Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 27, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

01:43:16

Live with Jenna Ellis! Project Veritas, Trump, DeSantis, then Trudeau & CNN Racism!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Donald Trump came to Waco for a singular reason, to preach a gospel of political violence.
	He knows what the place means.
	At this moment in time, looking at the polls, he is the frontrunner.
	How could that possibly be?
	How could a man who incited insurrection, who lied 30,000 times, and who now openly preaches violence, division and civil war, How could he be the leading candidate for the Republican nominee for president?
	Good question.
	Whatever it may be, it should be taken seriously.
	Because Donald Trump's words are becoming more dangerous and more extreme by the hour.
	He is fooled with rage.
	You all know where I'm going with this.
	He has vengeance in his heart.
	He's full of rage, vengeance in his heart.
	And that should scare every American.
	That should scare everyone.
	It certainly scares me.
	Now, I don't know who this person is, Steve Schmidt.
	And I'll say it like...
	I'm something special.
	I mean, maybe I'm ignorant and I'm supposed to know who this person is.
	Steve Schmidt, all I can tell you is, you know, I've got the same Adam Schiff jokes going through my head, you know, like Schmidt for brains or up Schmidt Creek or this guy needs to get his Schmidt together.
	I don't know who the person is and whether or not I should.
	But I know confession through projection when I see it, and I felt compelled to make a little montage, like a Sargon of Akkad, Carl Benjamin-esque, Akilah Hughes remix.
	Because when someone says that their words...
	Look out for your enemy.
	Their words are getting more and more extreme.
	They're getting dangerous.
	Oh my goodness!
	Let's just...
	Hear my remix.
	Because Donald Trump's words are becoming more dangerous and more extreme by the hour.
	He is fooled with rage.
	Because Donald Trump's words are becoming more dangerous and more extreme by the hour.
	He has vengeance in his heart.
	Because Donald Trump's words are becoming more dangerous and more extreme by the hour.
	And that should scare every American.
	Because Donald Trump's words are becoming more dangerous and more extreme by the hour.
	How could a man who incited insurrection, more extreme, who lied 30,000 times, more extreme, who now openly preaches violence, division, and civil war, civil war, civil war, because Donald Trump's words are becoming more dangerous and more extreme by the hour.
	Because Donald Trump's words are becoming...
	Okay, hold on a second.
	Apparently Jenna didn't get the good link.
	Let me send the link one more time.
	Copy, open email, Microsoft Outlook.
	People!
	I'm not yet done with the rant.
	What the?
	Okay, here like this.
	I'm going to send it to myself.
	Link.
	Here.
	Give me two seconds, people.
	Sorry about this.
	While I send the link to Jenna, and we're going to get into some fun discussion today.
	Here, let's try this.
	I gotta thank my sponsor for today's stream.
	Field of Greens, people!
	Field of Greens.
	The script that some people say is, you know, it's tough to eat healthy.
	I don't always eat healthy.
	And that's why I need, you know, something to fill in for my unhealthy eating habits.
	I eat healthy.
	I can't always eat healthy.
	But I eat healthy.
	And it's a little-known fact.
	You're supposed to have between five to seven servings of raw fruits and vegetables a day.
	And most people don't have that, especially when you're traveling.
	My goodness, when I went to Texas and Vegas.
	But I do eat my five to seven and maybe a little bit more doses or servings of raw fruits and vegetables every day.
	But that doesn't mean that I can't substitute a good healthy habit for what would otherwise be a bad unhealthy habit.
	I get tired in the afternoon.
	I get cranky in the afternoon.
	And I occasionally succumb to the unhealthy habit of having an energy drink.
	Whereas if I put that in cold water, stir it around, one spoonful is one serving of fruits and vegetables, it's a good, healthy alternative to my otherwise bad habits.
	And if you don't get your five to seven daily doses of fruits and vegetables, fieldofgreens.com, it's not an extract and it's not a supplement.
	It's food.
	USDA organic.
	Can you see it right there?
	Oh yeah, look at that.
	Focus on it.
	No, no, no, Cameron, don't lose it.
	USDA Organic approved.
	A full serving of fruits and vegetables.
	Antioxidant power.
	Boosted immunity.
	It tastes good.
	Looks like you're drinking, you know.
	Highly nutrient-filled water, which you are.
	It tastes good.
	Go to fieldofgreens.com.
	Promo code VIVA will get you 15% off your first order.
	Mix them.
	I'll tell you what I did do once upon a time.
	I'm not mixing them, so that would be a disgusting bowl, not green bowl.
	I did try to put Field of Greens in carbonated water.
	Don't do that.
	Not because of the Field of Greens.
	It's not intended to be a carbonated drink.
	It didn't work.
	I drank it.
	Twice, as my grandmother used to say.
	The first and the last time.
	Regular water.
	Put some ice in it.
	Put it in a juice box or a little container.
	It's delicious.
	It's healthy.
	And thank you.
	Fieldofgreens.com.
	Promo code VIVA.
	15% off.
	Okay.
	This camera.
	I intended to download the app so that I could stop doing this, but it's still tracking me.
	Nothing like having an AI camera tracking your every movement in your own house.
	We got Jenna Ellis in the house.
	We're going to talk about a few things tonight because a while back, it wasn't that long ago, there was what I think was a Twitter misunderstanding because Twitter is meant for misunderstanding.
	It's meant for promoting strife even among friends and allies, although I hate that word, friends and ideologically aligned individuals.
	Jenna, I think, was at the receiving end of that misunderstanding and it pertains to a benefit of the doubt that I dare say that she may no longer be giving.
	I don't want to put words in her mouth, but a benefit of the doubt that she may no longer be giving to Project Veritas in their treatment of James O 'Keefe.
	So Jenna's on for about 30 minutes because I think she's got something afterwards.
	I'm going to continue ranting and raving on Rumble and then on Locals.
	But in the meantime, what the hell am I talking about?
	I'm bringing Jenna on right now.
	Jenna, coming in 3, 2, 1. Ma 'am, how goes the battle?
	You know, it is as fierce as ever and I wouldn't have it any other way because we have to stand up for truth.
	So I always appreciate talking with you, Anna.
	Thanks so much.
	I agree with what you said about Twitter.
	It is rife for misunderstanding and yet we all engage there because sometimes it's really fun and, you know, we just move through it and it's okay.
	Sometimes you read insults and you're like, are they responding to me?
	But then they're responding to the object of your tweet, but then you think they're talking about you.
	Other times they are talking.
	It's fun.
	But it's a bad habit.
	But Jenna, look, I'll get one elephant out of the room before we get started.
	There's a lot of people who are angry with you, referring to you as a rhino, which I now know means Republican in name only.
	And I think, I mean, I think I understand why, but do you understand why some people have turned on you on the social media's misunderstandings aside?
	Well, I think there's a wide variety of reasons why people suggest that anyone that comments on anything perhaps negative or critical about President Trump or anything that is not wholly in their personal view 100% Ultra MAGA,
	however they would define it, then immediately you were cast into this, oh, you're a rhino, you never liked or supported President Trump anyway, and let's go and look at things that you said in 2015 or earlier to make our case.
	And so I think where we're at right now in such a polarized...
	Is that a lot of people believe that anyone who either represented President Trump or worked for him in the past or voted for him even, if you don't have this ultimate loyalty pledge to say you cannot criticize President Trump for absolutely anything and you will not bend over backwards to support literally anything that he does, that makes you a rhino.
	I disagree with that.
	I've disagreed with that since before I represented him, during the time that I represented him.
	And, of course, after the fact.
	And I haven't represented him in two years.
	I have always been about truth, fact-finding, and fact-seeking, and also calling balls and strikes.
	It's very different when you are representing someone and you're representing their claims.
	And, of course, I did represent Trump, and I was very happy to.
	I voted for him twice, very happily.
	And I will vote for whoever gets the GOP nomination.
	But I think this idea...
	To suggest that we can't criticize anything that President Trump does, either what he says, his policy positions, anything like that, otherwise you're a rhino.
	That is just totally false.
	And that also misses the point of arguing things on the merits.
	And that's what I'm all about on my radio show, on my podcast, arguing things on the merits.
	I love and support President Trump, but I think that there are a lot of things that are very good about Governor DeSantis if he enters the race as well.
	And we should be talking about those things.
	And talking about them honestly and openly doesn't mean we're anti-President Trump.
	It means that we're good Americans.
	I have a loyalty to my country and first and foremost to God, my savior, over and above any political personality.
	I'm going to bring up one comment in particular, just to highlight what I think is also a bit of a trend here.
	I remember names on YouTube, and I know that I have not seen a comment from name that I can recall.
	And the comment is, Deep State got to her.
	And this is where I also start to have my theories, which some people might call conspiracy theories.
	That I have no doubt there are people who come to sow discord among their ideological adversaries to create infighting, much like, what's it called?
	COINTELPRO, for example.
	And so having never seen that name, name, but then saying the deep state got to her so that everyone now is going to turn on Jen Ellis, I'll take that with a grain of salt and I'll sensitize the crowd who's watching to this.
	You were on, I forget how long ago it was now, when you were defending Trump.
	With your career, with your soul, and with all of your belief, and you were, to many then, a hero.
	And I say, I'm not trying to lionize you.
	You were a hero to them then, to some of the people who are now calling you a rhino, because maybe there might be some resentment for the people who put their names, careers, professional licenses on the line to defend Trump, and who might, rightly or wrongly, but some might say rightly, feel that...
	They are now being ignored in the pursuit of Trump's ascension to 2024.
	And so a number of the January Sixers who might have relied on Trump helping them, a number of the professionals who work for Trump and are now facing all the disciplinary actions across the states might have a bit of resentment.
	And we did touch on it one time in Iran before, where they raised a lot of money for the defense of Trump.
	And then what happened to that legal defense of Trump and what happened to Trump defending those who defended him?
	Is there any bit of that resentment in you that some might attribute to why you might now be supporting DeSantis because you feel slighted by Trump being left to fend for yourself?
	Well, and that's a great question.
	And first, I'll say nothing about my relationship with President Trump or my representation of him or anything that has happened is influencing my perspectives now.
	There are, of course, ways that I have disagreed with him, even when I worked for him, or ways that I would have disagreed with him handling certain things or things that I wish he would have done.
	I think we can all honestly say that.
	But where I think a lot of people are concerned and they're saying, I think there's a lot of things that we should like about the freest state in the country and what Governor DeSantis has done.
