Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 6, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

01:29:14

Did D.A. Violate Trump's Rights? Did Clarence Thomas Cross a Line? Stormy & MORE! Viva Live

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Thank you.
	Love you.
	Bye.
	One more time.
	normalizing the bulge.
	Women can have bulges and that's okay.
	We're not going to stare at their crutches while they're wearing their little Okay, we're done.
	We're done.
	I know the arguments, people.
	I know the arguments.
	Pay them no attention, and that way they don't get what they're after.
	It's like that episode of The Simpsons.
	How do you deal with those massive media statues that came to life in one of the Hollywood episodes?
	Just don't look.
	Just don't look.
	Why am I bringing this up?
	It's not to continue to poke fun at Dylan Mulvaney because I'm still convinced it's a shtick.
	In an ordinary sane universe where people would regard it as a shtick, it would actually be kind of funny.
	I'm not bringing it up because Dylan Mulvaney is milking it like a holstie.
	I'm not going to call Dylan Mulvaney a grifter because I don't think he's creating drama in order to profit from it.
	He certainly has seen an opportunity and he has seized it.
	He has seized it so well that he is now, I mean, the woman's spoke model?
	Spokesperson?
	What the hell?
	I don't even know what it's called.
	Not just for Bud Light.
	We saw that collab on April 1st, and it was so natural and organic, people thought it was an actual April Fool's joke.
	Nike.
	He's now doing Nike women attire.
	He is the spokeswoman for Nike Women.
	He has seen his opportunity.
	He's going to milk it.
	He's going to take it and laugh all the way to the bank, as I'm sure he's doing.
	But why am I bringing it up today?
	Viva, use a Sharpie.
	I'm going to star this comment and get to it in a second.
	Why am I bringing it up today?
	Because of the Nike alliance.
	But not to poke fun at the alliance.
	Companies want to do things that are going to piss off their base.
	More power to them.
	And actually, oddly enough, If their base likes it, if their consumers like it, more power to them.
	I am not a woman.
	I happen to be married to one.
	I happen to have two girls among my three kids.
	I don't find it cool or hip that a biological male who has made his shtick about mocking gender stereotypes, if it were comedy, it would be fine.
	But to the extent I'm supposed to take it seriously and say...
	I now have to refer to a man with a bulge as a she?
	And by the way, clown world in which we live?
	I am seriously expected and almost browbeaded, publicly shamed, into being compelled to refer to Dylan Mulvaney as, or Dylan Mulvaney's penis, as her penis.
	As she has a penis.
	This is the world in which we're living.
	That people are being browbeaten and cancelled for not referring to something as her penis or she has a penis.
	It's amazing.
	It's amazing.
	It's like a flat mountain.
	It's like a jumbo shrimp.
	It's not even...
	No, that would be an oxymoron.
	It's a contradiction.
	It's a linguistic impossibility.
	Save and accept for the most obscure, astronomically rare conditions.
	And even then, I do wonder how biologically one would refer to, they're called intersex, a biological woman born with what appears to be a male genitalian.
	I don't know.
	But we are to be expected...
	To refer to a grown adult male with a penis as a bulge, her penis, she has a penis, there's nothing weird or absolutely insane about that.
	Okay, that's one thing.
	The Nike partnership.
	Part of me, no matter how cynically you get, you're still being naive.
	Lily Tomlin, it's my banner on Twitter and I will not be changing it for a while.
	Okay, it's opportunism.
	Bud Light, I don't know what they're thinking in terms of who they're appealing to.
	With the brand ambassadorship of Bud Light and Dylan Mulvaney, I don't know what they think it even does to the image of their product.
	Let's just say you thought it was a good idea.
	What are you saying about Bud Light by teaming up with a man who is dressing up like a woman?
	What do you think you're saying about your product?
	It's an inclusive product?
	I presume Bud Light knows who their demographic is, and I presume, I don't know for certain, I presume their demographic is not women to begin with.
	I presume that because Bud Light has a number of other products which I presume were targeted to a female demographic.
	The lime-flavored beer.
	Some of their stuff is very bizarre, but if anyone likes it, more power to them.
	They know their demographics.
	They know who buys what?
	What age group?
	Who is their demographic for Bud Light?
	I don't think it's women to begin with.
	What are they saying about their own product when they make a brand ambassadorship like this?
	What are they doing to the demographic that they know are the consumers of their product?
	Okay, whatever.
	If they say it's a business decision, it's their decision to make and others to object to.
	The Nike one.
	The Nike one where no matter how cynical you are.
	It's tough to keep up.
	Let me bring this up here in terms of understanding.
	Here we go.
	The timing.
	The timing of the Nike partnership.
	I'm sure it's just a coincidence.
	I wish I could do this faster.
	Now I'm losing the punchline.
	I'm sure it's just a coincidence.
	As to the Nike partnership, it coincides with...
	I didn't even realize it because some people might not even know that this movie called Air is about Nike Air and their courting Michael Jordan for the first...
	I think it was like the first partnership between a company and an athlete, Nike Air.
	It's a weird thing that they happen to be running this partnership with Dylan Mulvaney, which is generating publicity for good or for bad.
	But as the old expression goes, there's no such thing as bad publicity.
	It's generating publicity for Nike.
	Right about the time they have this movie coming out, which I'm not sure how many people have heard of this movie.
	Hmm.
	Everyone's talking about Air Movie.
	Don't miss the film now playing.
	Only in theaters.
	Get a ticket now.
	A slam dunk and best movie of the year with Ben Affleck.
	Fandango.
	And then what was the movie about?
	Do they even give it...
	I don't know if they even...
	Courting a Legend is what it's called.
	It's about how Nike courted Michael Jordan.
	It's just...
	I'm sure the timing is just a coincidence.
	Up in arms, boycotting Nike people, you know, screaming and protesting and making noise on Twitter.
	I'm sure it's bad publicity for the movie that just came out, Air.
	All right, that was the intro.
	And we'll get that out of the way because the rest of it's actually going to be meaningful, substantive stuff.
	Except just to say, like, we live in a world where we have to refer to people as having her penis.
	It's crazy.
	Normalize the bulge.
	Normalize the bulge.
	In that video, and I spared you all the longer version, Dylan Mulvaney says that his crotch doesn't look like the crotch of other women.
	Yep.
	Because I'm expected to say that that's because she has a penis.
	And I gotta tell you this.
	I don't care in the most tolerant and inclusive way.
	I do not care what adults do.
	It's not that I don't care about other people's religions.
	I don't care about it.
	It's that to each their own.
	Good for you if you're happy.
	Good for you if what you're doing is making you happy in life, and if it's not, I do wish happiness on people.
	I don't care about things that other grown adults do to the extent that they don't impact, affect, hurt other people.
	I'm not so convinced that what Dylan Mulvaney is doing right now is not hurting other people.
	In fact, I'm fairly certain it is.
	I'm fairly certain it is hurting children, impressionable youth, confusing people.
	Teaching people to be empowered by superficial methods of getting attention, getting recognition.
	Dylan Mulvaney, what Dylan Mulvaney does with himself, that's none of my business and I don't care.
	But what he does on a bullhorn that has a negative impact on other people, then it does unfortunately become the interests and the concerns of other people.
	Now, getting into the show.
	Algebra cabin men.
	My grandmother would call this the, quote, red guard, end quote.
	I am only 28 years removed from socialism.
	The cultist hegemony will do literally anything to push the state-sponsored narrative.
	And this is the other question that I'm asking.
	Why the hell is all of this happening now?
	Drag shows for kids.
	Transgenderism.
	How?
	It can't be organic because it's not organic.
	It's like...
	It's like a pump and dump of a stock.
	It's not organic.
	It's visually, psychologically, spiritually, culturally not organic.
	What the hell's going on?
	Just like that.
	Just like that.
	COVID hysteria.
	Ukraine hysteria.
	Trans hysteria.
	Drag hysteria.
	Just like that.
