes it better.
	It's a penalty.
	If you don't do what you're contractually bound to do and you've agreed to a penalty for not doing what you're contractually bound to do, what do you think should happen?
	If you don't like the provision, don't sign it.
	This is ganking $10.
	If you don't like it, don't sign it.
	If you sign it, don't complain about it.
	But don't complain about something that you didn't negotiate back and forth and you didn't agree to.
	Oh, it's terrible.
	Imagine.
	Imagine the Daily Wire wants to find ways to hedge their bets, make more money.
	Imagine that.
	Okay, Genkin, $10 says, basing penalties on actions from third parties that do not sign the contract and nobody on the contract have control over is beyond insulting.
	It's funny, for a crowd that always says, you know, facts don't care about your feelings, a lot of people are invoking insults, etc.
	The idea that they would say, if we cannot monetize so as to recoup our investment in you, we should split some of those risks, you can consider it insulting.
	Okay.
	Is the idea now that when anyone engages in a contract that has an insulting provision, they're going to F off and go public and make a public spectacle out of it?
	There is probably room to negotiate, especially since he was already demonetized on YouTube, so the idea of a 25% penalty didn't make sense to begin with.
	It was probably in there from a template provision from a previous contract.
	Oh, it's beyond insulting?
	Oh, okay.
	Well, I didn't realize we were all very sensitive.
	And in negotiation of contracts for $50 million deals, you know, we could just say it's beyond insulting.
	I'm walking away.
	I'm flipping the table over.
	Let me see if I missed any other ones here.
	So that's, okay, we got I'm Not Your Buddy Guy says, if you ask me, if you ask me, a part of me ponders that the Daily Wire never intended to bring Crowder on but wanted to put an offer out there.
	They hoped he would reject so they could at least say they tried to help a friend.
	I don't think that's a realistic interpretation given what we...
	What we see to be the terms of that agreement.
	75 million over six years.
	I do wonder what crowded production costs are because that is the important factor in all of it, obviously.
	No more Trudeau.
	I already puked.
	Okay, good.
	Space Power Monkey says, yes, if you turn in total bullshit with 50 million on it, then they should walk out on you while laughing really hard.
	Let me see.
	If you turn in total bullshit with 50 million on it, they should walk out.
	And you, while laughing real hard.
	Peacemaker says, why not make it public when someone acts this shady?
	Peacemaker, I'm curious, what do people think is so shady about this?
	These are almost standard provisions.
	You may not like them, but they're almost standard provisions.
	If someone's going to claim monetization over your channel, and then it's subsequently...
	Let's just hypothetically say...
	Let's take an example that will be less difficult to accept.
	So they take over a monetized channel, and the person comes out on that channel and just does nothing but scream racial expletives for 30 minutes.
	Oh, okay, well, there it's deliberate.
	There you're deliberately doing what you know will get you demonetized.
	Do you think that someone who agreed to pay you on monetizing your channel would have to assume that cost?
	Like, you take very extreme examples just to make it a little more easy to digest.
	They say, we're going to pay you excessive amounts of money, and how we're going to make that money back is by monetizing your content.
	If you deliberately sabotage the monetizability of your content, I think we would agree that they could apply a provision.
	Okay, so we can agree on that.
	Maybe.
	Maybe not.
	Maybe they say, like, I'm locked in for whatever and I can produce, I can say the most terrible things that I know are totally against the rules.
	I don't think most people are going to agree with that.
	So we agree.
	You can't do it deliberately.
	But now if they do it, you know, for politically motivated reasons, then you should deal with that.
	Let's say we agree with that.
	Okay, they'll say, fine.
	We will assume all risk of demonetization everywhere.
	Do you think the offer should still be $50 million?
	Or do you think they would say, okay, well, we'll do that.
	We're going to guarantee you nothing.
	No hinging, no hedging, no nothing.
	But it's not going to be $50 million.
	Let's just say they come up with $25 million to Crowder over four years and...
	No risk whatsoever for Crowder.
	Well, that's way too much less than the original offer.
	But if they're going to assume that risk, it's going to be factored into the amount they're going to pay him.
	Period.
	And that's normal.
	That's where you'd have negotiations.
	You say, no, I'm not doing that.
	I'm not stupid.
	You know that my stuff gets demonetized all the time.
	Why would I assume that risk?
	That's what I'm coming here for to avoid.
	Okay, well, we'll do it, but it's going to be 45 million or 40 million, not 50 million.
	The press is wrong, Bob.
	Snickerfritz.
	Even worse off.
	And so that's it.
	So the issue is, it's gotten so tribalistic that the second someone disagrees with another party, even though, you know, in theory, you may not agree with everything Ben Shapiro says.
	I don't agree with his position on gay marriage.
	I think it's absolutely, I won't say archaic because it's a religious concept.
	I disagree with it.
	Disagree with it in substance.
	I'm not sure if Ben would say, I agree with civil union, but don't call it marriage because marriage in the Bible is a man and a wife, etc.
	You can disagree with an individual and still be ideologically aligned in the long run.
	The problem here is everyone has gotten so tribal.
	The second someone does something that you disagree with, immediately have to go to the most ill intentions in order to demonize everything.