	And what I don't like is seeing these personal attacks and these things that are genuinely false against Governor DeSantis out of this...
	Desire to simply support Trump.
	And so I'm trying to bring a little bit of equilibrium here.
	And so on one hand, everything that I'm talking about and saying publicly and on media and everything that I'm about has always been first and foremost about my Christian faith, about our country, and about supporting the best person possible for that job.
	It's no secret.
	I initially supported Ted Cruz.
	Then I heard in 2016.
	Then I heard President Trump speak.
	I thought, wow, he's actually great.
	He's the man for the moment.
	And I started defending him on media because I genuinely believed that.
	Then I had the opportunity to work for him.
	And then you have a fiduciary obligation for that.
	And I do think that a lot of people have...
	For lack of a better word, lionized me.
	And don't lionize me.
	I mean, I have defended all of my clients to the best of my ability.
	And I do believe in election integrity.
	But I believe in the principles of what we're about and the principles of America first.
	And election integrity and defending that doesn't mean that then every single instance of what anyone or any candidate Purports to advance as securing election integrity from the broader swath of the right means that then because I believe in election integrity, I therefore have to champion their efforts as well.
	We can talk honestly about some of those things.
	And just because I champion President Trump, and now I'm also championing Ron DeSantis because I greatly respect what he did in Florida.
	And by the way, until five minutes ago, so did the whole MAGA base.
	There have been people who've deleted tweets that were openly supported.
	I don't think that that is particularly intellectually honest.
	If you want to say, listen, I supported Ron DeSantis in Florida, but I'm supporting Trump for whatever reason.
	That is your right as an American voter.
	To talk about that, but don't pretend that Ron DeSantis is somehow the worst governor in the world or he is a rhino or he is, you know, Paul Ryan light or anything like this.
	I mean, this is a man who's done a lot for his state.
	Talk about that honestly and then persuade people why you are still voting for and supporting President Trump, whether or not DeSantis gets into the race.
	So that's my perspective.
	But that aside.
	I will say there are a lot of people who, and people I've talked to, who worked for Trump, whether it's lawyers or advisors or others, who do have resentment and who are frustrated that he basically left a lot of us on the beach and on the field to say, okay, here's, you know, talking about the weaponization of government.
	I mean, over the last week, he has been railing against the weaponization of government.
	But where is that same ardent defense?
	...of everyone who worked for him and supported him when the government in a lot of different ways is being weaponized against Trump lawyers, against people who've been subpoenaed by various...
	Weaponizing committees like January 6th against the January 6th prisoners.
	A lot of people have rightly asked the question, what is he doing for everyone who supported and championed him?
	And of course, I fall into that bucket, absolutely.
	But I would suggest that for everyone who is looking at that and whether or not you like him or support him, that does go into a calculation, certainly.
	But that shouldn't be the overriding factor of whether you support President Trump.
	Now and into the future.
	But I think it can definitely play a role.
	And what I'm very interested to see, David, is moving forward when Ron DeSantis does announce how many people who previously worked for Trump are going to endorse and support Ron DeSantis based on some of these reasons.
	And I think a lot of people are going to.
	We already have Ken Cuccinelli, who formerly worked for Trump.
	You have Chip Roy.
	You have some of these others who have already said that they're endorsing Ron DeSantis.
	I haven't said that.
	I'm trying to call balls and strikes fairly.
	And what I want people to understand is that this doesn't mean that I'm a rhino just because I'm saying, hey, I like Ron DeSantis.
	It means that I'm now part of the media.
	One last thing, Kayleigh McEnany has come under some fire from some of these ultra MAGA crazies that are, and of course I'm speaking about Laura Loomer, who's the crazy.
	You know, to say, well, why is she even doing an interview with Casey DeSantis around parental rights and education?
	And I'm thinking because she works for a media outlet now.
	She's not the press secretary or spokesperson for Donald Trump.
	And people move on in their lives.
	They have different roles.
	That's okay.
	Well, I'm just going to point out that I think you did say when DeSantis announces and not if DeSantis.
	I don't know if that was a Freudian slip.
	I'm joking.
	And I'm going to bring this up because there's two sides to this.
	There's a word she obviously needs to learn, loyalty, Andrew McKim.
	And I don't know if this statement is meant in respect.
	This is why Twitter is like, this is how fights start.
	Is this comment about...
	Loyalty of DeSantis vis-a-vis Trump because Trump allegedly made DeSantis a political career, so he owes it to Trump not to run against him.
	Or is this to suggest that you, Jenna, have not been loyal to Trump despite having represented him loyally, faithfully, and suffered the sanctions and the consequences of such representation, which I'm going to discuss when you're not here because I always say I'm not interested in getting someone to say something that's going to get them into more trouble down the line.
	There's a stipulation that you signed, which I'm going to break down because I saw Anna Kasparian talking about it on The Young Turks, and I had my own analysis when reading it, but I'll talk about that afterwards.
	So I don't know who the accusation of lack of loyalty is pointed at there, but what do you say to the argument that it would be backstabbing political disloyalty for DeSantis, whose career is owed to Donald Trump to then run against him in the primaries for the presidency the next time around?
	I would say that this is an open primary.
	And you can, as a voter, make that calculation and say, you know, I'm going to support President Trump and I believe that he has earned a second term.
	And you can make that calculation.
	But this is an open primary.
	If we are advocates genuinely for election integrity, which includes truth and fairness and a responsibility in this country to allow a free and fair election, then of course Ron DeSantis can run.
	Of course Nikki Haley can run.
	Of course, Mike Pence, that I'm shocked he'd want to, but he can run.
	Anyone who qualifies under the U.S. Constitution can run.
	There is no loyalty pledge.
	Now, President Trump may be asking that as a way to get more people to vote for him.
	And I believe that there's a lot of us who believe that he has earned a second term.
	And I would love to see him have that second term in four more years.
	But what I'm unwilling to do...
	Is to say that somehow Ron DeSantis or people like me who are not just at every moment defending Trump only in this premiere, I'll defend him where he deserves to be defended.
	Absolutely.
	I will talk about how much I love and respect him as a person and his family, all of those things.
	I will speak the truth on those things.
	I'll speak my opinions.
	But I'm not going to say that somehow I'm being disloyal as now a member of the media.
	For talking openly and honestly about free and fair elections.
	And I'm certainly not going to say that someone like Ron DeSantis, even though, yes, maybe it's true that he got across the finish line because of President Trump's endorsement.
	But look at what he has done since then.
	He's the one that has built His reputation in the state of Florida, if he had done virtually nothing and hadn't made a name nationally for himself, then he probably wouldn't be getting such popularity.
	And I think that Piers Morgan was very apt in that interview and what he said was the breakdown between Trump and DeSantis' relationship.
	He said this, you got too popular.
	And I think that encapsulates everything because Trump, I believe, Would be lauding Ron DeSantis right now as the best governor in the world and the best governor in America and saying, you know, he's done so much if Ron DeSantis was endorsing and voting for Trump.
	So does that really then we have to step back and say, OK, does an endorsement change the facts of what he's done in office as governor?
	No.
	And so I don't think that this whole idea of a loyalty pledge.
	is part of the fundamental fairness of how we conduct free and fair elections.
	I would love for the ultra MAGA base to defend Trump like we defended him in 2016 because he's the best candidate who has earned our vote.
	Don't go telling other people, oh, you're disloyal, you're a rhino now, you're whatever, if you don't go and slam Ron DeSantis.
	Talk about what's good about your candidate and why you think that Donald Trump will win a general election and what he's going to do with the next four years.
	And I think that that's what America should be all about.
	Now, I'm going to bring this one up because people are going to suggest that we need to forgive and forget all of the foibles of our political people.
	Or I should say that our political people are perfect and therefore don't have any problems.
	I'll get to one in a second.
	Ginger Ninja, the freest state in the country, end quote, the same one that has raided thousands of gun owners homes under DeSantis and taken their firearms, bypassing due process.
	Okay, Hans.
	Now, here's the problem.
	If someone wants to criticize Trump for having done certain policy mistakes when he was president, you know, supporting shutting down schools at some point in time, Operation Warp Speed to produce the bestest jibby jab known to humankind.
	You could play that game on both, and I don't think anybody is not going to fault DeSantis for his faults, one of which might very well be his response or lack of response.
	To the political persecution, the weaponization of all things against Trump.
	Most recently, you know, making the hush money payment joke, but then not coming out vigorously against the weaponization of all things prosecutorial against Trump.
	How do you defend DeSantis against that?
	Or what is your take on DeSantis's, in my opinion, lackluster response, but also one lacking foresight?
	Because they're not just coming for Trump.
	They're going to come for DeSantis sooner than later.
	So he's not just defending Trump.
	He would have been defending himself.
	What's your position on his lackluster response?
	Yeah, well, to the person who just commented, I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't criticize Ron DeSantis for things that are genuinely...
	I have criticized DeSantis as well.
	I actually took a ton of heat from the conservative base for suggesting that signing that bill that removed Walt Disney Company's special privileges in the wake of their opposition to the parental rights and education bill was First Amendment retaliation that I don't want to see a state government actor go down that road.
	I think that sets bad precedent.
	And I was criticized by everybody, called a groomer for crying out loud, where I was making a constitutional argument.
	I criticized Ron DeSantis for the tort reform bill that he just signed last week that I don't think actually helps reform in the way that the legislature is suggesting.
	And I don't think that that was particularly wise.
	You can all go and read that and read my comments on my Twitter feed.
	So I'm not sitting here saying that Ron DeSantis is faultless or that, you know, the freest state in the nation means that he's done everything flawlessly.
	What I'm suggesting is that We need to have loyalty to principle over loyalty to just one person.
	I will criticize President Trump for anything that I think that he's not doing in the best way.
	And I will criticize Ron DeSantis in the same way.
	That's what we should be doing as Americans.
	Now, would I do that same thing if I am his spokesperson?
	Well, no, obviously, because then you're representing.
	An individual and you have a fiduciary obligation to be part of their campaign.
	Now, does that mean that, you know, sometimes I was saying things representing a campaign that I didn't necessarily agree with?
	Maybe.
	But that's part of the job.
	And, you know, and you can have those debates privately, but then you go and you represent this is what the principal is saying.
	And this is and that's no different than any other organization.
	And so it's not about this flip flopping.
	It's about.
	Understanding people's different roles.
	And to get to your question, David, about Ron DeSantis and his response.
	Well, here was my perspective, because we have lived the last six years, six years plus, with a head of the GOP, Donald Trump, who absolutely loves the media.