	And we're to believe it's organic progress?
	It's not.
	Algebra Caberman, thank you very much for the $10 super chat.
	We are simultaneously streaming.
	On the Rumbles, or at least we should be.
	Go on a refresh, make sure everything is good there.
	We are.
	We are also simultaneously streaming on the Locals.
	I made the mistake.
	I didn't realize Barnes is live with the Duran right now.
	And if anybody wants to go watch that and come back to this later, I think you should do that.
	This will be around later.
	I've been noticing that a lot of the views on the stream have been coming after the stream is live anyhow.
	The live part is only fun for the interaction, but afterwards you can come back for the information.
	It's going to be good.
	Today, what do we have on the menu?
	Did I wear this shirt yesterday?
	If I wore it yesterday, I'm not even sure that I washed it.
	What do we have on the menu for today?
	We're going to have some Trump stuff, some Stormy Daniels stuff.
	We're going to have that Kansas Bill stuff.
	Oh, the Kansas Bill!
	Authorizing genital inspections, Bill.
	It's the Don't Say Gay Bill Iteration 2.0.
	What else?
	Oh, the camera's back on tracking.
	I thought I solved this problem.
	Clarence Thomas.
	I can't ignore the story because I know that if I saw this story for someone who I should be ideologically disaligned with, I would jump on it.
	I looked into this story about Clarence Thomas alleged improprieties, lack of ethics, taking undisclosed gifts from somebody.
	There's a little bit more to the story.
	Look at that.
	The stupid schnook Canadian just asks the obvious question.
	If something like this was going on, how could it have been going on without anybody knowing for so long?
	Oh, wait a minute.
	Lo and behold, there's nothing new about this story.
	That's not to say there's nothing wrong with the story.
	There might still be.
	But typically, if something has been wrong for over a decade, someone would have found the illegality or the lack of it.
	We'll get to it.
	Clarence Thomas.
	I forget what else he says.
	What do we want to start with?
	People?
	Let's see if...
	Oh yeah, by the way, so that's the other thing.
	No medical advice, no legal advice, no election fornication advice.
	YouTube Super Chat.
	YouTube takes 30% of that.
	If you want to support the channel, you can go over to Rumble, which is where I suggest you go because we're going to end up there anyhow, exclusively.
	They have Rumble Rants.
	For the rest of 2023, 100% goes to the creator, but typically Rumble takes 20% of that, so still better for the creator, better for the platform to support a platform that actually supports free speech.
	You can go to vivabarneslaw.locals.com, become a member where you don't have to pay and you get tons of stuff, goodies, or you can be a supporter where you get tons of exclusive stuff, or just share, snip, clip, etc.
	But the most fun way to me...
	Is the merch store.
	I was wearing this shirt earlier today, but I sweat in this shirt and I don't like people seeing darker color gray under my armpities.
	You got your will be wild.
	The words that got Trump in trouble.
	Politics ruined everything.
	Oh, that's right.
	I ended up actually making a smart point that has come to fruition.
	So you can go to vivafry.com and get merch.
	Let's start with Clarence Thomas, actually, just so nobody says, Vivi, you're doing the Clarence Thomas part exclusively on Grumble so that YouTube doesn't hear about it.
	No!
	I like Clarence Thomas ideologically.
	I don't know him as a person.
	I have no reason to believe he's a bad person on a personal level, but I don't know.
	I think I would have an inclination or an inkling to let him babysit my kids.
	That's the threshold that I typically use.
	He's got kids.
	He's got grandkids.
	Seems like a decent person on a personal level, but I don't know.
	On an ideological level, on a legal mind-thinking level, I like Clarence Thomas.
	But there's been a bombshell.
	It's a...
	Flipping bombshell.
	It's going to upend the Supreme Court.
	People are now chanting for the resignation of Clarence Thomas.
	Where did it come from, this article?
	Here.
	They're chanting for Clarence Thomas to withdraw, resign from the Supreme Court.
	What would happen if that happened?
	Well, they'd appoint a Democrat.
	They would appoint a liberal judge.
	And then the balance would tip.
	So, oh, I'm sure the timing is coincidental.
	But you still...
	After attacking motive, pro publica, that's who it was.
	After attacking motive, and you can attack it all you want, at the end of the day, you have to say, are the allegations true?
	And if they are, what is the impact of the allegations?
	Pro publica comes out with an expose.
	Okay, this layout is super confusing.
	What just happened?
	Dude, refresh.
	Okay, so...
	Okay, ProPublica, for over 20 years, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has been treated to luxury vacations by billionaire Republican donor Harlan Crowe.
	It's off to a bad start.
	I don't like the way that looks.
	He goes on cruises in far-flung locales on Crowe's yacht, flies on his private jet, and keeps company with Crowe's powerful friends at the billionaire's private resort.
	It's almost like powerful, connected people...
	I don't like the way this looks, by the way.
	I don't like the fact that allegedly, according to this article, the gifts, the vacations were not disclosed.
	I now have questions about that, but I don't like the optics any more than I liked it when Justin Trudeau was taking undisclosed, undeclared trips to the Aga Khan's private island while the Aga Khan was petitioning the federal government for tens of millions of dollars in aid and getting it.
	And it led to an ethics conviction against Justin Trudeau.
	So let's just hear the substance.
	Clarence Thomas and the billionaire.
	In late June 2019, right after the Supreme Court released its final opinion of the term Justice Clarence Thomas boarded a large private jet headed to Indonesia.
	He and his wife were going on vacation.
	Nine days of island hopping in a volcanic archipelago on a superfluid.
	We got some pictures.
	Look at this.
	Good journalism, ProPublica.
	Luxury trips virtually every year from the Dallas businessman without disclosing them.
	I'm piecing it together in my head in real time right now.
	Without disclosing them, documents and interviews show.
	A public servant who has a salary of $285,000, he has vacationed on a cross superyacht around the globe, flies on his Bombardier jet, he's gone to Bohemian Grove.
	Now I'm a little suspicious.
	The all-male retreat, yada, yada, yada.
	The extent and frequency of Crowe's apparent gifts to Thomas have no known precedent in the modern history of the U.S. Supreme Court.
	Remember this, people.
	This article just came out.
	It's a bombshell.
	April 6th.
	That's today.
	This article is a bombshell.
	These trips appeared nowhere on Thomas's financial disclosures.
	That's a serious allegation.
	His failures to report the flights appear to violate law.
	A law passed after Watergate that requires justices, judges, members of Congress to disclose most gifts, two ethics lawyer experts said.
	He also disclosed the trips on his yacht, these experts said.
	Okay, he didn't respond to a detailed list of questions.
	So, it goes on.
	Crow is a billionaire conservative donor, powerful person, and from the looks of it, no.
	From the looks of it, Clarence Thomas is well-connected, close friends with this guy.
	And these are very, very damning, potentially illegal.
	I mean, what I love is they write the article and suggest, I think, what did they say?
	They appear, it appears to be illegal.
	Oh, here we go.
	That was it.
	Right there.
	These trips appeared nowhere.
	His failure to report these flights appears to violate a law.
	Appears to violate a law.
	Investigative journalism, I appreciate you have to weigh your words.
	You're nonetheless making something of a very serious accusation.
	It appears he's broken.
	We're not taking any position.
	We're not really making that argument right now.
	Two ethics laws said it.
	Okay.
	What did I find?
	I read this and I say it doesn't look good.
	I don't like it.
	By the way, I do happen to subscribe to the opinion as well that these types of gifts...
	Very rarely is there such a thing as a gift, whether or not it's an investment, whether or not it's buying a good grace.
	I'm skeptical of these things in general.
	That being said, it appears as though Justice Clarence Thomas has a long-lasting relationship with this individual, one that was known, at the very least for decades, for reasons extremely similar.
	To the reasons detailed in this article.
	This is from the New York Times, which I can't read it.
	When was it from?
	June 18, 2011.
	Let's just go to archive and put this in here.
	It should give it to us.