	Do I think the Daily Wire is out there to soft-censor independent conservative voices?
	No.
	Do I think someone can look at this contract and see that as a potential risk?
	Yes.
	Do I think it's an actual risk?
	No.
	I don't see that in reading that contract.
	Everything that Crowder wanted to do that would have gotten him demonetized off YouTube, he could have done in the same way he was doing with piss-off YouTube on another platform.
	The real risk there, however, is, as we've seen elsewhere, you know.
	Come off YouTube and go to a website where we're doing things that we can't do on YouTube.
	I do wonder if at some point in time YouTube is going to start penalizing people on the platform for non-offensive examples of doing that.
	Like, yeah, I want to talk about election fornification.
	Go to my substack or go to my locals and YouTube is going to say, oh, you can't promote that on YouTube.
	That's against our terms.
	Now we're going to yeet you.
	But I did not see...
	The hands being tied for censorship in the way that some people do.
	But I've been wrong before, and I'll be wrong again.
	And maybe I'm wrong here, but I think it requires knowing intentions that we don't yet know.
	And do I think that Daily Wire censors Candace Owens?
	No.
	Were they, you know, like Barnes Notes, though?
	However, they did not like the Kanye West incident with Candace Owens.
	But, anyhow, that's it.
	That's the contract.
	The issue is when you fight, and this is my fundamental belief, when you fight publicly, nobody comes out looking good.
	Very rarely does any one party come out looking totally good, totally clean, totally proper.
	Deal with that as you may, people.
	That is my opinion.
	You do not have to agree with me.
	And I hope that you do not always agree with me because that would be...
	That would be weird.
	Yeah, I did think that him saying Crowder's not a businessman or doesn't understand business is pretty stupid.
	I mean, it's juvenile because...
	It's stupid.
	I mean, Crowder understands business.
	Crowder understands business, or he wouldn't have been presented with a $75 million offer over six years.
	He's not just like a Picasso that can only paint.
	He understands business.
	But there's a lot...
	Again, nobody's going to come out of this looking totally clean.
	Jeremy's sitting there saying, I'm offended in this...
	And then subtle needles, our friend, our confidential agreement, and then disclosing...
	Telephone conversations that they had, which I'm sure Crowder's not going to have the same memory of.
	The whole point is this public fight serves no one, and it should have been a negotiation.
	And at the end of the day, if Crowder thinks that The Daily Wire is a shill for the man, a shill for Wojcicki, a shill for whatever, that they compromise their conservative beliefs and message for soft censorship...
	There might have been other ways of doing it more effectively.
	And I think for Crowder, it's going to complicate anybody else's ability to negotiate with him on a going-forward basis, because this is what he did to The Daily Wire.
	Without naming them, but I don't think that's much of a defense.
	It's going to be a red flag for anybody else.
	Will he do this to me in the future if he decides to impute ill intentions to my good faith negotiations?
	And if you don't think they're good faith negotiations, don't engage in negotiations with them.
	All right.
	And that's all I have to say about that.
	Public debating is very healthy, not outright fighting in my belief.
	BKVQ, 100%.
	If you think that Ben Shapiro is deliberately censoring his voice to remain profitable, call him out on it.
	People have accused me of that.
	Oh, Viva, you called it the jibby jab.
	You called it the rona.
	Why don't you just call it coronavirus?
	And I told you why.
	I'm not cutting off my nose to spite my face.
	Hey, it's great to yell into the corner of a room.
	It's also better just to...
	Play by the rules, which also illustrates how stupid they are, to keep the biggest access to the biggest platform, to amplify your message, so that you can then drive people over to Rumble, Viva Fry, or over to Locals, vivabarneslaw.locals.com, where you can hear the other opinion coming from Barnes as well.
	James JK one.
	JamesJK1234, $10 rumble round, says, It isn't that Daily Wire is a shill, it's more of that...
	When negotiating with industry leaders, you don't just start with non-starters.
	Crowder can just expose it, but it's a non-starter.
	Crowder can expose it once.
	Hey, James, this is the type of move.
	They say it's like the all-in in poker.
	It works every time except the last.
	Crowder can do this.
	He can expose it just once because everybody now going forward is going to know that this is how Crowder rolls if he decides he's been insulted by an offer.
	That's why, you know, if I were behind closed doors with him, I'd say, don't, don't, it's not, it's not how you do it.
	It's not going to make anyone look good.
	And it's certainly not going to serve your interest in the long run, unless now he's going to go build it on his own.
	Okay, let me see.
	Okay.
	Thank you.
	The blind eye says, you don't get it either, bro.
	Leave YouTube, then they will follow you where...
	You don't get cancelled.
	I don't get it, bro.
	The blind eye, I get it, bro.
	Okay?
	I get it.
	And they will follow you, not if they don't know you exist.
	They'll follow you.
	Rumble is an amazing platform.
	It doesn't have 2 billion users.
	And the funny thing is, even from Rumble's perspective, they don't want their creators jumping ship from YouTube because that's where you go to market.
	I get it, bro.
	I hate being called bro, by the way.
	Sorry, that was a pet peeve of mine.