	He will go out and comment on everything that most...
	Most presidents, most candidates, most politicians don't necessarily comment on or care about.
	I mean, he's going out there having opinions about Harry and Meghan.
	I mean, I have opinions too, and I think that's fun about Twitter, and I actually like seeing some of that stuff.
	But DeSantis...
	Is actually more in the mold of contrasting against Trump and more in the lane of what we would genuinely expect from a sitting governor, which is that he doesn't feel the obligation to weigh in immediately, go seek the attention of media outlets.
	He was conducting Florida's state business.
	And then when a question was asked to him in a press conference, he didn't shy away from it.
	He didn't obfuscate.
	He answered it directly.
	And whether or not, you know, you want to cherry pick that one point about, you know, I don't know what goes into paying hush money to a porn star, which, you know, was a jab for sure.
	And he can take it.
	That's fine.
	You know, it's interesting.
	Trump can attack DeSantis all he wants, but then DeSantis says one thing and somehow that's, you know.
	The most terrible thing ever.
	I think that's ridiculous.
	But what DeSantis actually said was a three or four minute robust response that talked about how the weaponization of government should never happen and how he has actually in the state of Florida been the only sitting governor on the GOP side currently who's actually removed a Soros funded state attorney.
	And he emphasized that.
	And I think for the MAGA base, instead of looking at that statement for what it was, they are trying to go in and pick how he didn't more robustly defend Trump because somehow he has that obligation to.
	I think what he said was right in line with what you would expect from a governor.
	And I found no problem with it.
	I don't think he needed to say anything else.
	Yeah, that's fair enough.
	I mean, also, I think people are expecting a Trump-like response from DeSantis, and he's not a Trump-like candidate for good or for bad, depending on who you are.
	But you said something a while back, and I actually, you said when I was the spokesperson, would I say things that I potentially didn't believe in?
	Maybe.
	That's the role you have to play.
	And then someone had asked this, why are you still not with Trump?
	And I don't know if I know the answer to this.
	I don't even want to lead into an answer.
	Is there any reason you can explain that as public knowledge?
	Well, I mean, so my my role ended on January 15th.
	And so when Trump left office, the Trump 2020 campaign no longer was an entity.
	So, you know, everyone.
	Their roles were ended.
	And at that point, I was never the attorney of record on any of our litigation, but I no longer had anything open in terms of representation.
	And so my role had concluded, much like you see some of these consultants on other senatorial campaigns, for example, their roles conclude when the campaign is over.
	And so at this point, I haven't, I'm not still with Trump, quote unquote, in terms of working for him simply because my role ended and I have chosen to move forward with Salem Media.
	I now have a radio show on American Family Radio Network that I actually love and appreciate the fact that I'm able to speak the biblical worldview and have a larger scope of a lot of thoughts and commentary and guests on politics and culture.
	and a Christian perspective than just representing one campaign.
	And so, you know, the question is also, of course, the follow up is, would you go back And, you know, that's still an outstanding question.
	And, you know, that remains to be seen.
	I would never say never.
	But, you know, at the same time, I have a great relationship with the president.
	I just don't work for him.
	It's not at all true that I was fired by him, you know, any of those things.
	My role simply ended when he left office, just like his role of president.
	Unfortunately, according to the U.S. Constitution, Also ended, and that's how it goes.
	Hold on a second.
	Sorry, I just accidentally started play on a back screen.
	Okay, well, it's fair enough.
	Tribalism exists to some extent, I say on both sides, but it's a reflexive thing where people who politically support Trump...
	They have an urge, a compulsion, or it just happens.
	They want to demonize someone who comes out and supports someone who might run against Trump.
	I would prefer that people not engage in this type of behavior because it's sort of like the revolution eats its own.
	I've also started using the ultra-maga, but not as an insult, as an actual compliment of the right.
	Listening to Joe Biden and Hakeem Jeffries use ultra-maga as though they think they're insulting anybody.
	Is rich coming from the guy who, you know, literally committed...
	100%.
	And let me say this real quick, too.
	I mean, I respect the people who are ardent defenders of Donald Trump.
	I mean, you have that right as a voter.
	What I'm simply suggesting is that people who want to support DeSantis or they want to wait and see...
	They have that right as well.
	And I think that we can appreciate that and argue things on the merits instead of taking these cheap shots to just say, well, you're disloyal or you're a rhino or all of these other names that don't adequately describe why their perspective may have changed or why they are undecided now.
	What I have said openly and publicly, because I'm so concerned about how fractured.
	The base has become is that I will support whoever is the GOP nominee, because ultimately we have a general election to win.
	And I want to see a Republican in the White House in 2024.
	And I will support that candidate because I care much more about either Trump or DeSantis or anyone else on the GOP ticket getting into the White House more than I want to see any of the Democrats retain that privilege.
	Who would you like to see?
	Hypothetically, it is Trump.
	Who would you like to see as VP?
	And this might lead into our second subject.
	You know, I think that there have been a lot of speculation on that.
	What I would not prefer to see is a VP selection that is anything other than merit-based.
	And I say that meaning I don't think that he has to pick a woman.
	I am a woman.
	I don't really care.
	I mean, look at Kamala Harris, who has been like the worst VP in history.
	It's actually embarrassing that she's a woman, right?
	I don't care about any of those things.
	And I honestly don't think that Donald Trump cares about any of those things.
	I think he's going to make his pick later on down the road.
	And so I don't know.
	And I don't even actually have any guess.
	I can tell you a couple of people I think it won't be.
	And I don't think it'll be Carrie Lake for this reason, because.
	When you look at who he selected in 2016, Mike Pence, that was very calculated because Donald Trump at that time needed to win over the evangelical base, without whom he could not prevail in a general election.
	And for those of us who didn't really know him politically, he didn't have a track record to run on, he chose Mike Pence who could speak to that base and get the votes that he needed.
	And so I think that anyone like a Marjorie Taylor Greene or a Carrie Lake or...
	Some of these people that would fall into the ultra-MAGA camp actually don't bring any new voters or any other voting bloc to him in a general election that wouldn't already be voting for him anyway.
	So nothing is...
	I love MTG, and I think she would be great.
	I just think, based on Donald Trump's previous calculations and knowing how he looks at the political landscape, I think he's going to be more calculated in who he selects.
	I'm going to make the prediction now he's picking Carrie Lake.
	Marjorie Taylor Greene, I think, might be a little too eccentric, even by the public palette, because I think she's widely misunderstood.
	I'll predict Carrie Lake, although my bet is much more risky than your bet, because you go by exclusion, I'm just going by inclusion.
	All right, and Carrie Lake's recent victory out of Arizona.
	I mean, look, you're an American lawyer.
	I'm just a Canadian schnook who's learning as I go.
	What's your take in terms of being optimistic about the outcome?
	Or does this find a way to get stifled through another legal mechanism?
	Yeah, I think, unfortunately, it's the latter.
	And, you know, I've received a lot of criticism for pushing back against Carrie Lake specifically and about, you know, some of these election integrity efforts.
	And what I'll say is, you know, because everyone saw me as ardently supporting election integrity challenges in the aftermath of the 2020 election, and I would qualify that to say that, you know, like you said in the very beginning, David,
	about The and allies, you know, in that language, I think that was ultimately something that was hugely problematic in the aftermath of the 2020 election was that there were so many other lawsuits and ideas and theories out there that it gave a lot of cover for the media to just focus on some of the more extreme.
	And other filings that were not the Trump campaign, that didn't lend to our favor.
	And our meaning, of course, my client at the time.
	And so with the election integrity challenges, I predicted then, and if people want to go back and listen to an interview I did with Daily Wire's Andrew Klavan, he asked me at the time if I thought that we would get an outcome that was for President Trump.
	Ultimately, in terms of all of these election challenges that the campaign filed.
	And I said at that point, it is going to be very difficult.
	And here's why.
	Because in the aftermath of litigation, when there are claims that are excluded on the basis of latches, there are claims that are excluded, it's always harder to go back and try to litigate after the fact than litigate up front.
	I think that there were some Trump campaign lawyers and RNC lawyers that didn't do their job.
	Upfront.
	And didn't push back hard enough against some of these pretexts for universal vote by mail and some of these things that weren't litigated and ultimately led to some of these claims being excluded in the aftermath of November.
	And so, you know, I've been very honest with the American people as far as the possibility.
	I was the one who took a lot of heat for saying Trump is not going to get reinstated.
	That's just, you know, there's litigation over that.
	That's not going to happen constitutionally.
	And so I have had, I think...
	A very clear track record of saying there's a difference between what we genuinely think should happen versus what legally is likely to happen.
	And so I think in the instance, and you and I talked about this on my show, I think the day before the day of Carrie Lake's initial trial starting and pointed out that the trial court dismissed eight out of ten claims and only left the two that required intent.
	And you and I both predicted.
	Probably not going to get a likely outcome.
	So, yes, she gets her day in court.
	So that takes that talking point off the table.
	But the judge isn't going to find in her favor.
	And he didn't.
	And so, you know, as she's continued these appeals, my concern in this is that it will ultimately set.
	Actually negative precedent, because if this goes back, I mean, look, the Arizona Supreme Court dismissed the majority of her claims.
	They only kept one.
	So keeping one alive is a good thing.
	If it goes back and signature verification actually happens, my prediction is that they will find some other way, the trial court, to dismiss that.
	Or if they actually look at signature verification.
	Well, we've all heard this before.
	It's not enough to change the outcome of the election.
	So, okay, moving forward, elections have to be administered differently.
	Now, is that a good result?
	Yes.
	Is that something that she has...
	Run on, basically, in the last, in her, you know, since her actual election, she's basically been so outspoken that we're going to, you know, change this.
	I'm the duly elected governor, and everybody can have their opinions on that.
	But as far as the actual law, how the courts look at this...
	I don't think that they are going to ultimately give her a victory of ousting Hobbs and putting in Carrie Lake.
	And I also want to say this real quick as well.
	A lot of people have pointed to that one tweet where I called Carrie Lake a grifter.
	And I want to explain that a little bit because a lot of people think that I have some personal animus against her.
	I don't.
	I was actually one of the first to endorse her when she ran for governor.
	I would endorse her again for governor.
	There are some things that I disagree with her personally on, and that's fine.
	But what I've seen in terms of how her campaign after the fact has tried to fundraise without Really giving all of that money to the legal defense, to me, is reminiscent of the RNC in 2020.