	This is from a New York Times archive six years ago.
	Friendship of justice and magnate puts focus on ethics.
	This is June 18, 2011.
	Now remember what that article said.
	Undisclosed financial trips, vacations, et cetera, et cetera.
	I'll get to another one because the New York Times is the biggest one.
	There was another article blog that was a little more detailed.
	Clarence Thomas was here promoting his memoir a few years ago when he bumped into...
	Yeah, his grandma.
	Okay, I'm going to get to the...
	Oh, here we go.
	I have to read that.
	He bumped into Algarnon Varn, whose grandfather once ran a seafood cannery that employed Justice Thomas'mother as a crab picker.
	Mr. Varn lived at the Old Angus Yeah, that's very poetic.
	The justice asked about his plans for the property.
	Mr. Varn said he hoped it could be preserved.
	And Clarence said, well, I've got a friend I'm going to put you in touch with.
	Mr. Varn recalled, adding that he was later told by others not to identify the friend.
	The publicity-shy friend turned out to be Harland Crowe, a Dallas real estate magnate and a major contributor to conservative causes.
	Mr. Crowe stepped in to finance the multi-million dollar purchase and restoration of the cannery featuring a museum and the culture and the history.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	Yeah.
	The project throws a spotlight on an unusual and ethically sensitive friendship that appears to be markedly different from those of other justices on the nation's high court.
	The two men first met in 1990s.
	Since then, Mr. Crowe has done many favors for the Justice and his wife, Virginia, helping finance a Savannah Library project dedicated to Justice Thomas, presenting him with a Bible that belonged to Frederick Douglass, reportedly providing $500,000 for Mrs. Thomas to start the Tea Party-related group.
	They have also spent time together at gatherings of prominent Republicans and business people at Mr. Crowe's Adirondacks estate, yada, yada, yada.
	Let me see.
	I think the word vacation.
	That same week?
	Where Crowe's family owns luxury vacation properties.
	The author was a prominent lawyer.
	What's the bottom line in all of this?
	Is that they've known what the allegations are in this article at least since 2011, and even by then it seems that they have known about it for at least two decades.
	Convenient timing?
	Convenient timing?
	For a smear?
	There's an interesting thing about when you've been in the world of viral videography for as long as I have.
	I'm saying that glibly and tongue-in-cheek.
	It's a known fact like collective memory is short.
	The internet's collective memory is also short.
	You can remake a video that went viral five to seven years ago, and it'll go viral again because it's a new generation of people.
	It's a new set of eyes.
	They don't remember the original one, but it originally went viral for a reason, because it tapped into something of a universal...
	Element of human consciousness.
	Cute dog videos go viral.
	And some videos go viral just because they're amazing.
	They're cute.
	They capture natural phenomena.
	You can recreate those things every so often because a new generation of people who haven't seen the original will come into the market and will be equally turned on by it because it turned on people five to seven years earlier.
	Is Clarence Thomas not allowed to have friends?
	So there's a generation of people who don't know that this was known.
	Material over a decade ago and had been known for over a decade.
	And my inkling, by the way, in all of this, let me just bring up the second one because it's shorter and it'll illustrate the point a little more thoroughly.
	That's the ProPublica.
	A ProPublica.
	This one was a blog.
	I don't remember whose blog it was.
	Oh, come on, Dave.
	Get your stuff together.
	I'm going to have to go here and get the blog.
	I am live, sir.
	I'm live now.
	You have to leave.
	The dog pooed.
	Okay, go get out and close the door.
	Here, let me just get the other article.
	If dogs carried toxoplasmosis, my goodness.
	Here it is, here it is, here it is.
	This is the older blog.
	June 20, 2021, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is back in the spotlight for his relationships with conservative business leaders and for possible inaccuracies on his financial disclosure forms.
	This is 2011 that these issues were brought up.
	I presume that if Clarence Thomas had done anything improper at that point, it would have been remedied for the past and certainly corrected for the future.
	And I presume also that if he had done anything bad in between this article, June 20, 2011, and today, somebody would have found it out.
	The New York Times story reported to detail the friendship.
	Okay, there we go.
	In January, Thomas amended 13 years' worth of his financial disclosure forms to reflect income earned by his wife, Virginia, after Common Cause complained that he had omitted her past salary from the Heritage Foundation and other sources.
	Thomas blamed a misunderstanding on the filing instructions.
	This is going to lead us into the Trump indictment and Stormy Daniels' wonderful take on it.
	The story has renewed calls by liberal advocacy groups for legislation that would place Supreme Court justices under the same code of conduct imposed on lower court federal justices.
	Currently, justices comply voluntarily.
	So it seems even according to this article, it wasn't illegal back then.
	And the friendship between Thomas and Crowe has triggered controversy before.
	We wrote about the relationship in June 2002, after Thomas reported he'd received a gift from Crow valued at $19,000.
	This is all on Twitter, people, and I'll post it to our vivabarneslaw.locals.com community afterwards.
	But, wow.
	I thought it was a bombshell.
	I thought they just discovered that Clarence Thomas has definitively broken ethics laws.
	Oh, no.
	It's been known for over a decade.
	And they're only making a stink of it now because they know there's a lot of people who have never heard of this who are now going to mobilize with this new information because, hey, everything is new to those who don't understand history.
	And they're going to try to use it as a pretext to coerce, pressure, or make a movement.
	If they can't get Clarence Thomas off the Supreme Court, by the way, what do you think they're going to do with it?
	They're going to pivot this into the excuse to pack the Supreme Court.
	Although they're not packing the Supreme Court, according to one hack, they're enhancing the Supreme Court.
	This is going to be used as a pretext to pressure Clarence Thomas to resign, and when he obviously does not resign because, A, there doesn't seem to be anything new here, and B, even if there is, I don't, it doesn't appear that there's anything unethical, well, it doesn't appear there's anything illegal or statutorily unethical.
	When he doesn't resign because he's not going to resign, they're going to use this as the argument to enhance the Supreme Court, to pack it, to add two more.
	Liberal judges so they can take over the majority.
	That's what's going to happen.
	Calling it now.
	Booyakasha.
	Okay, I don't know what's going on in the chat there.
	All that I'm going to say now is we are going to head over to Rumble.
	Let me give you the link one more time.
	That's the intro.
	Clarence Thomas.
	Didn't look good.
	And I just Googled.
	Who's Harlan Crowe?
	Never heard of him.
	Come on, camera.
	Understand this flipping camera.
	Now it's not moving.
	Okay, now come down.
	There you go.
	I didn't know who Harlan Crowe was.
	I googled it for exactly two seconds and found out that not only is this news not news, what is being suggested in the article, although cloaked under the guise of an opinion, cloaked under the semblance of an opinion, is arguably defamatory.
	Okay, people.
	Let's do it.
	Move on over to Rumble.
	We're going to end on YouTube here.
	We're going to talk Stormy Daniels, Donald Trump.
	There was something else.
	I forget which.
	Okay.
	Ending on YouTube in three, two, one.
	Peace.
	Okay.
	Did I do it?
	Okay.
	Now I end.
	I always get nervous when I do this.
	We're still good on Rumble.
	No Rumble rants to read.
	Good.
	Viva.
	Producer applications are now being accepted.
	It's not for lack of offers.
	First of all, I wouldn't allow anyone to do it for free.
	It's not for cost.
	I would pay someone fairly to do it, and I've tried similar things in the past.
	It's for not losing control, and it's for quality control, and it's for convenience because I don't have a schedule.
	I don't expect my erratic, hyperactive schedule to become anybody else's problem.
	And in as much as I love driving the car exclusively because I love having...
	Control over my own destiny.
	I don't want to have anyone else to even be able to blame a mistake on, even though I would still take public responsibility for a mistake that wasn't even my fault.
	I just find it a lot easier and a lot more less unnerving because I'm sure some of you have noticed I'm mildly neurotic.
	Mildly.
	I feel ugly.
	I feel bald.
	I feel naked.