	All right.
	I think we're done on that subject anyhow.
	Yeah.
	All right.
	I'm still missing it, Viva Kenzie.
	Okay, I'm missing it.
	Anyhow, it doesn't matter.
	We'll agree that those who have found nothing insightful for my opinion or my assessment, my analysis, will have found nothing.
	It will not be the first time.
	Okay, do we go to Alec Baldwin?
	Information warlord.
	Viva got triggered.
	It's so easy.
	It's very easy for people who are not dealing with this day in and day out for years to say, just burn it down.
	Viva, leave YouTube.
	Leave YouTube so you can say coronavirus instead of Verona.
	Leave YouTube so you can say the vaccine instead of Jibby Jab.
	There are people out there.
	Who will cut off their nose to spite their face?
	I'm not one of them.
	And I do genuinely think you highlight the absurdity of all of it by having to create code to say the things which they don't let you say.
	And sometimes just deal with the demonetization.
	Once upon a time, any video on Jeffrey Epstein would get demonetized.
	That didn't soft-censor me.
	Every single video on Jeffrey Epstein, regardless of how...
	Matter of fact, it was it would get demonetized.
	All right.
	It didn't make me change my content.
	It just made me make more content that was monetizable.
	So put it on Jeffrey Epstein.
	Put it on another video.
	Okay, let's go to Alec Baldwin.
	I think we've covered this.
	We'll see where it goes right now, but it's interesting.
	Okay, JamesJK1234, $10 rumble rant.
	I can appreciate it not being professional.
	We might have to stop the sentence there.
	But DW is lucky he even is communicating with them at all.
	Most companies would ghost you like a bad girlfriend.
	Sure, he can be more professional.
	Well, if we agree on it not being entirely professional, then we've already agreed on how it could have been done better in the first place.
	No one is perfect.
	And that is all.
	And I like Crowder.
	I like Crowder maybe even more than some people.
	And it's an unfortunate incident.
	We'll see.
	We'll see where it goes.
	Okay.
	Baldwin.
	Who could have...
	I need to go back.
	Anybody gets a prediction.
	I don't want to say I made a prediction that I didn't make and look like I'm trying to look smarter than I did.
	Did I predict that Baldwin was going to get charged?
	If anybody can confirm what my prediction was or might have been, I would love it.
	Alec Baldwin, charged with involuntary manslaughter in fatal rust shooting districts.
	I can tell you this, by the way, I'm going to be on, I don't know if it's live, but I'm going to be on Megyn Kelly tomorrow talking about this.
	I think it's going to be live.
	I'll have to check, but stay tuned.
	Alec Baldwin charged with involuntary manslaughter in fatal rust shooting district attorney.
	Helena Hutchins was killed on October 21 when a gun Alec Baldwin was holding on the set of rust fired.
	When the gun fired.
	How about when he fired the gun?
	When the gun he was holding fired.
	Poltergeist.
	This is actually huge news.
	In real time, the New Mexico first judicial district attorney, Mary Karmic Altwiz, announced charges in the death of Helena Hutchins.
	Alec Barnum was charged with involuntary manslaughter, according to the district attorney.
	The armorer, Hannah Guterres-Reed, was also charged with involuntary manslaughter.
	Before announcing the decision, the district attorney's office spent time reviewing a comprehensive report submitted by the Santa Fe.
	Yeah, he fired the gun!
	He might not have known there was a bullet in it.
	He might not have known it was a real bullet that was in it.
	He pulled the trigger as per the FBI.
	There was a real bullet in it.
	It went off.
	The prop gun, which is nothing more than a real gun, that is the property of the movie set, fired, went off, and killed a woman.
	It's been over a year since she was killed on the movie set.
	Okay, let's see this.
	Helena died when the gun he was holding fired while practicing a scene in October 20th.
	Okay.
	The group has been rehearsing in a small church.
	Santa Fe County Sheriff's Department has spent the last year investigating how live rounds made it onto the movie set.
	Armorer Guterres-Reed, assistant director, were the only crew members believed to have Never in a million years did Hannah think that live rounds would have been in the dummy round, her attorney said Jason Bowles.
	Okay.
	Who put those there and why is the central question?
	Did anybody else get charged?
	Hulls allegedly handed Baldwin a.45 revolver, telling him it was a cold or safe.
	Prior to that, Guterres-Reed spun the cylinders to show that the gun, to show what was in the gun, her lawyer said.
	Baldwin maintained that he did not pull the trigger.
	Yeah, well.
	Baldwin had maintained that he did not pull the trigger of the gun once during a primetime interview shortly following the deadly shooting and again on a podcast episode.
	The actor originally said he pulled the hammer of the gun back as far as he could and released it but did not pull the trigger.
	I'm telling you all of this coming out of Alec Baldwin is a linguistic rationalizing of what happened.
	I'll get to it in a second.
	Let's just do this.
	The Rust prosecution could be potentially...
	The Rusk prosecution could be potentially prosecutions from one to four defendants, she wrote, so there's more on the way probably.
	One of the possible defendants is well-known actor Alec Baldwin.
	They sued for damages.
	Okay, they've settled the lawsuit.