	And grifting, a lot of people would call you and I grifters, and they do, which is hilarious because we actually earn money.
	That's literally the opposite of grifting.
	In Britain, they call that grafting.
	Grafting means working hard.
	Grifting means causing, well, as far as my understanding goes, means causing drama so you can then try to exploit it.
	I didn't know you took Flackford.
	I think this is the tweet.
	She hasn't and won't win any of her lawsuits.
	It's just fundraising at this point, i.e.
	grifting.
	I was one of the first that endorsed her and supported her as a candidate, but this will set back the conservative movement for election integrity.
	Instead of false personal attacks, I'm not paid for anyone, yada, yada, yada, I'm simply engaging the merits.
	The Viva Frye and I predicted this.
	I didn't see this tweet.
	I don't have my notifications turned on.
	I am very reluctant to use the word grifter in general because I hate the way people abuse it.
	But that's the tweet.
	Thus far, your prediction at least on one claim has not come to fruition.
	So if it goes back, look, by some miracle it goes back and they actually implement signature verification with an actual substantive change of events.
	It'll be amazing.
	Thus far, I like the fact that Kerry has pushed it.
	There's nothing to be gained by not pushing it.
	You set bad precedent by also not pursuing it.
	So you might be setting up a situation where it's lose-lose.
	You set the bad precedent by not pursuing it or set the bad precedent by pursuing it and getting a bad judgment.
	Thus far, there's still hope for one claim.
	There is still hope for one claim.
	And if she actually wins on the merits of this claim, then I'll be the first to say, OK, great.
	Then, you know, I was wrong in that prediction.
	And that's fine.
	I mean, but what I have seen so far in the grand scope of election integrity challenges has been that none of these have come to fruition and none of them have resulted in a win.
	And I think that some of these have been setting up.
	The case to fail.
	And I'm not saying that she shouldn't have challenged this immediately.
	But again, the problem that I had was what you and I talked about on that episode that I promoted in that tweet, which is that when the trial court immediately dismissed eight of the claims and then only kept the two with intent, my question is, and there may be a really good reason why her lawyers didn't do this, but my question is why didn't they immediately file an interlocutory appeal and wait?
	For the trial on the merits, instead of moving forward saying, wait a second, you dismissed eight of these other claims when you shouldn't have.
	But I feel like she has gone more toward the optics of these election integrity challenges than maybe the better legal course of action.
	And I'm not her lawyer, and her lawyers may have a different view on this.
	But from where I sit, I don't see any of these resulting in anything tangibly meritorious.
	I'm going to bring this one up because GoodLogic, another one of the YouTube lawyers who's now going to be called a rhino.
	Jenna is spot on in her take that too many people demand a faulty oath or a...
	Fealty.
	Fealty.
	Oh, I thought that was a typo because I don't know what that word means.
	To an individual at the expense of constitutional values, I may lean toward Trump over DeSantis, but it's silly to cast Ron and his fans as evil rhino.
	Thank you, GoodLogic.
	Everyone check out GoodLogic, another one of the many YouTube lawyers who has now secured his...
	In the niche of YouTube law.
	You know, I predicted at the time that she was going to fail because that judge, the initial trial judge, set up something where she could not possibly succeed.
	On the appeal, I'm flabbergasted that the en banc ruling overturned even one element of the claim.
	They didn't have to.
	They've done it.
	I don't see how the lower court is now going to find another way to dismiss.
	They dismissed it on latches.
	Yeah, Jinja Nish have put this in there.
	Affirms latches.
	Are we talking to Ben Shapiro?
	I don't know what that means.
	But the judge, the initial judge latches for signature verification.
	Well, if it goes back and the judge is going to like bend over backwards with mental gymnastics to find another way to dismiss procedurally, I don't think the judge can do that.
	So maybe there will be something really good that comes out of this.
	We'll see.
	Maybe.
	But here's the other thing that, you know, in all of this, then people said, well, okay, you know, if she's not filing these legal challenges, then what do you expect?
	Do we just, like you said, David, just do nothing and then set bad precedent in that way?
	Well, what I've also said on my show, and I actually had another lawyer in Arizona who saw all of this happen, and we were discussing this, that the solution has to be legislative.
	Because right now, judges can kick out cases.
	On latches, on all kinds of other things.
	And they're not necessarily required in most instances to take up election challenges and they're finding all of these loopholes.
	And so if there is courage among Republican majority state legislatures that would actually comprehensively address election challenges and would have something like what Virginia has in some civil claims, like parallel to a rocket docket, and would say, okay, if there is a substantive claim that the administration of the election...
	Well, first of all, we have to know what that is.
	So require the election administration to actually provide that data to all of the candidates.
	And then they have a certain time frame to then file their challenges that have to be heard on the merits.
	And none of this, you know, going after the lawyers and all of these types of censures and all of these other...
	What is it?
	Sanctions and other things against lawyers simply for bringing challenges.
	This has to be a legislative remedy, because even if Carrie Lake wins in this one instance, this isn't going to comprehensively reform what we all advocate for.
	And I am an ardent advocate of election integrity.
	I just think we're not going to get this from the judicial branch.
	We need to get it from the legislative branch.
	And this is why I have an expression in life that, you know, experience doesn't always make us smarter.
	Sometimes it traumatizes us.
	And I say this with respect, non-judgmentally whatsoever.
	I think you might have been traumatized by your experience in advocating before the courts because of what happened to you, and we're going to see it when you're not here, where now that you now have, I see, maybe subconscious or maybe even a conscious aversion to the courts because you see the way they don't just dismiss the claims.
	They go after the lawyers afterwards as well.
	So you said, we need to find another way of doing this.
	And therefore, I'm skeptical or critical or not.
	I'll say I'm cynical.
	I'm absolutely cynical based on how the courts treated the Trump campaign claims.
	And again, not all of the allies, whatever, that I can't speak to and all of that.
	And absolutely, I'm cynical that we will ever get a good meritorious ruling from the judicial branch on election integrity.
	Absolutely.
	Okay, that's good.
	I like my expression because it doesn't mean people are dumber from experience.
	It means people get traumatized from experience and then learn the wrong lessons from it, which I might say, I recognize when I'm getting cynical and then I have to take a step back from my own cynicism and say, Viva, meditate, Viva.
	All right, Jenna, last one, because I think we've worked our way into this one.
	Where you started getting a lot of flack was when you tweeted out something right after the Project Veritas debacle.
	And I think it's proven to be an abject debacle.
	We'll see who gets sued for how much and when.
	And there were a number of people, and I don't want to name anybody except you because you're here, who said, let's wait, take a little more time, see what's going on.
	To which Barnes said, anybody coming to Project Veritas' defense is a...
	I forget exactly what he said, but it, you know...
	You felt like it was directed at you.
	And I said, well, I didn't see anything in your tweet defending Project Veritas.
	So you might have just been sensitive to what you thought might have been directed at you.
	But by the responses to the tweet, people did feel it was directed at you.
	And if I'm not mistaken, I think he quote tweeted me.
	Well, I think so too.
	But he quote tweeted you.
	It was in response to your tweet, no doubt.
	I just read your tweet.
	I was like, okay, well, if someone's defending Project Veritas or the board of directors, then...
	I didn't read that tweet in particular as defending the board.
	But you certainly were giving them a benefit of the doubt, not defending them, which I said I've had enough.
	I've seen enough to not give...
	They've eliminated any benefit of the doubt.
	Do you still feel the same way, Jenna, about what has transpired now that more evidence or none of the evidence is out there?
	But yeah, really that none, because the board has not come forward, specifically Matt Tierman, who has been a friend of mine for a number of years, has not come forward and actually given any sort of proof to their accusations against James O 'Keefe.
	And, you know, any of the substantive facts that we can make any other determination on.
	So, you know, initially, when all of this came to the fore, what people don't know and what I tried to, you know, say initially was, I know James O 'Keefe personally.
	I know Matt Tiermand, who sat on the board and he was getting, you know, the main heat for this.
	Personally, you know, he and I were consultants together on a Senate campaign in, you know, the last midterm cycle.
	So I got to know him pretty well then.
	And I didn't want to make an immediate adjudication of what I didn't know just based on loyalty to one friend or another.
	I think that there is such a knee-jerk reaction across culture to simply defend our friends, which I think placed correctly is a good thing.
	We should defend our friends.
	But at the same time, we have to look for the facts first.
	And so when you have a situation where two friends...
	Are saying completely different things against each other.
	You know, you might think of this in like a relationship breakup.
	If you're friends with, you know, the guy and the girl and they both say different things about the breakup.
	Well, you know, a lot of people will just say, well, I came into this relationship, you know, with friends, with, you know, the girl, so I'm going to take her side.
	Well, is that really ultimately the ethical thing to do?
	You know, I don't particularly think so, but...
	I know a lot of people that would say that.
	And so a lot of people who knew James O 'Keefe from what he's done on the media, and they probably don't even know him personally, immediately defended him instead of saying, well, wait, there might be a different side to this story.
	So I just said, hey, let's wait and see.
	That was taken as totally out of context.
	But what I said was, let's wait and see.
	And right now...
	This has been, what, about a month later?
	Nothing has come from the board.
	Nothing has come from Matt Tierman.
	Nothing has come.
	And I think just objectively, James O 'Keefe has won the PR war.
	Absolutely.
	But I would say that at this point, how long does the benefit of the doubt extend to the other side when they're not talking at all?
	And so at this point, I would absolutely lend far more credence to James O 'Keefe.
	Because he is the only one who's actually presented a side.
	But I definitely do not regret saying, let's wait and see.
	Because the board could have come forward with something sooner.
	Or there could be a reason still that they're not.
	Some people ask me, why aren't you talking about certain things in media?
	Well, there may be legal reasons why you can't.
	But at the same time, they should be openly saying, We can't for X, Y, Z reason.
	And the fact that they've just been silent to me does not look good in the court of public opinion.
	And so, you know, at this point, I would have to suggest that, you know, we've waited long enough and I would give this one to James O 'Keefe.
	Yeah, and I can appreciate someone saying, let's wait and see, especially if you have friends on both sides.
	And I consider myself having no friends on either side.
	I met James a couple of times.
	I think I know him relatively well.
	It might be presumptuous for me to call him a friend, but I think we like each other and trust each other.
	But I say, when anybody does something massive like that, they better have massive evidence and not hold on to it for too long.
	Like when they raided Mar-a-Lago, I was like, okay, let's wait and see what evidence they have.