	And I got that pimple right here.
	It's not even a pimple.
	It's an ingrown hair.
	This is what happens.
	The beard, it is something of a comforter.
	It's something of a blankie.
	It allows you to just hide behind a cloak of warmth.
	But I'm exfoliating.
	It will grow back bigger, darker, and stronger.
	Although maybe not darker because I'm noticing a lot of white hair on my face.
	Okay, let's do that.
	Before we get into the awfulness of the world, let's have a white pill moment of the day.
	Before we even do that.
	Why didn't I have a thumbnail today?
	My thumbnail guy is the best thumbnail guy on earth.
	Dave...
	DSLR Dave.
	His email, and it's public knowledge, is info at DSLR Dave.
	He's amazing.
	Info at DSLR, as in digital...
	That's not it.
	It's Delta Sierra Lima Romeo Dave.
	Info at DSLRDave.com.
	Best thumbnail guy on the market.
	Couldn't get a thumbnail today.
	Because Canada, not Canada, Quebec and Ontario are...
	It's Ice Storm 2.0, for those who don't remember ice, it was in 1996 or 99, where people were out of power, sometimes for months, but many for weeks.
	This is from CBC.
	And by the way, thank goodness, thank goodness our government is worrying about infrastructure in foreign countries.
	This is the type of thing where you want to politicize it, but...
	It's not obvious that there's much you can do to protect against these, like, catastrophic once-in-a-generation type natural disasters.
	This is another ice storm.
	I mean, I think you could foresee this and maybe, you know, upgrade our antiquated electrical grid system in Canada because it sucks.
	But there's been an ice storm yesterday, and there are, according to CDC...
	More than one million Hydro-Quebec customers without power repairs could take days.
	One-third expected to regain power by the end of the day Thursday, which is today.
	So, my thumbnail guy, Dave.
	These are the days I know, I know.
	A falling ice slowing traffic on Jacques Cartier Bridge.
	Oh, I would not want to be on a bridge right now.
	At least one person died after being hit by a falling branch.
	Imagine that's how your life ends.
	Schools are cancelled.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	So, DSLR Dave, my thumbnail guy.
	It doesn't have electricity to operate the computers to make a thumbnail, so I had to use the default one.
	The white pill moment of the day, people.
	Can you imagine if what can possibly happen now actually happens and that it ends up being a race for the presidency of the United States of America?
	It's a pipe dream.
	It's a white pill.
	This is a euphoric dream.
	But can you imagine if the race to the White House ends up being between Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Donald Trump?
	We're one step closer to that possibility.
	I'm going to put money on Kennedy for the candidacy for the Democrats.
	I don't know what the odds are yet.
	RFK Jr. has filed the papers.
	Where did I get this from?
	Politico?
	RFK Jr., listen to the way they still have to smear him, even when I'm just reporting the news.
	Robert F. Kennedy Jr. running for president in 2024.
	It's a little-known fact, by the way, that he's got a larynx issue that, from what I understand, is the result of a vaccine injury.
	They have the balls, the media, to smear RFK Jr. as an anti-vaccine...
	Maybe he would even accept that mislabel.
	The anti-vaccine activist is vying for the Democratic nomination.
	This is game-changing, like earth-shattering.
	There's only a handful of potential candidates for the Democratic Party.
	Who are they?
	I mean, you got Joe Biden.
	We did just witness an election where people voted for John Fetterman over Dr. Oz, knowing full well that he had a cognitive Gretchen Whitmer.
	You've never seen anybody suffering from dementia before.
	But who are going to be the candidates?
	Joe Biden?
	Kamala Harris?
	Gretchen Whitmer?
	It's going to be Gavin Newsom, it looks like this.
	But can you imagine if it's Gavin Newsom, RFK Jr., and Joe Biden?
	And I'm not just trying to demonize a person.
	A man who has done nothing to eliminate, reduce the homelessness in his own state that he vowed to take care of in 10 years.
	A man who exudes evil like a Batman villain.
	A man who is a raging hypocrite, rules for thee but not for me, while he goes out and has his fancy dinners, lives a life of opulence and luxury, jet-setting lifestyle, while trying to lock everyone else down, locking everyone else down, taking away people's cars.
	Yeah.
	Hypocrite.
	Joe Biden, he's got his problems setting aside all the dementia of what he's done to the world.
	Kamala Harris, who is detestable.
	Just detestable.
	Or RFK Jr.
	The people who think they hate him don't know a damn thing about him.
	RFK Jr., nephew of the president, John F.K., and son of RFK, is running for president as a Democrat, according to a statement of candidacy filed with the Federal Election Commission on Wednesday.
	Can you imagine being the nephew of a president who was assassinated and the son of a...
	What was the word?
	RFK, I forget what position of government he held, who was also assassinated.
	An outspoken anti-vaccine activist and the chair of the anti-vaccine not-for-profit group, Children's Health Defense.
	Second Democrat to officially enter the race, self-help author Marianne Williamson launched a second bid.
	Both Kennedy's and Williamson's bids are seen as long shots in a Democratic primary that will help pit them against President Joe Biden.
	I do believe Donald Trump was a long shot in the primaries against the GOP in 2016.
	Kennedy, former environmental lawyer.
	He was loved by the left when he was an environmental lawyer.
	When he turns his claws onto the pharmaceutical industries, all of a sudden the left turns him into the public enemy number one, much like the left turned Donald Trump into the racist bigot that they say he is the second he decided to run against the Democrats.
	He's long held the charge in the anti-vaccine movement, spreading conspiracy theories.
	Like, which ones?
	About the dangers they pose to children.
	Oh, like myocarditis.
	Like interfering with menstrual cycles, those conspiracy theories?
	During the COVID-19 pandemic, he was among those who attacked vaccine requirements, accusing Anthony Fauci, the leading infectious disease doctor, of orchestrating fascism.
	Where's the conspiracy theory there?
	In fact, where is the contradiction to what he warned of was 1,000% accurate?
	Politico.
	Can you imagine if it ends up being RFK Jr. versus Donald Trump?
	There are people saying, oh, shoot.
	Sinister things out there that the deep state could never allow it.
	And RFK Jr. is living proof as to what the deep state will not allow.
	And yeah.
	That is the white pill moment for the day.
	I'm going to take some coffee here.
	Now it's cold.
	Oh, there's a cool...
	Mandelichi in in VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	I'm going to get to this one afterwards, but there's a there's a suggestion.
	Mandelichi $5 tip says the Trump indictment was written by AI.
	It was submitted to chat zero, which teaches use to catch AI on homework.
	The indictment came back as written by artificial intelligence.
	That's why it didn't make sense.
	That's funny.
	I don't think I believe that because I think if it were written by artificial intelligence, it would have been better drafted.
	I think it was actually written by Alvin Bragg or someone in his office.
	So, good segue into the news of the day.
	So, Pierce Brosnan?
	No, Pierce Morgan.
	Pierce Morgan.
	Sorry, I did not...
	That's one of the...
	I don't get the meme, but I think I understand the meme.
	Pierce Morgan, this morning, put out a tweet with this video, because apparently he's done an exclusive interview with...
	Stormy Daniels.
	I've got to show you the video for, not the video, the picture that he posted with that.
	I mean, it looks like the two of them just finished doing something naughty, the way they're both.
	I'll show you the picture in a second.
	Piers Morgan has done an exclusive interview with Stormy Daniels.
	He posted this video earlier today and then deleted it.
	I had commented on it, but let's watch this video together.
	This is legal advice, legal analysis from CNN's new senior political commentator, Stormy Daniels.
	Would it give you any kind of closure with your time involving Donald Trump to see him jailed?
	Specific to my case, I don't think that his crimes against me are worthy of incarceration.
	If anybody in the chat knows, how do people do this piercing here?
	Do they pierce a hole through their entire cheek?
	And then it's got to have the stud on the inside.
	Would that not rub against your gums?
	Oh, geez.
	Now that I did that, we're matching.