	The production of Rust will not return to New Mexico.
	Attorney for Rust said the production is considering other locations, including California, but no decisions have been made.
	They're going to continue shooting a movie while the individual, the main star, is under criminal charges?
	Bizarre circumstances.
	Although it hasn't been confirmed that Baldwin will rejoin the production, Matthew's initial announcement claimed the production would resume with the original players.
	Not all of them, and I'm not saying that to be glib.
	I'm telling you that Baldwin's way of rationalizing, I didn't pull the trigger.
	I'm telling you in his mind, it's semantics.
	I pulled the hammer all the way back.
	He said it.
	I am sure he, either knowingly or unknowingly, when the hammer was pulled back, pulled the trigger.
	But now there might be mechanisms that don't allow that.
	But in my mind, when someone says, I didn't pull the trigger, it means I didn't pull the trigger in a manner to action the hammer, where he might have been able to do both by pulling the hammer back and holding the trigger back.
	So in his mind, I didn't pull the trigger because the trigger didn't pull the hammer back and cause it to release.
	I just pulled the hammer back while compressing the trigger, such that when the hammer came back without obstruction, it struck the bullet and the bullet went off.
	How the real bullet got in there, who knows?
	My standard operating theory, as I broke down a year ago, is that Baldwin pulled the trigger on purpose.
	Because he thought there was a blank in the gun and thought it would scare the set because he was frustrated at being told what to do by Helena Hutchins, a director of photography who has no business telling a grade A actor how to hold a gun, what to do.
	He was tired.
	He was away from home.
	He didn't want to be on this low-budget set.
	And he's got some lowly director-photographer bossing him around, telling him how to hold the gun like this, like this, like this.
	And he pulled the trigger, thinking it was a blank, thinking it would startle everybody as some sort of act of...
	Cathartic revenge.
	And lo and behold, unbeknownst to him, there was a real bullet in the gun.
	That's my theory, and I'm sticking to it.
	How does one live with themselves after such an accident?
	Sefer Dean Squibb.
	I'll tell you how.
	They have to convince themselves it wasn't their fault.
	They have to detach themselves in every spiritual, emotional, meaningful sense from the incident itself.
	And that's it.
	Or they actually have to very much atone and make peace, and I don't know how you can make peace with yourself.
	Even if it's a bona fide accident, I don't know how you do it.
	All guns are loaded.
	All guns are always real.
	Jacob Castro, absolutely.
	Viva Baldwin should have cleared the gun.
	His explanation, this is from DVR Downmark.
	It's not up to me.
	I don't second-guess the person who's been hired as the expert to make sure the gun is cold and safe, etc., etc.
	That was his explanation on George Stephanopoulos and on subsequent other explanations.
	Unknown Citizen 2020 says, Baldwin is great at playing an asshole because he is one in real life.
	Charges.
	Involuntary manslaughter.
	What was the...
	What was the maximum sentence he can get for that?
	Detonator says, Crowder is the new Tom McDonald of podcast space.
	He will do it his way.
	No boss, no contracts, no team outside his employees.
	That's probably the way he had to do it in the first place.
	But for anyone who wants to impute intentions, the question is going to be, was this a question of drumming up drama to publicize that?
	Ultimate route versus doing it quietly and saying, okay, no deal.
	I'm going to go out on my own and wish me luck.
	And yeah, it doesn't matter.
	We'll see where it goes.
	But yes, there are some people who cannot have a boss.
	They're called unemployable, but for the best of reasons.
	They're unemployable for the best reasons.
	They cannot be suppressed, stifled.
	By external pressure, external control, external limitations.
	And not to compare myself to Crowder because he's maybe immensely more creative and immensely more successful.
	That's why I had to leave the law firm.
	At the big law firm, skyscraper, shirt and tie.
	You take the damn mandates.
	The senior partner gives you, you do the work that they ask you to do, you don't ask questions, and you don't have the rights to have moral objections to strategy in a file.
	You do it, you shut up, and you take your healthy salary of $85,000 a year, health benefits and everything else, and you say thank you for it.
	I'd rather be the skinny, wild dog than the fat dog with no hair around the neck because of the collar.
	Yeah, hey Viva, New Zealand Prime Minister resigned.
	Let's bring that.
	Hold on.
	So, okay.
	We've done it all, people.
	We've done it all.
	We did?
	Oh, gosh, yes.
	Ezra Levant, Albert Bourla.
	The latest, louder with Crowder, Daily Wire.
	Alec Baldwin.
	And now let me see what I have in the backdrop, because I have some other articles.
	I'm in the wrong window here.
	Hold on.
	What did I...
	Oh, yeah.
	Here's a story that I just came across.
	Jake Tapper tweeted it out.
	Another January 6th defendant just gets a cool year in prison.
	Just a cool year in prison.
	Now, Jake Tapper tweets it out, and his tweet...
	If I'm going to read his tweet, I'm not going to pull it up because it's not worth it.
	And then I'll just share my introspective thought process with you.
	Jake Tapper writes, Inquirer, that's the article, quote, a Philly man bragged about wanting to relieve himself in Pelosi's office on January 6th.