	It's like, no, if you're going to raid the president's home, you better show us that evidence, maybe even contemporaneously, if not in advance.
	You're going to oust James O 'Keefe from the entity that he created that is, it's him.
	You'd better have that evidence on hand immediately after, not some vague accusations and then expect us to wait.
	So I was already past the point of waiting to see because maybe there is good evidence out there, but what I didn't see within 12 hours or even contemporaneously, I knew which side I was going with based on what I already knew about the parties.
	And I think that's fair, actually.
	I mean, I think that that's fair.
	I was willing to give them a little bit longer, but I think that that's an entirely fair position as well.
	Jenna, I've kept you for longer than you said you had with me.
	Thank you very much.
	I always take that as the ultimate compliment.
	Jenna, not that anybody doesn't know where to find you already, and I'll put the links in the pinned comment.
	Where can people find you before I head over to Rumble and address that which I would not feel comfortable addressing in front of you but relating to you?
	Well, thanks.
	I appreciate that.
	And you can follow me, of course, on Twitter at Jenna Ellis ESQ and across all platforms, including True Social.
	And then the Jenna Ellis Show dot com is my podcast where, David, you have been a guest many times, actually, and I'm always happy to chat with you.
	And then, of course, my radio show is on the American Family Radio Network.
	It's Jenna Ellis in the morning from eight to nine Eastern.
	And you can find that on AFR dot net or on Twitter at Jenna Ellis AM.
	I want to know what type of sandwich it was.
	It had to have been good if James O 'Keefe is going to snatch it from the hands of an eight-month pregnant woman.
	That monster.
	Jenna, thank you very much.
	And for anybody who doesn't know, I'm getting into your stipulation, which is what the sanctions you faced or the repercussions you faced in Colorado.
	And I'll explain why I wait for you not to be here in order to address it.
	Sure.
	Jenna, thank you very much for coming on.
	Thanks.
	All right.
	Have a good day.
	All right, people.
	That was good.
	Now, for those of you who don't know...
	And I'm sitting there listening to the Young Turks just to show you that I listen to both sides in order to know what everybody's saying because it's not because I disagree with them pretty much all the time that I'm going to disagree with them all the time.
	I was listening to the Young Turks and they were talking about how Jenna Ellis had just admitted to lying.
	Jenna Ellis admitted to lying in the representations that she made when representing Donald Trump in the election contest in 2020.
	And I was like...
	Not that I start off by immediately distrusting anything that come out of the mouths of any of the young Turks, but I do.
	I went and verified it, and we're going to go over that stipulation.
	She faced sanctions, ethical complaints in Colorado, the bluest of the blue states, as far as I can tell.
	We're going to go over that when we get to Rumble, which is where we're going to go right now and carry on, because there's a lot more to talk about today.
	That, CNN being racist, no, CNN saying it's racist, if you use a meme of a black person and you're not black.
	That's it.
	That's it.
	Doesn't even matter how you identify.
	Okay, everybody, head on over to Rumble.
	Did I forget anything here?
	No.
	I'll thank my sponsor one more time, fieldofgreens.com.
	My mother-in-law is coming to stay with us for three weeks in Florida.
	That's going to be fun.
	I don't even know why I just elected that in.
	Oh, yeah, that's right, because I think I just heard the door coming.
	Now my mother-in-law is going to come in and live in my office for three weeks.
	So, all right, move on over to Rumble, and we're going to look at this, you know, weaponizing of all things.
	Department of Justice, professional bodies, professional licensures, everything weaponized.
	Politics ruins everything.
	Full stop.
	Ending on YouTube.
	Head on over to Rumble, people.
	I will see you there in three, two, One.
	Booyakasha!
	All right.
	Everybody, let me just make sure we're good.
	There's a rumble rant that I didn't get to.
	Hold on.
	Hold on here.
	Let's get to that rumble rant.
	Okay.
	Jenna Ellis.
	Good logic was in the house.
	Always good to see.
	Good logic.
	Faux peasy.
	It's not an impressive prediction that the courts won't side with Lake.
	The point isn't overturning or winning the case.
	It's about maybe fixing the broken system so we don't have to keep going through this.
	And I will quote the Jonah brothers.
	You miss 100% of the shots you don't take.
	So yeah, I say there's nothing.
	You will never win by not contesting.
	It was an uphill battle, as I predicted, but I wouldn't have predicted that the court en banc was going to overturn one aspect of the claim when they had no real obligation to do so.
	Kind of surprising, kind of optimistic, and kind of actually encouraging.
	We'll see where it goes.
	All right, now, for those of you who don't know, Jenna Ellis, after representing Donald Trump in the election contests, faced a series of ethics complaints, as did...
	Pretty much any lawyer that had anything to do with representing Donald Trump, you know, much akin to the systematic persecution of any lawyer that had anything to do with Alex Jones.
	Ron Pattis, I don't remember the other names.
	It is the weaponizing of everything to punish your ideological adversaries, to punish those who associate with them, to punish those who represent them, to punish those who fraternize with them, to punish those who support them.
	It's a tactic that's as old as communism itself, as I'm now hearing in graphic detail in Michael Malice's book, The White Pill.
	I've got four and a half hours left on that book.
	There's no white pill.
	I mean, I don't think there's going to be a white pill in it.
	Jenna Ellis was one of many lawyers to face the full brunt of a weaponized licensure process.
	Let me see here.
	I'll bring up one article.
	Which summarizes it.
	Here, this one right here.
	USA Today.
	Bringing you rubbish.
	This is the...
	Where did the article go?
	Here we go.
	Trump lawyer Jenna...
	Jenna Ellis says she made 10 false statements about a 2020 election is censured in Colorado.
	Ellis is one of several Trump lawyers disciplined.
	Or sued over false statements about the 2020 election.
	Experience does not always make you smarter.
	Sometimes it just traumatizes you.
	And Jenna might have an aversion to the judicial process now because this is what it doled out to her.
	Jenna Ellis, one of the former President Donald Trump's lawyers, was censured Wednesday by the Colorado Bar Association after acknowledging...
	Saying 10 misrepresentations about the 2020 election.
	Notice, by the way, how the headline said she made false statements.
	Underneath it said, where did it say?
	False statements.
	Now it's being tempered down to misrepresentations, and we'll get to it in a second.
	Among the false statements, Ellis told Fox Business that, quote, ballots were manipulated.
	That sounds like a matter of opinion, if I'm just thinking critically like a lawyer.
	On Newsmax, Spicer and Koshy said, we know the election was stolen.
	That sounds like a matter of opinion.
	Whether or not you agree with it, that sounds like a statement of opinion.
	And if it might be said, as a matter of fact, we know that it was stolen.
	If one doesn't understand that that is a representation illustrating an opinion, we might have different understandings of the English language.
	As opposed to what is a statement of a verifiable, demonstrable fact.
	On Fox News, she claimed 500,000 votes in Arizona were cast illegally.
	Why, that, I dare say, sounds like a legal opinion.
	As part of the disciplinary statement, she acknowledged the statements were misrepresentations.
	Byron Large, the presiding disciplinary judge overseeing the complaint, Any one of the four involving dishonesty, those are bad.
	Fraud is bad.
	Deceit, that's bad.
	Or misrepresentation.
	Is stating an opinion that might actually be found to not be evidenced by documents that a court says, no, we disagree with your opinion?
	Is that a misrepresentation?
	And by the way, wait until you see Byron Large, the presiding disciplinary judge.
	Wait until...
	I'll just show you who Byron Large is in terms of credentials, which might explain why someone would say, well, they're going to send me to the gallows regardless.
	So maybe I'm just better off agreeing to a slap on the wrist because otherwise they're going to cut my arm off.
	And you know it.
	We'll see you.
	We'll see Byron Large's bio in a second.
	The advocacy group 65 project and United States Democracy Center, sounds bipartisan, filed ethics complaints against Ellis.
	People who were not her clients They're just concerned citizens, filed ethics complaints.
	Aaron Scherzer, senior counsel for the States United, said Ellis repeatedly went on television and Twitter to promote reckless, the reckless lie that the 2020 election was stolen.
	That reckless, reckless lie.
	Remember, just go back to the beginning.
	Extreme language.
	Oh, their rhetoric is getting exponentially more radical as time goes on.
	Ellis is among several.
	Trump, yada, yada.
	Trump lawyers disciplined or become the subject of lawsuits over their efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	Okay.
	Here's what we know about the case.
	Judge.
	The judge.
	Remember, we're going to go to this judge in a second just to see the bio.
	See whether or not this judge is capable of objectivity as relates to dealing with a Trump lawyer.
	Spoiler alert.
	Not a snowball's chance in the fiery pits of hell.
	Judge Ellis had selfish motive and engaged in a pattern of misconduct.
	States United Democracy Center filed the ethics complaint in May 2022 with the Colorado office, yada, yada, yada.
	Large, the state Supreme Court's presiding disciplinary judge, held a hearing on March 1 on the misrepresentations Ellis acknowledged.
	Large said there were no comparable cases with similar facts.
	I'll read it afterwards.
	Okay.
	That's the news part of it.
	We just need to know who the presiding judge is.
	I think it's here.
	Here, Byron Large.
	We'll get to this in a second.
	Byron M. Large, Office of the Presiding Disciplinary Judge.
	The Honorable Byron M. Large serves as Colorado's Presiding Disciplinary Judge.
	He earned his Juris Doctor degree from the University of Denver and his undergraduate degree from the University of New Mexico.
	Before the Colorado Supreme Court appointed him as PDJ, Judge Large served as Magistrate in Adams County, Colorado, primarily assigned to civil and domestic dockets.
	Judge Large's prior experience includes work as a trial attorney at the Office of Attorney Regulation Council.
	He also spent nearly 10 years in private practice as an immigration attorney.
	Judge Larch has been involved with the Colorado Bar Association and has helped leadership positions in several of Colorado's diversity bar associations.
	He served on the boards of the Colorado LGBT Bar Association, the Colorado Hispanic Bar Association, the CBA Executive Committee, the CBA Immigration Section, and the American Immigration Lawyers Association nationally and locally.
	And then we've got his skills.
	Colorado Bar Association held leadership positions in the Colorado's Diversity Bar Association, served on the boards of the Colorado LGBT Bar Association and the Hispanic Bar Association.
	I don't mean to have, what do they call them, prejudgments?
	What do we think the chances are of this disciplinary presiding judge not having hostility towards Trump, Trump policies?