	Okay, so if anybody knows that, just let me know that.
	But the crimes against her, she doesn't think they're serious enough.
	But let's hear what she thinks about the indictment.
	Worthy of incarceration.
	I feel like the other things that he has done, if he is found guilty, absolutely.
	Because a bigger problem is that if these allegations against him or whatever else that we don't know yet, he is found guilty or the evidence suggests that he is or whatever, and he doesn't, That it's going to just basically, I mean, it opens the door for other people to think they can get away with doing that.
	Would it give you any...
	Okay, so there's a number of things to make fun of there.
	First of all, I've never seen her act, but I've never actually heard...
	I don't think I've heard...
	Oh, no, I have heard Stormy Daniels speak in press conferences.
	Her pressers about the lawsuit sounded a little better than this.
	Can you imagine asking Stormy Daniels, do you think he should go to jail?
	Well, if he's convicted, if he's convicted is the big if here, but Stormy, the question is this.
	It's going to set a bad precedent if he doesn't go to jail.
	It'll let other people think they can get away with it.
	I had tweeted before Piers Morgan deleted his tweet with that video.
	Does she even understand what the indictment says?
	Does she understand what's being accused of Donald Trump here?
	34 count felony indictment.
	It's serious.
	I did an interview with Michael Kors this morning.
	Matt Kors, not Michael Kors.
	Matt Kors on Rumble.
	He's going to publish it tomorrow.
	But for people who are not lawyers, there's a reflex to look at this and say, holy shit, 34 count felony indictment.
	He's got to have done something.
	He's a criminal ringmaster.
	He's Pablo Escobar of the accounting world.
	34 count.
	Did you ask her to explain it?
	Does she understand that this is bogus, trumped up from a, at best, misdemeanor to a felony?
	34 charges resulting from one payment because they decided to tack on four felony charges per month for the invoice, the writing of the check, the entry in the ledger, and the voucher in the accounting.
	Does she understand that?
	And better yet, this is a 34 count felony indictment resulting from one payment that is alleged to have been mischaracterized.
	I presume Stormy Daniels has been audited, but does she want to get into the world where felony indictments result from what are by all accounts not even underlying crimes?
	Accounting disputes?
	This is at its core, and if anyone has a different opinion, share it with me.
	At its core, this is about whether or not it was inaccurate to refer to the $130,000 payment, which was incorporated into a broader payment that was paid out on a monthly seemingly retainer to an attorney, whether or not that was mislabeled.
	Set aside the whole justice for thee but not for me.
	Justice for me but not for thee.
	Hillary Clinton did worse with that subsidizing payment of the Steele dossier, which they also mischaracterized.
	Set that aside.
	That's what's underlying this 34-count indictment.
	They can pretty much do this with anybody who runs a business.
	I thought someone was raiding in my office.
	They can.
	And anybody doing business in New York might want to think about the fact that the precedent here that is dangerous is not Trump getting away with it.
	It's the DA thinking they can do this to anyone who they politically, ideologically, or for whatever other reason decide to go after.
	Anyone who becomes an enemy of the DA.
	Well, let me look at your books here and determine that you mislabeled one expense.
	And now I'm going to just slap on...
	How many years can you go back?
	Who cares what she thinks, says Lisandra.
	Well, Lynn Sandra.
	We'll see.
	We'll see how many people are going to watch that.
	I'm not even going to watch that out of morbid curiosity.
	Okay, I'm not reading any of that.
	So, Stormy Daniels has chimed in on the risks if Donald Trump gets away with it.
	Then other people are going to think they can get away with it.
	You know, the bigger risk, Stormy Daniels, is if the DA gets away with this, they can do this to anybody they don't like.
	Because when it comes to accounting and when it comes to taxes and all those things, it's nebulous.
	It's difficult, even for professionals.
	It is the floodgates.
	But it's the communism that, you know, the Soros-funded DAs want.
	Show me the man, I'll show you the crime.
	Lavradia Baria.
	I forget who it is.
	That's Stormy Daniel's wonderful take, and I don't know why Pierce Morgan deleted the tweet, but that other one had saved the video and uploaded it, and so it's still there for everyone to watch.
	And go check out the replies.
	I think I'm getting the memes that were posted in there, but not my style of humor.
	Okay.
	Coffee became iced coffee in no time at all.
	I'm a little smarter than I even...
	No, myself sometimes.
	When I was watching Alvin Bragg and that presser, and at one point he says something, and I was like, let me see if I can get this here.
	He said something to the effect of, a reporter asked him, what is the underlying crime here?
	What is the underlying crime?
	The indictment, not the statement of fact.
	Although the statement of fact, as far as I know, really doesn't specify the underlying crime either.
	The potentially AI-generated indictment, which is 34 counts, that goes, in February, invoice, check, entry, voucher.
	In February, March, April, same thing over and over.
	Underlying crimes.
	It doesn't mention what the underlying crime was.
	When Alvin Bragg gets up on the press...
	Podium thingy thing.
	And says, fraudulent payment to conceal another crime.
	What other crime?
	So a journalist asked him at the end of that presser, in one of the four questions that the courageous, confident man who looks like he stepped knee-deep into a world of shit.
	He's like, the indictment did not specify it because by law it does not need to specify it.
	And I'm telling you, at its root level, Western law.
	Is based in logic and a deep sense of justice.
	I say Western law not to distinguish it from other law.
	I don't know the legal systems of other countries all that well.
	Western European law, you have basic things that are recognized as fundamental rights.
	The right to face your accuser.
	The right to know what the hell you are accused of.
	Alvin Bragg comes out and says, the indictment is not required by law, so we didn't specify the underlying crime.
	Well, first of all...
	Far be it for me to contradict what the district attorney would say is the state of the law in a jurisdiction that I don't have any expertise in.
	But a little flag went off in my head.
	That sounds a little curious to me.
	It sounds curious.
	It sounds curious that it's the case.
	And even if it is the case, by whatever fluke that you don't actually have to specify the crime that you're alleging in the indictment, it seems kind of unfair.
	Where, you know, when you're inditing a president for the first time ever, Maybe you want to go a little more to pull out the French expression, go a little too strong because too strong doesn't break.
	Even if you don't have to specify what the underlying crime is, maybe just do it so people don't think you're nothing but a corrupt Soros-funded progressive district attorney who's hell-bent on seeking political retribution against your ideological adversary.
	Maybe just do it for that reason alone.
	But lo and behold, it seems that he might have violated...
	Trump's Sixth Amendment rights.
	This article came out today.
	If anyone doubts that I actually put the tweet, I put the tweet out in real time.
	I got questions.
	I'm just a Canadian schnook lawyer, but we didn't specify the underlying crime because the law does not so require.
	It's from Fox News, so take it with a grain of salt.
	Bragg violated Trump's Sixth Amendment rights in refusing to disclose underlying crime.
	Legal expert.
	I'm not a legal expert, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn.
	The Sixth Amendment guarantees the defendant will be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.
	Who is the expert attorney?
	I want to know.
	Jonathan Turley or Dershowitz?
	Excuse me.
	Former President...
	His Sixth Amendment rights may have been violated when Alvin Bragg refused to disclose the underlying crime the defendant intended to conceal through his alleged falsification of business records.
	Legal experts opined Wednesday.
	The Sixth Amendment provides, in part, for the right of the criminal defendant to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.
	When questioned by a reporter as to the underlying crime the indictment fails to name is, Bragg replied he does not have to.
	The indictment does not specify because the law does not so require, he told journalists.
	Bolsheiser!
	On Hannity, who is it?
	Greg Jarrett.
	I know Greg Jarrett.
	I like him.
	He's smart.
	Forcefully dismissed Bragg's claim, saying he likely violated Trump's right to know what he is specifically being accused of.
	He does have to name it.
	Via the Sixth Amendment, Jared said.
	The indictment is therefore facially defective.
	It is deficient on its face and would be susceptible to a motion to dismiss.