	I know that I impute a sense of approval from Jake Tapper's tweet.
	I know it.
	I am imputing to Jake in a tweet that has nothing but a factually correct quotation from the article and a link.
	I'm imputing some sort of...
	Some sort of relishing in the guy's misery.
	Some sort of tacit approval.
	But I have to appreciate that that is all in my own being.
	And it may or may not be what Jake Tapper intended by tweeting just the story.
	Maybe he just wants to let people...
	Maybe he thinks it's an injustice, but he can't say it.
	Let's read the story, shall we?
	Philadelphia Inquirer.
	A Philly man bragged about wanting to relieve himself in Pelosi's...
	He wanted to take a shit on her desk.
	That was his joke he said on Facebook afterwards.
	Imagine that.
	He didn't do it.
	He didn't take a dump on Pelosi's desk when he was there and presumably had the opportunity.
	He just said he bragged about it after having entered the Capitol Hill.
	The details of this, for one year in prison, I don't know how much time he's going to get out on, like how much earlier he's going to get out.
	We'll see if it...
	After the attack, James Rahm Jr. posted on Facebook that he'd walked through Pelosi's office and should have shit, unless he meant sit, on her chair.
	A judge sentenced him Wednesday to a year in prison.
	He had the opportunity.
	He didn't do it.
	He said as a joke afterwards, I should have done it.
	And that's being held against him.
	But he's being convicted for...
	I don't know.
	We'll see what he got convicted for.
	A year in prison for that.
	Going into the Capitol.
	Walking through the office and then afterwards saying he should have taken a dump on Pelosi's desk.
	And just wait until they took Winston.
	This man's name is not Winston.
	What's his name?
	James Rahm.
	They took James Rahm, the proverbial Winston, from 1984, and they made him say, I love Big Brother.
	They made him say two plus two is five while sending him to jail.
	Washington, after storming the Capitol on January 6th, 2021, with an angry mob of supporters of former President Donald Trump, James Rahm Jr. took to Facebook to brag about what he'd done.
	Walked right through Pelosi's office, he wrote, I should have take a dump on her I don't know why he has that accent from Philadelphia.
	What's Philadelphia accent?
	Wait, I can't do it.
	But as a U.S. District Judge, Thomas F. Hogan, sentenced to Philadelphia construction company owner Wednesday to a year in prison for his role in the insurrection.
	They still, just say it.
	It's become a fact now.
	The lie has become a fact.
	Insurrection.
	Why?
	No one was charged with or convicted of insurrection.
	At worst, they got seditious conspiracy, which is a separate criminal infraction to insurrection.
	And yet, the lie has become the truth.
	He recoiled.
	Oh, he recoiled.
	How dare he say he would take a shit on Pelosi's desk?
	I've never made any such joke in my life before.
	I've never made a joke like that.
	Like these plebs, these lowly citizens, these animals.
	These animals, they storm through Pelosi's office and make crass remarks about defecating on her leather chair?
	Oh, God, off to chair.
	You're lucky I don't call you a linguistic terrorist for that.
	Whether you were exaggerating or boasting.
	How about neither?
	Because he didn't do it.
	And he had the opportunity to do it.
	Whether you were exaggerating or boasting.
	I don't know, Hogan said.
	But I hope we have learnt in this country that words do matter.
	Whether they're from the president or someone else.
	This is a court of law.
	This is a judge.
	Sentencing a man to a year in prison.
	Not for the word.
	Was the crime saying that he was going to shit on her desk?
	Is that the crime?
	Threats to defecate?
	Threficate?
	Whether from the president or the punishment, which included three-year probation and an order he repay restitution for the damages caused by the capital attack, makes Rom the 19th Pennsylvanian to face prison time for his role in an attack that caused millions of dollars in damage, injured scores of officers, threatened the people.
	For his part, Rom...
	63. It probably won't be a full year.
	I don't know how much time he's actually going to serve.
	He told the judge he'd never actually entered Pelosi's office and realized as soon as he entered the Capitol building that he'd become part of something bigger.
	Say it!
	Say I love Big Brother.
	Your Honor, when I put my foot over that threshold, my stomach dropped to the floor.
	He said, I knew only a terrorist should be in there.
	Only a terrorist.
	Should be in the people's house, the Capitol.
	But they got him to say it.
	But as prosecutors noted, Rahman's string of social media bravado while the mob was ransacking the Capitol building suggested that at least in the moment he felt anything but remorseful.
	We have the building surrounded, he posted on Facebook.
	We're ready to make a breach and take our Capitol back.
	Once inside, he shot a video of himself shouting, we're taking our effing house back.
	Time to find some brass and kick some friggin' ass.
	Time to find some brass.
	And in case there was any doubt as to what role he played in the attack, Rahm took a selfie of his pepper-sprayed face moments after exiting the building.
	Do not believe the media he wrote in the caption he posted.
	There were no anarchists, no Antifa, just patriots trying to take our country back.
	I was there.
	Let's just see this here.
	I was there.
	Let's see here.
	According to court filings, he offered an unsolicited boast that he previously dodged earlier charges for smuggling marijuana.
	Okay, I don't know what the heck is going on here.