	Or any attorney with the audacity to represent Trump.
	Slim to none.
	Snowballs chance in a fiery pit of hell.
	That's where I would place the bets.
	So when people say, you know, Jenna, how does Jenna Ellis agree to, what do they call it?
	A stipulation?
	Basically like agree to a settlement which involves making certain admissions.
	How does she agree to that?
	What would have been the chances of not being found guilty and being...
	The harshest available sanction in the absence of a negotiated settlement?
	Slim to none.
	Let's see what's going on here.
	Slim to none.
	So now, when I'm listening to The Young Turks, Anna Kasparian, talking about how Jenna admitted to lying.
	And you read the article from USA Today.
	Let's go to the actual stipulation.
	I had it open.
	I know that I had it open.
	Son of a beast thing.
	I had it open and then I closed it for some reason.
	Let's go to the actual stipulation because it is interesting.
	And then I'll tell you, first of all, why I didn't discuss this with Jenna live.
	The main reason is, like I said, I'm not interested in getting anybody to say anything that's going to get them into more trouble.
	There's nothing that Jenna could say about this to attenuate what she said without it necessarily being a contradiction of a statement that she signed that basically attests to the truth and accuracy of the statement.
	They have indeed coerced something of a statement of culpability from Jenna Ellis that she cannot in any public forum Don't attenuate or dare contradict because then they would undoubtedly, undoubtedly come after her yet again and say, holy crap, well, you're either lying now or you lied then.
	You contradicted a statement that said you acknowledged that you signed this in full awareness of fact and then you go out and contradict.
	That's bringing the court into disrepute.
	You're saying...
	So there's obvious reasons why there's nothing more that she can say about this above and beyond what's already said in the statement.
	And I'm not interested in getting someone into more trouble knowing that the full brunt of the system has already been brought down on them.
	This is the stipulation to discipline pursuant to Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure 20...
	We'll go over it real quick-like.
	On the 10th of February, 2023, Jessica Yates, regulation counsel and attorney for the complainant, Jessica Lynn Ellis, the respondent who is represented by attorney Michael William Melito in these proceedings, enter into the following stipulation to discipline.
	She's agreeing to it.
	And submit the same to the presiding judge, disciplinary judge, for his consideration.
	Okay?
	The respondent has taken and subscribed to the oath of admissions, was admitted to the bar, yada, yada, yada.
	Respondent enters into the stipulation freely and voluntarily.
	No promises have been made concerning future consideration, punishment, or lenience in the above captioned matter.
	I suspect everybody knows they have to say that, but they've come to an agreement where she was not going to sign this and then get sentenced to the fullest sanction under the law.
	Respondent is familiar with the rules of Colorado Supreme Court regarding the procedure for discipline.
	I'm at number four.
	Respondent acknowledges the right to full and complete evidentiary hearing, yada, yada, yada.
	Item five, respondent and complainant specifically waive the right to a hearing pursuant to the rules.
	Six, respondent and complainant stipulate the following facts and conclusions.
	Respondent was a member of President Trump's legal team that made efforts to challenge President Biden's victory.
	That's how the judge, that's how they see this.
	That's how they have to frame it.
	She was a senior legal advisor to President Trump from February 2019.
	to January 15, 2021.
	She was part of the legal team.
	D, respondent made a variety of public statements while she was counsel to the Trump campaign and personal counsel to President Trump.
	Her Twitter handle advertised her status as an attorney.
	Generally, when she spoke in public between November and January 2021, she was identified as a member of President Trump's legal team.
	Item E, respondent made the following misrepresentations while serving as counsel for the Trump campaign and personal counsel to President Trump.
	One.
	November 13, 2020.
	Respondent claimed that, quote, Hillary Clinton still has not conceded the 2016 election.
	Some people, like myself, are going to say, that's false.
	That statement is false.
	Hillary conceded.
	She had that speech.
	She said, I'm sorry we didn't win.
	Let's give Trump a fair chance while we fabricate the whole Russiagate to try to undermine the first three years of his presidency.
	Doesn't matter.
	She technically conceded.
	And then spent the next three, four years, and I think she's still saying it to this day, affirming the lie.
	Speaking of affirming a lie, affirming the lie that Russia colluded with Trump to interfere in 2016 election.
	Some might say that any concession is actually just a disingenuous concession and saying I concede but Russia helped Trump is actually not a concession.
	Some might say that.
	But I can understand the argument.
	Hillary Clinton still has not conceded the 2016 election is factually incorrect in that she conceded while continuing to maintain an abject lie that Russia and Trump colluded to try to overturn or interfere with 2016 election.
	Okay.
	Statement number two, November 20, 2020.
	Respondent appeared on mornings with Maria on Fox Business and stated, we have affidavits from witnesses.
	We have voter intimidation.
	We have the ballots that were manipulated.
	We have all kinds of statistics that show that this was a coordinated effort in all of these states to transfer votes, either from Trump to Biden, to manipulate the ballots, to count them in secret.
	Sounds like a statement of opinion, in my view.
	We don't have to go over all of them.
	With all those states, yada, yada, yada, combined, we know that the election was stolen from President Trump and we can prove that.
	That sounds like a lawyer making representations for and on behalf of their clients.
	They've effectively criminalized that right now.
	If you present your client's position and then ultimately fail to prove it, ethics complaint.
	With all the...
	We just did that one.
	November 21, 2020.
	Respondents stated on Twitter under her handle Jenna Ellis-esque.
	Second, we will present testimonial and other evidence in court to show how this election was stolen.
	Wow, that doesn't sound like a statement of opinion at all.
	All right.
	This is how the entire process has been weaponized.
	And you have literal activist judges.
	I mean, activists by their own bios on these boards.
	And then, you know, the question becomes...
	Get down here.
	The question becomes, did Jenna Ellis bear false witness to herself in order to escape what would have been the inevitable harsher outcome from any hearing in front of that judge in that state?
	Should she have gone and gotten disbarred while contesting it?
	I'm reminded of James O 'Keefe, oddly enough, the full circle of life.
	James O 'Keefe, in our interview, I asked him, do you regret anything that you've ever done?
	And his answer, it was pretty reflexive, was, I regret bearing false witness to myself when I pleaded guilty to something that I knew that I was innocent for, and it's haunted me for the rest of my days.
	In a number of ways, spiritually and legally.
	I don't know what I would do in Jenna Ellis's position in that case.
	Would I bear false witness to myself even though I knew that what I was saying, these statements were statements of opinion, but this is what I have to agree to in order to preserve my ability to continue practicing law?
	I don't know.
	A lot of people out there might say coward, bears false witness.
	Others might say strategically smart because there was pretty much a guaranteed condemnation, probably a full disbarment in the state.
	Given the judge, given the state, everyone makes their own decisions and that's it.
	So that's Jenna's story.
	That's where they're at now.
	But now the media gets to say that Jenna admits to having made misrepresentations, and they're not wrong.
	Misrepresentations, whatever that means, under the law, rules of procedure in Colorado.
	They've got their headline.
	They eked it out, much like they eked out confessions from people who were not guilty throughout Stalin's Russia.
	Plus ça change, plus ça reste le même.
	The more things change, the more things stay the same.
	Let me bring up a couple of rumble rants.
	Uncle Kenny!
	Good to see you again in the house.
	$2 rumble rant.
	You missed the vid of Trudy being told to stand up by Sophie during the Biden speech in the House of Commons about the 50% of women.
	Oh, I'll find it.
	Second Amendment or Die, $5 Romo Rant says, Ginger Ninja here.
	I threw a few jabs at Jenna.
	By the way, she was treated in the courts.
	Oh, but the way she was treated in the courts, bullshit, or BS, I should say.
	I wish she would have come out being more galvanized and passionate about the fight, not bowing down.
	I don't know if she's bowing down or beaten down.
	And then some people can also potentially understand a little bit of resentment.
	It's a resentment that a lot of people are vocalizing as relates to Trump.
	Barnes has brought it up.
	He's not that good.
	He doesn't have that good of a track record of defending those who defended him and then who suffered the most serious consequences for their defense of Donald Trump.
	Roger Stone ultimately got pardoned or commuted.
	I forget.
	What did he get pardoned?
	I think he got commuted.
	Bannon, but Colfage, no.
	Build the wall?
	They had to, you know.
	Fend for themselves.
	The January Sixers still rotting away in a DC gulag, for lack of a better word.
	So, Jenna was treated like absolute crap.
	And, you know, was abused by the full force of a highly weaponized licensure system.
	Okay.
	And that might explain it away for some, and that might, you know, not explain it away for others.
	But that is her story.
	That is her life experience.
	Agree or disagree with it.
	Judge it or don't judge it.
	But like Barnes always says, don't judge someone unless you've walked 50 miles in their shoes.
	I cannot imagine what it would be like to be a former Trump attorney dealing with all that crap because in the limited amount of crap that I've had to deal with, it's still stressful.
	And I wasn't defending Satan himself.
	I'm saying that tongue-in-cheek, people.
	All righty.
	Now, let's go on to stuff that's not...
	It's the most glorious thing on the face of the planet.
	CNN acting like buffoons and getting exactly the response that they deserve.
	If you haven't read this wonderful piece, if you haven't heard this amazing journalism rubbish...
	From none other than the communist news network itself, CNN.
	What's digital blackface?
	And why is it wrong when white people use it?
	Why is white capitalized?
	It doesn't matter.
	That's Kimberly Sweet Brown.
	Ain't nobody got time for that!
	One of the best songs ever by Shmoyoho.
	Songify this.
	She got bronchitis.
	Ain't nobody got time for it.
	It's the greatest thing ever.
	I know where they're going with this.
	She had a great meme.
	Ain't nobody got time for that.
	She became a meme after her interview in 2012.
	Okay.
	Maybe you shared that viral video of Kimberly Sweet Brown Wilkins telling a reporter that narrowly escaping an apartment fire, ain't nobody got time for that.
	She has a good, raspy singing voice when she says it.
	Perhaps you posted that meme of supermodel Tyra Banks exploding in anger on America's next top model.
	I was rooting for you.
	We were all rooting for you.
	Or maybe you simply posted popular GIFs, such as the one of NBA great Michael Jordan crying or drag queen RuPaul declaring, girl!
	If you're black and you shared such images online, you get a pass.
	Oh my goodness.
	But if you're white...
	Why are black and white capitalized if it's referring to colors of people?
	It doesn't matter.
	You may have inadvertently perpetuated one of the most insidious forms of contemporary racism.