	Everybody's given Trump, like, legal advice indirectly through social media.
	Jared questioned whether Bragg slept through constitutional law in his studies at Harvard, envisioning the prosecutor working late one evening in New York City, mumbling that, I've got to get Trump.
	What crime?
	What crime?
	And that an office worker simply remarked, don't say anything.
	That's funny.
	Jared recalled a warning from the Supreme Court Justice Jackson, a Nuremberg trial prosecutor who said the greatest danger to justice is an unscrupulous prosecutor who targets a person and then scours the law books to find an offense he can pin on that person.
	That sounds very much like the communist adage.
	That's what Alvin Brang did.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	Washington Times.
	Editor Charlie Hurt later added incredulously that Bragg's charges amount to potentially more prison time, 136 years, than infamous policy scheme Bernie Madoff, who died.
	Yeti yeti would have said, okay, this is a circus.
	It's absurd.
	It's ridiculous.
	Alvin Bragg embarrassed himself, embarrassed the legal profession, and...
	We all agree on that.
	Okay.
	Don't need to read the rest.
	So, yeah.
	There is, nonetheless, at the core of justice, at the core of law, typically a sense of justice.
	And if you feel that something is unjust and just fundamentally violates your perception of justice, it's probably wrong and problematic.
	Thank you.
	All right, now...
	Oh, by the way, I've also been told, hit the plus button, the thumbs up thing.
	I see one thumbs down, four thumbs down, 417 thumbs up.
	Apparently that does help.
	That does help with the algorithm thingy thing on Rumble, but I'm not really all that concerned about that.
	Excuse me.
	Barnes is live on the Duran, and that's it.
	Okay, so I think that was the second part.
	Alvin Bragg, he's screwed up.
	He's screwed up so badly.
	I'm not giving John Walsh any more airtime on Twitter, but he's screwed up so badly that even the never-Trumpers and even the left-wing media are like, this is bad, this is weak, this is only going to help Trump, which to me is very much a problematic perspective because it does necessarily imply that they would not mind the injustice so long as they were assured it would in fact hurt Trump.
	An injustice that everyone's going to see as the injustice that's going to help Trump, that's bad.
	An injustice that's going to hurt Trump, that's good.
	And by the way, I'm also cynically predicting that all of the early outrage as to how weak this indictment is and how facially, superficially untenable it is, it's going to fall by the wayside.
	And the same media that originally said how weak, defective...
	They're going to be on the other side of it saying he needs to get convicted of this.
	And they will not be able to be called liars because they're going to say, look, whatever happens after that, if it gets dismissed and whatever, they're going to say, well, look, we said it was weak back then.
	And if he gets convicted, they're going to say that they'll be happy.
	So the media will change its tune after doing their obligation of getting on record.
	Their observation that this indictment is a load of horse pooey.
	And when people forget about that, when people forget about what the actual indictment said, they're going to start going a little stronger on he needs to be convicted.
	Nobody's above the law.
	Okay.
	Um.
	Ha.
	I'm pulling up this one also.
	This was on Fox News.
	This is Dershowitz.
	I'm pulling this up because I'm going to say that Dershowitz is wrong in this prediction.
	Dershowitz is...
	A phenomenal legal mind.
	I question his predictive capabilities.
	Dershowitz warns there's no chance Trump gets acquitted in New York City.
	Judge, jurors don't have the courage.
	Hung jury?
	Maybe.
	Acquittal?
	Never.
	I do say the chances are more likely than not that this actually gets dismissed before it gets to a jury on questions of law.
	We'll see.
	But I just want to put this on the record.
	I think Dershowitz is right to have his concerns about the jury.
	In this particular district, which is why they're trying to move it to not Stanford.
	What's it called?
	It starts with an S, but a different district.
	Famed attorney Alan Dershowitz warned Wednesday that Trump has no chance of getting acquitted in liberal New York City in Manhattan district in Alvin Bragg's unprecedented legal case.
	There's no way he can get a fair trial there.
	I don't care if Jesus, Muhammad, Abraham, Lincoln, George, whatever.
	Hung jury may be acquittal, never.
	His comments come on the heels of...
	Trump's Tuesday arraignment where he pled not guilty to 34 counts of falsifying business records.
	Staten Island is where he's going to probably get a fair jury.
	Okay.
	So, I think Dershowitz is wrong.
	And I think this gets dismissed before it even gets to trial to take the unlikely prediction.
	But they're going to milk it and they're going to get the pressure for it and they're going to get all the benefits of the process and maybe they're even going to get something good.
	Maybe someone's going to do something stupid out of protest.
	One of Trump's supporters.
	Maybe Trump says something or does something throughout the process that is incriminating, that compromises his run for president.
	The process is the punishment.
	And they'll run these bogus charges for as long as they can just to hope to get someone with the process or to rile up Trump's base to do something silly with the process.
	That's exactly part of the strategy.
	Okay.
	Okay, let me close some of these windows back here.
	This we already saw.
	And then we're going to get into the Don't Say Gay Bill 2.0.
	This is ProPublica.
	Okay, we've already seen this.
	All right.
	All right, movies.
	Let's see this.
	Here, let's pull up this tweet because we've been hearing this.
	A lot of people have been retweeting this.
	This is Don't Say Gay Bill 2.0.
	David Hammett.
	Don't know who he is.
	Not to say that there's a ton of people I don't know who they are.
	It's not to undermine his...
	What's the word I'm looking for?
	Credibility.
	Professional citizen.
	Okay, good.
	Kansas politics governor nerd or government nerd.
	Good.
	Youth voter turnout.
	Good.
	Video explainers.
	Loud light.
	Okay.
	I don't know what that means.
	Equality house.
	Okay.
	Either way, David Hammett came out and said, breaking.
	First of all, this thing about breaking.
	Brian Krasenstein is doing this thing now.
	Breaking?
	And then it's someone's wildly inaccurate statement of opinion.
	Breaking.
	Kansas Republicans have successfully overridden the governor veto to now authorize genital inspections of children in order to play sports.
	A very dark and disturbing day.
	This, much like the article with Clarence Thomas, if true...
	Would in fact be a very dark and disturbing day.
	Because it's authorizing genital inspections.
	We'll get into that in a little bit.
	Then I go down and see how people respond to this.
	Kansas Republicans are perverts.
	There'll be a rush of MAGAs applying for the inspector positions.
	Ha ha ha.
	Okay.
	I bet Rhett Marjorie Taylor Greene is ready to go full-time doing inspections.
	She's been foaming at the mouth about kids' genitals for years.
	Now with these blue check marks, you don't know who is a legacy and who's paid for it.
	You don't know who reflexively would have a large audience.
	32,000.
	Let's save our democracy from greedy billionaires and wannabe autocrats.
	Go get vaccinated and go support Pfizer.
	Oh, no, I'm sure that this person does not.
	Does not believe in that.
	Let's save our democracy from greedy billionaires.
	Go government and go Burla and go Pfizer.
	Okay, so I'm seeing these tweets.
	And then I have to say, where in the bill does it authorize, let alone even suggest, the possibility of genital inspections of children?
	Sincere question I read.
	Now, I happen to have read what I initially thought was the bill, was last year's bill, which got vetoed.
	And not this year's bill.
	So let's just do this together.
	Because it's interesting.
	It might be obvious and apparent for those out there that the bill doesn't do that or say that.
	But let's see what the bill says.
	This is, from what I understand, the current version, session of 2023.
	An act concerning education relating to student-athletes creating the Fairness in Women's Sports Act, restricting participation on women's teams to female students, providing a cause of action for violations of the act.
	The provision of this section...
	We'll do this quickly.
	How many pages?
	Three pages?
	We can do this quickly.
	The provisions of sections one through six and amendments there too shall be known.
	Okay, fine.
	So we've got to see, by the way, right up here, you just notice this.
	Female students, they're going to have to define female.
	Biological.
	Do they define female?
	They have to define female?
	Okay, let's see.