	His lawyer described Rahm at several points as beaten down by the reactions to his arrest.
	His mother didn't talk to him for six months.
	He said...
	Former clients of his construction business have shunned him, leaving him with only trash collection as a means for making a living.
	He regrets his decision, deplores the violence and the property destruction of the Capitol, and apologizes to members of Congress, congressional staff.
	Yet, I love Big Brother.
	Just say it over and over again.
	Only terrorists would have been in there.
	Rahm, meanwhile, spent much of the hearing sitting silently next to his attorney with his hands clapped on his chest.
	At the end, he said he regretted bringing his adult son, James Rahm III, with him to Washington.
	The younger Rahm is also phasing charges for his role in the insurrection.
	But a skipper pushed the judge to spare Rahm prison sentence by noting that despite his words, his actions weren't any worse than many other defendants that day.
	Prosecutor pointed to his lengthy criminal record as a distinction.
	Oh.
	Drug possession, yada, yada, yada.
	Again and again, said assistant, he breaks the law.
	James Rahm Jr. will do what James Rahm Jr. wants to do.
	Nothing's going to tell him otherwise.
	A year in jail.
	A year in jail of a man's life at...
	A year in jail of a man's life at 63 is worth a lot more of what's left than a year of a younger person.
	It's just stolen.
	TimeBandit66 says, Love the show, Viva, but I am working on a new album and have to get back to writing.
	We'll have to finish this later.
	I wish that dude would have crapped on her desk just for the principal.
	LOLs.
	He would have gotten the chair for that.
	Johnson Cash says, sorry about my last rant.
	I meant to make a joke about Pudge pooping on you, but you read it right after showing a clip of a climate change related lip stand.
	It didn't look good.
	Johnny, first of all, nobody's sensitive here and nobody presumes bad intentions.
	What was the last rant though?
	Was it today?
	Johnny Cash.
	Was it today?
	Whatever it was, don't worry.
	I don't even need to forgive you because I didn't think anything bad of it in the first place, if I notice it.
	But the joke about Pudge pooping on me is some damn funny shizzle.
	That's from Johnson Cash.
	All right, so that was the last thing.
	Viva being sarcastic.
	He's done nothing for 30 years and they still use that against him.
	Don't mind me.
	Yeah, what was the criminal charge?
	Hold on one second.
	Oh, I'm going to go to...
	Close this.
	I don't want to hear that.
	What was his charge?
	James Rahm III.
	Charge.
	Conviction.
	What was he charged with?
	Convicted of...
	Convicted.
	Convicted.
	That's all I see here.
	Of course, I'm not paying to read that article.
	Whatever that is.
	Felony and misdemeanor.
	Here we go.
	Justice...
	Is this him?
	No, that's...
	Oh, Philadelphia man found guilty of felony and misdemeanor charges.
	Okay, here we go.
	James?
	Okay, that's it.
	Here we go.
	Here we go.
	We got it.
	Here, I'll bring it up.
	It's from the DOJ.
	Yeah, what was the charge?
	Here, let's see.
	Felony?
	Philadelphia man.
	You see this?
	We do.
	Okay.
	Found guilty...
	Misdemeanor charges for his actions.
	His actions and the actions of others disrupted the joint session.
	He was found guilty of obstruction of an official proceeding.
	There you go.
	A felony.
	And four related misdemeanor offenses, including entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds, disorderly or disruptive conduct in restricted grounds, disorderly conduct.
	So the standard stuff that the non-violent protesters were charged with, picketing.
	And he was charged with threatening to defecate on the On the desk of Her Royal Highness, Nancy Pelosi.
	Oops.
	Rabble.
	The animals.
	All right.
	Oh, HP Arman says, just quickly viewed your vlog on Alex Baldwin.
	In typical lawyer speak, you speculated but did not commit.
	LOL.
	No, but I've done a bunch.
	I know I've made a...
	I know I've made a...
	Dude, I've done at least seven...
	Vlogs on Baldwin.
	I know that I made a prediction.
	I just can't remember what it was.
	I think I predicted that he was going to get charged because that was seemingly the less likely option or the less likely prediction at the time.
	And I was taken.
	I was going out on that limb.
	All right.
	What else do we got in the backdrop?
	Cancel that.
	What else do we have that we wanted to talk about today?
	Philadelphia, man?
	No, that's it.
	That's it.
	But what I do want to bring up, actually, just before we go, let's go through the Twitter diary, because we want to see Jacinda Ardem's tearful, tearful announcement that she's resigning.
	And I'll show you, there is a soul-sucking effect to being a tyrant.
	Where is Jacinda's announcement?
	That she's resigning.
	Everyone, you gotta go watch.
	You gotta go watch the plebs video.
	Okay, here it is.
	Here it is.
	Remember, this is the woman, the person, the fact that she's a woman has nothing to do with anything.
	This is the tyrant who said, if you're not getting your news from government-approved sources, that is the only...
	Ah, that's the worst accent ever.
	We'll get that video in a second, but here's her tearful resignation.
	Okay.
	And so today I'm announcing that I will not be seeking re-election.
	And that my term as Prime Minister will conclude no later than the 7th of February.