	I don't know who the author is to this article.
	And I don't know which way I'm going on predicting race.
	Chat?
	Now, you might have already seen it.
	Let me just see who the author is.
	Okay, the author is John Blake.
	He's black.
	Okay.
	So, it's not a white person.
	It's not a white knight pun intended.
	This appears to be someone trying to tell me that I'm racist and I didn't even know it.
	You may be wearing digital blackface.
	What is digital blackface?
	Digital blackface is a practice where white people co-opt online expressions of black imagery, slang, catchphrases, or culture to convey comic relief or express emotions or...
	And I'm just spitballing here.
	They're using something that another human said to make a point.
	Just maybe.
	Maybe it doesn't even make a difference if the person is white, black, Asian, Jewish, or rabbi.
	These expressions, what one commentator calls racialized reactions.
	Oh, really?
	Or just reactions.
	Our mainstays in Twitter feeds, TikTok videos, and Instagram reels, and are among the most popular internet memes.
	Digital blackface involves white people play acting at being black, says Lord Michelle Jackson.
	I'm not reading this whole thing because it's absolutely rubbish.
	If you're still not sure how to define digital blackface, Jackson offers a guide.
	She says it includes displays of emotions stereotyped as excessive.
	So happy, so sassy, so ghetto, so loud.
	Our dial is on 10 all the time.
	Why white people may choose images of black people when it comes to expressing exaggerated emotions?
	On social media, a burden that black people didn't ask for, she says.
	Oh, really?
	How about...
	I'm not reading any more of this.
	How about that gif of the white kid in the audience at I think it's America Not Talent or American Idol?
	Like this...
	With that...
	How about that?
	Exactly.
	How about race has nothing to do with it?
	How about that?
	And you want to make race having something to do with this, where if someone says, imagine this, author of the CNN Rubbish Garbage Journal, I'm not going to use that meme because it's a black person.
	Yeah, that's racism.
	So it's digital blackface to use a meme of a black person, if you're not black.
	Whereas some would argue that it's overt racism to not use a meme of a black person if you're not black.
	All roads lead to racism.
	So the rubbish, the pure rubbish coming out of CNN, are you wearing digital blackface?
	Will it yielded the result that you might think it would yield?
	And it's glorious.
	What do you think the reaction was, by the way?
	Well, this was my reaction.
	Dear CNN, you are so dumb.
	You really are dumb.
	Lock up your children.
	They're coming for you.
	Another great interview.
	I mean, some of the greatest interviews ever given have been songified by Shmoyoho.
	But then you go to the article here.
	Just look at this.
	What's going to be the reaction?
	Oh, okay.
	I'm not getting myself in trouble.
	It is what you thought it was going to be.
	A bunch of people making points by pointing, by putting out gifts of black people.
	Almost to say, Take your racism is everywhere, and maybe for one split second, view people as people, not as reductions of identity politics.
	There's just...
	It's amazing.
	I don't even know...
	Okay, that was one of the few that was not a troll of a response.
	Mm-hmm.
	Glorious.
	What you talking about, Willis?
	Different strokes.
	One of the greatest shows ever.
	I still prefer mine.
	Mine is the best.
	CNN is literal rubbish.
	That was in the lighter side of the news today.
	Hold on, hold on.
	Oh yeah, that's right.
	I put it out yesterday, by the way, because this was the other question I had.
	Before going to bed tonight, CNN, is a digital blackface if I use a GIF of a black man?
	Dressed up as a white woman.
	For anybody who doesn't know, this is one of the Wayans brothers.
	I don't know which one it is.
	In the movie, the classic, White Chicks.
	Two black men dressing up as white women.
	Let me just, like, let's get the gif of the...
	A white man doing something exaggerated.
	If I post a gif of a black man dressed up as a white woman, is it digital black white face?
	Who the hell knows?
	Because none of it makes any sense because it doesn't make any sense.
	All roads lead to racism for those who want to see racism everywhere.
	And oddly enough, those tend to be the racists in life.
	Can't see a person for a person.
	Can't see a gif for a gif.
	Can't see anything for anything other than racism.
	Didn't do something to me?
	It's because I'm black.
	Did something to me?
	It's because I'm black.
	Oh, I can play this game.
	Something happens to me?
	It's got to be because I'm Jewish.
	Something doesn't happen to me.
	It's got to be because I'm Jewish or short.
	No, it couldn't just be something happened to me.
	No.
	What else is there?
	So someone in the chat said I missed.
	I missed Justin Trudeau being told by Sophie to stand up.
	I'll see if I can find that.
	What I didn't miss from Justin Trudeau.
	Oh, crap.
	I did it again.
	What I did not miss from Justin Trudeau.
	Is Kim Jong-un level propaganda coming out of Canada?
	I'll get there in a second.
	Let me just go back to Rumble and see if there's any...
	There are no Rumble rants that I've missed, and let me just go to the chat.
	Are we still live on Rumble?
	Hold on one second.
	Refresh.
	Hey, there we are.
	Okay, we're good.
	I'm not reading.
	Okay, so based on a name and based on a comment, we have some trolls in Rumble.
	Viva looks like he a burnt-out nut sack.
	That's anti-Semitic, sir.
	That's an actual hate crime.
	Melania's penis.
	Now I know.
	That is the handle.
	That is a troll.
	I'm not going to put anyone on timeout for that.
	Don't spam.
	Spamming is really the only thing that gets people put on timeout.
	All right.
	And then we got Jacob Castro says, Hail Viva.
	Oh, geez.
	Now I'm an anti-Semitic Jew.
	Oh, my goodness.
	I'm in trouble.
	I'm in trouble, people.
	Okay.
	But speaking of dictators.
	Okay.
	This was on Justin Trudeau's Twitter feed yesterday.
	Oh, look at this.
	He's the most beloved man in Canada.
	Obviously.
	And when he goes out to play golf, he gets nine holes in one.
	Hold on, sorry.
	I didn't actually just read.
	I have to read the tweet before I play the video.
	This is Justin Trudeau, people.
	The most beloved man in Canada.
	Everywhere he goes, he gets high fives, kisses, loves, and adulation.
	Justin Trudeau.
	There's nowhere I'd rather celebrate Greek Independence Day than Montreal.
	We do have a very thriving Greek community in Montreal.
	I've been coming here for years to mark this day.
	And it's always a pleasure.
	I've been coming here for years to mark this day.
	I can't make the joke.
	It's not my type of humor.
	But you all know where I'm going with this.
	Watch Kim Jong-un.
	I'm sorry.
	Watch Justin Trudeau get nothing but love and adulation from the people he has been psychologically, economically, and politically abusing for the last three years.
	No, I say eight years.
	Eight years now.
	Oh, yes.
	Everyone's waiting.
	They're lining up.
	Look, the dogs come to see us.
	By the way, this is on...
	If I'm not mistaken, this is Saint Laurent Street.
	This is the main.
	And that's Mikko Suvlaki behind...
	I think that's Mikko's.
	And now this is Saint Laurent Street.
	It's like the best...
	It's a great street.
	By the way, I think they accidentally left that in.
	They probably didn't mean to because...
	That shows you no one is there for Justin Trudeau because he is not the most loved person in Canada.
	I dare say he's the most politically despised human in Canadian history.
	Look at that.
	Streets are filled with security.
	Here you go.
	He's in a restaurant now.
	The only places where he doesn't get heckled is where he controls the entrance.
	And then not even so.
	We'll see in a second.
	It's hugs and loves and kisses.
	Look at that.
	Everybody just wants to say hi to Justin.
	Empty streets.
	Shaken hands.
	Shaken hands.
	Beautiful music.
	Look at this.
	Look at this.
	Oh!
	They're running out of their house to sob at the feet of Kim Jong-un, their dear leader.
	And do you know, like, I was listening to Yeonmi Park on one of her interviews.
	Like...
	They have to show an over-exaggerated adulation for their supreme leader.
	It's no different, mutatis mutatis, except here, you know, you can't compel people to come and show support, although you can, you know, find certain coercive measures to do it, but, you know.
	Oh, yes.
	Yeah, I love it.
	Thank you, man.
	Shake your hands.
	Thank you so much.
	Thank you so much.
	He's the most beloved man in the history of Canada.
	Cannot go anywhere without being compelled to shake hands of loving citizens.
	Oh!
	I'm sorry, no!
	You know why?
	Because that is government propaganda.
	Because the reality is, and I say this without judgment, I mean, I say this without condoning or condemning, he can't go anywhere without getting heckled, without getting booed and jeered.
	I should say that...
	People are within their rights to do that.
	Use your words, don't throw gravel.
	Use your words, don't smash eggs on Justin Trudeau.
	Oh, I'm sorry, no, they only did that to Maxine Bernier.
	But someone did throw gravel at Justin Trudeau, and I would argue that these people are saboteurs because they then allow the government and Justin Trudeau to play the victim and vilify people who would only protest with the words coming out of their mouths.
	Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never harm me.
	Used to actually mean something.
	But this is what...
	This is Justin Trudeau's reality when it's not his own government-funded propaganda of what a loved person he is.
	This is in the House of Commons, if I'm not mistaken.
	This is a time we'll be compliant with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Why isn't it playing?
	I want to see it smooth.
	Okay, there you go.
	Masks behind it.
	The audio's off.
	All this to say, he gets heckled in the House of Commons.
	All right.
	Heckled in Parliament.
	Where else does Justin Trudeau get heckled?
	Even at events that he organizes.
	The audio is terrible.
	Please do, but let people celebrate that Ukraine is still standing and Canada stands with it.
	Thank you.
	Imagine a Prime Minister berating his own citizens.
	He doesn't just get heckled there.
	Hold on, I had one more.
	Here's another one.
	When he walks the streets, this is more likely.
	At an event that he organized controlled entry to.
	Let's just see what happens on this one.
	I'm glad to hear you.
	I'm so scared.
	I believe this was a political rally for another fellow liberal, if I'm not mistaken.
	And I also believe that I'm fairly certain it was an indigenous protester, but I might be mistaken on that.
	This is a moment to gather and to celebrate being able to gather once again.
	Isn't it great?
	He's allowed us to gather once again.
	All hail, all hail, Supreme Leader Justin Trudeau.
	He's given us our rights, our charter right to peacefully gather back to us.
	He's given us our lives back because we did what he said.
	We should be thankful to him.
	I know San Pee is an extraordinary time for people coming across the country, gathering to celebrate, gathering to.
	What a bloody phony.