	That might be a problem in the law if they're actually presupposing a definition which they don't include in the legislation, unless it's defined somewhere else.
	Biological sex means the biological indication of male or female.
	Okay, there you go.
	In the context of reproduction potential or capacity, such as sex chromosomes, that's a good definition.
	Naturally occurring sex hormones, that's a good definition.
	Gonads is typically the biological definition.
	And non-ambiguous internal and external genitalia present at birth without regard to an individual's psychological chosen or subjective experience of gender.
	Okay, let me get to the definitions.
	Okay, so let me get into, let's see here, definitions.
	Intercholastic, that's what it applies to, interscholastic, intercollegiate, intramural, or club athletic teams, okay, that are sponsored by a public educational entity, or yada, yada, yada, yada, shall be, shall, which is legally speaking mandatory, not maybe, which is optional, expressly designated as one of the following based on biological sex, males, men, or boys, females, women, or girls, co-ed, or mix, okay?
	The State Board of Regents and the governing body for each municipality, municipal university, community college, shall adopt rules and regulations for the post-secondary educational institutions governed by each such entity respectively to implement the provisions of the section.
	No government entity licensing or accrediting organization or athletic association organization shall entertain a complaint, open an investigation or take any other adverse action against the public educational entity for maintaining separate interscholastic intercollegiate intramural Nobody can get sued.
	Apply it, and you can't get sued for it, unlike what we've already seen.
	Any student who is deprived of an athletic opportunity or suffers any direct or indirect harm as a result of a violation of Section 3, the division.
	Shall have the private cause of action for injunctive relief, damages, and other relief under the law, yada yada yada.
	Any student who is subjected to retaliation or any other adverse action by a public educational entity or athletic association or organization as a result of reporting a violation of Section 3, yada yada, to an employee representative, yada yada yada, shall...
	Again, have a private cause of action for injunctive relief damages and any other relief available under law against such public educational entity or athletic association.
	Any public educational entity that suffers any direct or indirect harm as a result of violation of Section 3 or 4, amendments thereto, shall have a private cause of action.
	All civil actions must be initiated within two years, statute of limitations of the harm brought or harm occurred.
	Okay, the provisions of Section 1 through 5 and amendments thereto are hereby decreed to be severed.
	This is the end of it.
	This is the end of it.
	Now, just because I'm neurotic.
	Genitals!
	Nope.
	Genit...
	Regents.
	Do you know what's acutely missing from this?
	A statement that is being passed around on social media.
	Now, let's see.
	Genital...
	Because there is a reason for which people are saying it.
	Genital inspection laws, Kansas.
	We'll go to pink news.
	Not pink news, the pink who blocked me on Twitter.
	Let's just see why it is that people are saying this.
	Ugh, decline.
	Kansas anti-trans, it's an anti-trans bill.
	Can you imagine?
	It's not a pro-woman bill.
	It's an anti-trans bill.
	And why?
	Why is it anti-trans?
	Because it says biological males can't compete with biological females.
	Once upon a time, to suggest that biological males could compete in sports designated for biological females, for women?
	Would be misogyny.
	Men with their...
	We went over this from Wikipedia.
	I don't know if they've amended their definition of the distinctions between the skeletal structure, the muscle tissue, the hormones of boys and girls, men and women.
	This is not pro-woman.
	This is anti-trans.
	And why?
	Because there are people out there who want biological males to be able to compete in sports with biological females.
	Could lead to genital inspections of kids.
	Trans women and girls have been barred from competing in team sports in Kansas.
	No, they haven't.
	No, they haven't been barred.
	They've been barred from competing in a class designated for the biological sex that they were not born as.
	After Republican lawmakers overwrote a veto set up by the state's governor.
	There are concerns this could result in genital inspections for young people hoping to compete in sporting events.
	Prior to the veto being overturned, Republican Barbara Wasinger, who brought the bill forward, was asked to explain during a House meeting how the legislation would be enforced.
	It's a fair question.
	Physical exams?
	Anybody who wants to compete in high school sports has to submit a doctor's physical.
	I mean, it's been done for decades.
	According to BuzzFeed News, she said this would be done during a student's sports physical.
	But when pressed if this would mean a genital inspection, she said she was unable to recall.
	House bill...
	And by the way, that's where it comes from.
	It doesn't come from the wording of the law.
	It doesn't come from anything provided for in the law.
	It comes from the fact that in order to enforce this, there might be doctor physicals.
	Does everybody remember back when we were kids?
	I don't know that they do it anymore.
	Like, when we were kids...
	That's where it comes from, by the way.
	It's from her saying, I don't recall if it's going to imply the possibility of genital inspections.
	Let's bring that down now.
	I don't know how old everybody is and whether or not doctors or GPs still do this.
	When I used to go to the doctor, they used to do this thing, like they had the hammer and they would hit your knee to test your reflexes.
	They would also cup my balls and ask me to cough.
	I think they were testing for inguinal hernias and the like, or to see what's going on in your ball sack.
	My doctor would cup my balls and ask me to cough.
	He would put his fingers up underneath and it wouldn't feel very good.
	Physicals are typically required for anybody who wants to compete in sports.
	Now, I had to find one good example and I didn't want to do it for any hyperbolic reason.
	It wasn't to be funny or make comparisons that people might find offensive.
	Full stop.
	When people compete in the Special Olympics, it's in their rulebook.
	Let me see, six hours ago, I know I put this up here.
	I had the highlights.
	I had the highlights.
	Oh no, it was in a reply to a response from another tweet.
	Hold on.
	I'll just read the guidelines for competing in the Special Olympics where physicals are required.
	Qu'est-ce que es pas si c'est?
	And you say, oh...
	Oh yeah, Charlie Kirk.
	Hold on, I almost forgot about that.
	Let's just do this.
	Okay, hold on a second.
	Bear with me, people.
	I'm sorry.
	I just want to get the wording so that I don't screw up the wording.
	Well, now I can't even find it.
	Ah, for goodness sake.
	Hold on.
	Add to stream right here.
	Get this over here.
	No, not that.
	No, not that.
	Yeah, it's this.
	Okay, here.
	Look at this.
	Let's go.
	Special Olympics.
	Physical exam.
	You know, the Special Olympics is getting flack.
	they might have to change their name because it's not politically correct I can't believe I'm not able to find this right away.
	Yeah, whatever.
	You have to take my word for it.
	A physical exam has always been provided for without the fear of a seriously invasive procedure, seriously invasive exam.
	That's where the fake news is coming from.
	As if, first of all, as if there's...
	As if there's a risk.
	It is being described as mandatory genital inspection, whereas it's not even typically within the realm of anything that's foreseeable.
	That's where the fake news is coming from.
	Okay.
	Ooh, I'm schvitzing like a pig here.
	Now, that wasn't what I wanted to bring up, by the way.
	That's on the news of the bill.
	We've read the bill.
	The bill doesn't say it.
	And so anybody saying that this is what the bill provides is spouting disinformation based on preposterous, hyperbolic, inaccurate...
	Fake news coming from big Twitter accounts.
	Community Notes is proving to be very useful on Twitter.
	Now, this was more related to Donald Trump, but while we're on the subject of trust but verify or just verify those who you know are corrupt, so it turns out Jim Jordan subpoenaed Mark Pomerantz.
	This is one of the two lawyers who resigned from Alvin Bragg's office when he decided not to pursue Trump.
	The first time around they investigated this.
	He resigned from the Matt and DA's office in February over Bragg's then reluctance to pursue the case against Trump.
	They subpoenaed him now.
	It's a thing of beauty, by the way.
	We've talked about this on the channel many times, these congressional hearings.
	They have to have a legislative purpose, so you can't just use them to investigate your ideological adversaries, much in the way it was weaponized to go after Trump's tax returns and they had to manufacture...
	A pretext, a legislative pretext to justify congressional hearings and subpoena power to get Donald Trump's tax returns.
	This is coming from Jim Jordan.