	Oh, it's so hard.
	I want to actually see the whole speech in a second, but let me just go back here.
	This is the same...
	By the way, I put up this...
	Comparison.
	Selling your soul is not without cost.
	Some people are going to say it's the stress of the job and yada yada.
	And this is not an issue of comparing young to old.
	It's the eyes.
	These are dead eyes in everything that she does now.
	This is the same person who came out.
	Let's see if I can find that clip real quick.
	If you're not getting your news from the government, Jacinda Ardem, news from...
	The problem is now, the only video that's coming up now is her resignation speech.
	Man, we're not going to watch it.
	Doesn't matter.
	So that's it.
	That was her.
	And it puts Justin Trudeau's meltdown into context because I think Alex Jones said it, and he's always been ahead of the curve on a lot of things.
	The populist movement is kicking ass.
	What's going on in Davos right now, by all accounts, is an absolute meltdown.
	We're living in a world now where the only place that these tyrannical Leaders, these tyrannical politicians who have made a business of usurping our civil rights and liberties, the only place where they can not be interrupted, not be heckled, not be asked actual legitimate questions is in their proverbial and if not literal ivory towers.
	You know, borders suck.
	Walls don't work unless you're at Davos.
	Borders are racist.
	No human is illegal, but my goodness, go into Davos and breach the perimeter of that Davos perimeter, and we'll see who's illegal real fast.
	They recoil to these conferences.
	It's the only place where they can not have people tell them what they really think.
	It's the only place where they can think.
	That they are liked and loved and respected.
	And I think they know the jig is up for all of this.
	You can't hide the truth for very long.
	And it's coming out.
	Boy, howdy.
	Let me go to Viva Barnes Law.
	That local is the Holy Cross.
	227 chats that I didn't look at.
	Does she blink?
	This is from Ricky Bobby.
	She doesn't care.
	She will be guarded for the rest of her life on the taxpayer's dime.
	Probably excited to bounce.
	Can you imagine being guarded for the rest of your life because you're so detested by the people that you were supposed to represent that you can no longer walk among your brethren?
	That's hell.
	I was listening to Jordan Peterson on Joe Rogan, and he's talking about hell.
	And Joe Rogan is saying, well, look, some of these tyrannical dictators have been very successful.
	They're tyrants.
	They're leaders.
	They have wealth.
	They have control.
	And Peterson's like, okay, that's what you're describing is hell.
	They've inherited or built a hell for themselves where they can't trust anyone around them, where everyone hates them, where everyone lies to them day in and day out.
	And the funny thing is, both Jordan Peterson and Joe Rogan, in describing the success of a tyrant versus the hell in which they live, are describing the exact same thing.
	That is hell.
	That is hell.
	That is hell.
	A successful tyrant gets to live the rest of their lives in seclusion, detested, and detestable.
	So with success like that, who needs failure?
	Okay.
	People, it's an hour and 47 minutes.
	It's 1246.
	It's Thursday.
	I'm going to have a stream tomorrow.
	Next week, there's going to be some interesting stuff coming up.
	I've got two very good guests confirmed.
	One big one, which I'll announce when it's time, coming up soon.
	But by the first week of February, awesome stuff will have happened and will continue to happen.
	Let's go into the chat and see what's going on here just before we end with the Viva.
	Doc Terminus said, Viva, if Baldwin's shooting didn't happen during rehearsal, couldn't it have just occurred later when the cameras were running?
	Couldn't it have just occurred later when the cameras were running?
	I believe the cameras were running.
	To me, there is not a snowball's chance in hell that the cameras were not running.
	And if the cameras weren't running, it's even more suspicious.
	It's inconceivable that the cameras were not running, that there was no camera running on a movie set while they're rehearsing, if for no other reason than based on the instructions that Jacinda was giving.
	I'm sorry.
	Helena was giving Alec Baldwin.
	Like, you need the camera.
	You want to be able to see it and review it afterwards.
	It's inconceivable.
	Okay.
	Today we're going to end.
	All of you who are watching now are going to get a sneak peek.
	This video has only been published to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	It has not been published.
	I'm sorry.
	I uploaded the video directly there.
	But now we're going to...
	You're all going to get a family video sneak peek.
	Viva Family discovers the West Palm Beach Zoo?
	I think that's what it was.
	And it was a good day.
	So with that said, everybody, we can agree to disagree on certain things.
	And like Joe Rogan said, and I've been boning up on Rogan Podcasts.
	It's crazy.
	People want to know other people's opinions and the evidence upon which those opinions are based.
	And you don't have to agree with someone's opinion.
	You don't have to agree with someone's assessment.
	But you can analyze and assess their opinion and their assessment based on the manner in which it's evidenced, supported, justified.
	And that's how you know if someone has a bad opinion or a good opinion.
	You can disagree with it, but if it's tenable, well, A, you might still disagree with it, but you have been informed, you have been educated, and you're now smarter for understanding an opinion with which you might ultimately disagree after it has been issued and defended.
	So we don't have to agree on everything, and we won't.
	And if we did, it wouldn't be fun.
	It would actually just be an echo chamber.
	So with that said, everybody, keep the faith, but not blind faith.