	Look at, I mean, I have nothing against those belt buckles.
	One of the medals that I won at the Ultra Beast is a belt buckle.
	There's a reason why I don't wear it.
	Justin Trudeau is not the cowboy hat belt buckle wearing.
	Oh, he's got his sleeves slightly rolled up.
	What a, what a big fat phony.
	I'm just incredibly excited to be here.
	Security, security, security.
	We're also here with Randy Westo from Edmonton, who is a member of the United States of America, and Benji Dillon from each of our MPs there.
	This is about inacting, so I'm not going to spend too much time speaking because, you know, we've been working hard for you, but you've all been working hard as well.
	I'm glad you guys are standing here, but we have to be there.
	I'm glad you're here as well.
	This is a moment to gather and to speak.
	But all of that, that doesn't exist.
	You've got your propaganda video.
	Kim Jong-un level, loved by his people.
	He does no wrong.
	He doesn't dress in blackface or allegedly improperly touch reporters and apologize for it.
	He doesn't have two ethics breaches against his name already, three ethics complaints.
	He doesn't have allegations of infiltration, financial support from the Chinese Communist Party.
	He doesn't have scandals involving his mother and brother getting speaking.
	He has none of that.
	He's a beloved, honest...
	Faithful servant of the people.
	He doesn't lock them down in their homes or impose unconstitutional vaccine mandates or haul them off to quarantine hotels, government-designated quarantine facilities.
	He doesn't do any of that.
	And he's not hated for it either.
	He's loved.
	And if you thought you saw these videos where Justin Trudeau cannot literally be in the presence of the people he represents without being heckled, that's a false memory that you have.
	Two plus two equals five, and you love Big Brother and Justin Trudeau.
	All right.
	A couple more.
	Oh, we almost saved the best.
	We almost saved the best for last.
	Let me see here.
	Maple Syrup123Viva, did you see on CPAC MPs giving themselves their fourth raise since 2019?
	Oh, I saw that.
	While Jagmeet Singh continues to blame inflation on greedy CEOs who are just interested in making money.
	Jagmeet Singh and the other members of parliament, after they have devastated their constituents financially, psychologically, emotionally, spiritually, physically, for the last four years, shut them down, gave them a $2,000 a month stipend for their hardships.
	Taxable, by the way.
	Many people don't know that, but you'll find out when you file your taxes.
	They've given themselves their fourth pay raise now since the COVID pandemic.
	Hmm.
	Pixel Vector, Viva is a useless, stupid piece of tranny F-word S-H-I-T.
	Oh, that's interesting.
	Yeah, that's what we call spamming.
	Pixel Vector has spammed and has suffered the mute.
	All right, we still got something.
	Coming out of Canada, did I hear that the previews have gotten their fourth pay raise?
	I heard that.
	Did you hear, this is an old story, but it just came up recently on Twitter.
	I saw a tweet that said, some artist is making fashion.
	It's a purse and the handle is made from a human spine that has been allegedly warranted as being ethically sourced from Canada.
	I saw the tweet.
	I couldn't believe it.
	I went and pulled up an article.
	Now, some people are going to say, why do you rely on Business Insider, which you call shit journalism, which I do.
	I will take it with a grain of salt that maybe this is not true, but it looks like it has been reported, at the very least, as being true, whether or not it's a true story.
	Meanwhile, in Canada, blame Canada.
	Let's have another meme of South Park.
	Blame Canada.
	Insider.
	A flamboyant Instagram fashion star is selling a handbag he says is made from a human spine ethically sourced from Canada.
	Why do I bring this up?
	If there's any element of truth to this, just lump it together with everything else that's been going on in Canada.
	Create a market for cadavers, for organs.
	Create a market to incentivize medical assistance in dying.
	Who knows where it goes?
	A fashion designer has become notorious for advertising a handbag said to be made of alligator tongues and an ethically sourced human spine.
	Some product descriptions have claimed it's a child spine.
	Arnold Pultra.
	See, I don't know if this story is true.
	It just seems...
	So outrageous that it can't be true.
	The bag went mostly unnoticed for years, but after a widely shared tweet about it recently, people flocked his Instagram page where he posts travel pictures.
	Let's see here.
	It's an Indonesian fashion designer selling a handbag made out of alligator tongues and ethically sourced human spine, which he says came from a medical surplus in Canada.
	Medical surplus.
	The handbag is a $5,000 one-of-a-piece design by designer Arnold Putra, who says it first went on sale in 2016.
	It is a basket-style handbag with a handle formed from what appears to be a single human spinal cord.
	Experts told Insider they believe it was genuine.
	Putra lives a flamboyant lifestyle full of exotic travel, luxury, and high fashion.
	He was name-checked by Rich Kids Instagram.
	Who cares?
	So yeah, that was a fun thing, which I'm still not sure if I believe it.
	It's nice that he says it is, and that experts say it appears to be legit.
	And if anybody knows, gosh darn, what could be more?
	Nature Love of Freedom says, even if it's not true, it one day will be true.
	Hoppity Hooper says, true.
	Remember that Swiss museum display of segmented human body?
	It was true.
	No, for sure.
	I'm not saying this to brag.
	I'm not sure how I feel about this.
	People dedicated their bodies to science for the bodies exhibit, where they would rubberize the human body.
	It was in New York.
	I saw it like 12 years ago.
	At the time, you like to say to yourself, yeah, I'm doing it for science, but people mostly know that they're doing it just to see what it looks like.
	I have no doubt people donate their bodies to science for specific purposes.
	The question is whether or not they knew that their spine was going to end up a handle on a purse being sold for $5,000 for shock value on the interwebs.
	All right.
	And then we're going to end on this, people.
	We're going to end on this before I go to Locals exclusive for the end of this.
	Oh, have I not even checked if we're live on Locals?
	We are.
	Good.
	We're going to end on this one video that I'm going to use to play us out.
	Because nothing says fighting fascism and fighting Nazis like holding up a sign that says exterminate fill in the blank.
	It's just amazing.
	This is at a protest.
	I don't exactly know where.
	I'm not sure that it makes much of a difference.
	I'm not sure that it makes much of a difference.
	Fuck all Nazis.
	And then we have a billboard that says exterminate transphobia.
	To be young and to be so dumb.
	I say this at large.
	Kids are looking for causes.
	They're looking for underdogs.
	Some adults are as well.
	But could you imagine?
	and billboard that says exterminate whatever.
	Fuck off Nazis!
	I want to read these billboards.
	Eradicate.
	Exterminate.
	Respect existence or expect resistance.
	Not bad.
	Trans people are people.
	Nobody in their right mind denies that.
	Period.
	What some people, biologically, justifiably so, do deny is that biological males...
	Cannot be biological females.
	Biological males are not females.
	Trans rights are human rights.
	Our brothers belong here.
	That's the daily dose of absurdity.
	Although I think we might have one more to add to it.
	No, we don't.
	There was another person who was burning J.K. Rowling's books to fight fascism.
	Yeah.
	I don't think they've thought this through.
	Uneducated Moron says Unknown Citizen 2020.
	Young people, people are looking for causes to fight for, to give themselves meaning, to give themselves a sense of worth, especially young people, developing people who are looking to feel good about themselves.
	And what would make you feel better about yourself?
	Than fighting for an underdog in a cause that you have deemed to be worthwhile.
	I understand that.
	And kids tend to do it in stupid ways.
	And there's a reason for the old expression.
	If you're not liberal when you're young, you don't have a heart.
	And if you're not conservative when you're old, you don't have a brain.
	But my goodness.
	Fuck all Nazis with eradicate and exterminate as posters.
	I understand the irony that is intended behind that.
	But I also understand the stupidity that goes along with it.
	Okay, everybody.
	That's what we're going to end the stream on Rumble with.
	I'm going to go to Locals.
	We have some tips there.
	We have a chat there.
	And I'm going to go mingle with our Locals community.
	If anyone is so inclined to come along, here's the link.
	And you can come.
	Become a member.
	You don't have to pay to become a member.
	You'll just be a member of our 108,000-plus member community.
	Or you can choose to become a supporter.
	Seven bucks a month, 70 bucks a year.
	Annual supporters are going to get the exclusive Hush Hush from our meet and greets.
	If you sign up, you'll get it.
	So contemplate supporting there if you want to support.
	Some people actually give more than $7 a month.
	It's a bizarre thing.
	People love what we do and actually enjoy supporting us, which I am eternally grateful for.
	He who loves what he does never works a day in his life, and I'm fortunate enough to live that.
	What was I just about to say about the support?
	Oh yeah, you can also go get some merch if you want to get some merch.
	VivaFry.com.
	Rumble rants, tips, you know, all those things.
	Yadda yadda.
	Great show, Viva, from Swizzlestick33.
	Let's read a few more comments before we go.
	Never engage with a troll.
	They need it.
	It's like fentanyl to them.
	That is from Lotusland49.
	Sodium Podium?
	I like that name.
	Thanks, Viva.
	Oh, Viva Lotus Eaters demonetized.
	I heard that.
	Lotus Eaters.
	Carl Benjamin.
	Demonetized.
	For no good reason.
	No reason given from what Carl Benjamin was saying.
	Yep.
	That's it.
	Okay, let's do it.
	We're going to end it on Rumble.
	You've got the link one more time.
	Here's the link to Viva Barnes or www.vivafry.com.
	If you want to get a shirt, a bumper sticker.
	The bumper stickers are the best.
	The bumper stickers are the best.
	We've got one that says, Viva Fry, Live Free.
	Another one, Politics Ruins Everything.
	There is no better way than protecting one small rectangle of paint on your car than by putting a bumper sticker on it.
	And I'm not reading some of these comments.
	All right.
	Go to Locals, everybody.
	I'm going to end it on Rumble.
	Thank you very much.
	We've got a sidebar Wednesday.
	I'm going to be doing something tomorrow, obviously.
	Thursday, libs of TikTok.
	It's going to be amazing.
	We'll see if I can get something equally amazing for tomorrow or it'll just be me screaming into the void, which is all of you listening, like, share, subscribe, snip, clip, share away.
	Thank you for being here.
	And I'm going to go head over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com and then I'm done there.
	I'm going for a jog.
	And when I'm done with that, I'm making a barbecue with my mother-in-law, wife, and kids.
	I better go squeeze Pudge and walk Winston sooner than later.
	But everybody, see you on Locals.
	Peace out, peace.
	All right, it looks like it's being replayed there.
	That's fun.

▲