	Keep fighting the good fight peacefully and in a way that will not give your ideological adversaries the justification they need to do what you know they want to do to you, what you know they know they want to do to you, in a way that would make your parents, your children, and your pets proud, and you can do no wrong.
	And the tide is turning.
	The tide is turning.
	I hope.
	Fingers crossed.
	And if it isn't, we shall continue raging.
	Raging, raging.
	Against the machine.
	And occasionally have an afternoon off so you can enjoy the finer things in life.
	Like the zoo.
	The only animal that I saw there that didn't look happy was the bear.
	I didn't record it.
	Other than that, the zoo looked good.
	Here, enjoy people.
	See you tomorrow.
	Okay.
	That's it!
	We're there!
	This is it.
	This is the Palm Beach Zoo.
	We're gonna see if this zoo is a happy zoo or a zoo that makes us unhappy.
	It'll be the second time we go.
	The first and the last or the first of many.
	Oh, and it's Martin Luther King Day and it's gonna be packed.
	Who's been here before?
	Me.
	How was it?
	Good.
	Did the animals look happy?
	Additional parking.
	Okay, I'm not getting greedy.
	I'm just going through the additional parking.
	What is this?
	Hold on.
	Alright, I think you're slightly overdressed.
	Yesterday was...
	Iguana falling out of the tree cold.
	35 degrees Fahrenheit.
	I'm dressed more appropriately.
	GoPro.
	Cheese.
	Alright, let's do it.
	Wetlands, bears.
	Whoa.
	Okay.
	Okay, that's amazing.
	Oh, look at the way it eats.
	Or drinks, whatever it's doing.
	Look at how flexible her neck is.
	Look how cool that is.
	Look how cool that is.
	So, don't get your head stuck in there.
	She's stuck.
	Hello?
	I'm going to go.
	This cost $5 for two kids.
	$2.50 each?
	Yep.
	Canadian, that wouldn't be such a bad price.
	I'm getting nauseous just looking at it.
	So I'm going to just continue looking here.
	Could we have gone on in this?
	We could have gone on.
	$5.
	Marty's Marsh, guys.
	Who remembers their French?
	What's the name of--oh my goodness.
	What's the name of the alligator, by the way, guys?
	Um, I don't know.
	It's Marty.
	What does that mean?
	Marty.
	Tuesday.
	Oh gosh, you gotta go back to French school.
	Marty is Tuesday for French.
	Paint me like one of your French women, Jack.
	Alright, so that's a capybara right over there.
	Capybara.
	Capybara, whatever.
	It looks like the rodents of unusual size from Princess Bride.
	It looks like a big oversized rodent.
	There's a bunch of turtles over there.
	Yeah.
	Oversized rat, squirrel, or something.
	Let's go.
	Hello, bird.
	Hello.
	Do you speak English?
	I know you do.
	Oh, you're gonna say something.
	Hello.
	I'm David.
	Do it.
	Say it.
	Say something.
	Hello?
	Pretty bird.
	You're a majestic bird.
	You're going to speak?
	He's going to say something.
	Say it.
	I see.
	Oh, you're wrestling with feathers.
	Okay, but just say something in your mouth.
	It says, please enjoy from the ground.
	I didn't see anything.
	Uh-oh.
	I didn't see any sign that said not to climb.
	Which one?
	So by the way, those things are also absolutely vicious.
	How much is it?
	$75?
	It's $120.
	It's $240.
	Thank you.
	It's coming.
	It's coming.
	What's it going to do?
	Okay, coming in, coming in, coming in.
	Looking for the best.
	It's going to scare somebody.
	Hi, my friend!
	Thank you.
	Alright, this is the, um, oh, there we go.
	The rhinoceros hornbill.
	What do they eat?
	Mostly fruits, occasionally insects, small animals, and other birds.
	In other words, they eat everything.
	It's pretty impressive.
	There we go.
	Oh yeah, there you go.
	No, no, oh, there we go.
	Wait, wait, wait, it's gonna move.
	they have been known apparently to eat small babies as well People say I have a bird's nest on my head.
	You coming?
	Just thinking about it.
	You thinking about it?
	No.
	Here, there we go.
	Oh, we have lift-off.
	We have lift-off.
	It happened, people.
	I don't know if this counts as being on my head, but it counts.
	Success.
	Oh, something just pooped on my arm.
	Did something just poop on my arm?
	I'm fairly certain I felt poop on my arm.
	I'm more like you're my son in sleep.
	This is the most extreme job on earth.
	There are bees everywhere.
	These are honey bees, eh?
	My goodness.
	That man.
	My dreams.
	My dreams.
	Alright, we've done it.
	Another day.
	And we hit the gift shop.
	So all in all, what do we say, people?
	Thumbs up.
	Got some books.
	Science and nature.
	See, it's a coloring book because I'm working on a coloring book.
	It doesn't all have to be...
	What is that game?
	Minecraft swords from the gift shop.
	Stab!
	Oh, stab right in the privates.
	This guy's moving.
	Move it, move it, guys.
	Maybe we'll read it tonight.
	Sounds good.
	No, I'll take this.
	And that ends this journey.

▲