	And it's going after one of the lawyers who resigned from Bragg's office because they initially refused to prosecute Trump.
	Look at this.
	Pomerantz!
	The Committee of the Judiciary is conducting oversight of the New York County District Attorney's unprecedented indictment of a former President of the United States and current declared candidate for that office.
	March 23, we requested that you voluntarily cooperate with our oversight by providing relevant documents and testimony pertaining to your role as a Special Assistant District Attorney.
	We received a reply letter dated March 23rd stating that at the instruction of the New York County District's They get into the legal basis for it, but watch how it's got to have a legitimate congressional oversight legislative purpose.
	Let's see here.
	Where does Jim Jordan explain what that's going to be?
	As a result, the New York County District Attorney's unprecedented prosecutorial conduct, we're at the paragraph here, Requires oversight to inform the consideration of potential legislative reforms that would, if enacted, insulate current and former presidents from such politically motivated state and local prosecutions.
	This is, I mean, it's phenomenal because this was part of the objection to the previous congressional oversight looking for Trump's tax returns, where they said the legislative basis that they were alleging was basically like a law that would target Trump.
	The way this is being phrased here, and now we can understand why it's necessary, is you want to ensure that rogue prosecutorial entities are not authorized to abuse of their powers for political purposes.
	And so Jim Jordan, in an attempt to frame this as a legislatively justified inquiry, Frames it that way, and it's kind of good.
	These potential legislative reforms may include, among other things, broadening the existing statutory right of removal of certain criminal cases from the state court to federal court.
	The local prosecution of a former president also raises the potential for conflict between federal law enforcement officials required by federal law to protect a former president and local law enforcement officials required to enforce an indictment and exercise control of him throughout his...
	The committee may consider legislative reforms to address or remedy this potential conflict.
	In addition, the New York County District Attorney's Office has acknowledged that it used federal forfeiture funds in its investigation of President Trump, including during your tenure in that office and during the time when former President Trump was in office and candidate for re-election.
	I say sometimes people are writing to other people.
	Sometimes people are responding to other people.
	Other times they're drafting for the public consumption, and oftentimes they are replying to somebody else not to reply to that person, but so that the world sees their reply.
	This is drafted for public consumption.
	This is drafted for the world to read.
	And let me just get to the good part, because it was back to the good part.
	Oh, what did I just do here?
	It was page three.
	Let me just get to page three.
	How do I go back?
	No, I want to go back.
	Okay, we're going back here.
	Page three.
	Don't let me skip too far ahead.
	Here.
	The man who resigned wrote a book.
	This assistant DA wrote a book because, I mean, what better way just to memorialize your admissions of wrongdoing?
	I think Hunter Biden right now might be regretting his book where he admitted to being on drugs, using drugs, hard drugs, illicit drugs, while filing an application for a firearm.
	Felonious, you know, lies in that application, but no one's above the law.
	I'm sure the FBI is coming after him.
	Your book, described as a, quote, 300-page exercise in score settling and scorn, also reveals the extent to which the New York County District Attorney's Office's investigation of President Trump appears to have been politically motivated.
	Specifically, you describe your eagerness to investigate President Trump, writing that you were, quote, delighted, end quote, to join an unpaid group of lawyers advising on the Trump investigations and joking that salary negotiations had gone, quote, great, end quote, because you would have paid to join the investigations.
	You frivolously compare President Trump to mob boss John Gotti, footnote, and claim that the district attorney's office was, quote, warranted in throwing the book, end quote, at President Trump because, in your view, he had, quote, He, quote, had become a master of breaking the law in ways that were difficult to reach, end quote.
	You explain that this, quote, collective weight, end quote, of President Trump's conduct over the years, quote, left no doubt in your mind that President Trump deserves to be prosecuted.
	In other words, as a special assistant district attorney, you seem, for reasons unrelated to the facts of this particular investigation, to have been searching for any basis.
	On which to bring criminal charges.
	Although you claim that you were able to put aside your personal feelings about President Trump, yada, yada, yada, during the investigations, the depth of your personal animosity towards him is apparent in your writings.
	You wrote of President Trump, I saw him as a...
	Everyone's an armchair psychiatrist now.
	I saw him as a malignant narcissist and perhaps even a megalomaniac who posed a real danger to the country and the ideals that mattered to me.
	His behavior made me angry, sad, and even disgusted.
	He posed such a danger to the ideals that mattered to me that I have to violate all of the ideals of this great country in order to make sure that he can never do it again.
	He's such a fascist dictator.
	We've got to break the law, frame the individual, find the crime in order to preserve my ideals.
	You additionally marveled at the thought of being at the center of what might become one of the most consequential criminal cases ever brought.
	You reflect on your only similar experiences, which indicated it was an indictment of Osama bin Laden and other members of al-Qaeda for the bombing of the United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
	Drawing a parallel between these two vastly different matters speaks volumes about the mindset that you brought to the investigation of President Trump.
	Now, I don't know what's going to happen with this.
	Let me just get this out of here.
	I don't know what's going to happen with this.
	I know the legal requirements.
	I know what some people are going to say.
	This is quite clearly retaliatory.
	They're fabricating the pretext of the legislative basis for their committee oversight.
	I know people are going to say that.
	I think there's a decent legislative argument under there.
	And more importantly, this deserves to be investigated.
	So, how's it going to get done?
	I don't know.
	But it deserves to be investigated.
	All right.
	When I said that was drafted for the public consumption, Charlie Kirk posted it.
	I figured we'll dissect it and let everybody know what exactly was going on in that district attorney's office.
	Who are the parties involved?
	And does anybody look at that and think that that guy was actually in a position of making decisions, investigating people?
	Does anyone in their right mind think that we are looking at justice?
	Or are we looking at Banana Republic reprisals?
	Banana Republic, fascist, whatever you want to call it, because fascist regimes operate in the same way as communist regimes to some extent.
	Maybe just not the end goal that's being pursued is the same, but the methods are the same.
	Show me the man, I'll show you the crime.
	This is the district attorney of New York, and that is the mental framework of the individual investigating Trump, likening Trump.
	To Osama bin Laden.
	Yep.
	Oh, you see?
	I had it right there.
	Okay.
	So that's that.
	Oh, did I forget to cover this one?
	No, thanks.
	Well, this goes back to...
	We're bouncing around in order just because I forgot I had this one.
	Alvin Bragg, Sixth Amendment violation.
	We did not disclose the underlying crime because we did not believe we had to, by law.
	Bullshit.
	Maybe he didn't disclose the underlying crime because it doesn't actually exist.
	Now, this is something Barnes has been saying for a while.
	And as I've explained it in detail, if you watch Matt Kors' interview with me tomorrow, again, this is not my expertise, but I am able to pick the brains of smarter people and know what's right and what's wrong.
	Barnes has been saying for the longest time now.
	Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations because if the payment that he made that exceeded campaign limits came from Trump, there wouldn't have been a crime there.
	The only way it becomes a crime for Michael Cohen is if he exceeded campaign limits, campaign donation limits.
	He admitted to that, which then necessarily means that if he didn't make the payment, which he's now saying he didn't, it was done on behalf of Trump, well, Trump can't exceed campaign donation limits for his own campaign.
	This is from the Washington Examiner, so you can take it with a grain of salt.
	It's conservative leaning.
	FEC is the Federal Elections Commission.
	Trump's stormy case, quote, not a campaign finance violation.
	A key member of the FEC today rejected the Manhattan District Attorney's indictment to former President Donald Trump as a violation of federal election laws.
	It's not a campaign finance violation.
	It's not a reporting violation of any kind, said FEC Commissioner James E. Trey.
	What kind of FEC guy?
	I got a nickname.
	It's like a UFC fighter.
	In trying to stretch the law to make it look like a violation, he added District Attorney Alvin Brown Well, if you think you're fighting Osama bin Laden, you would do that and you, you know, in some realm of the universe would be morally justified in doing it.
	And then we get into the rest of this.
	In the 34-count indictment, the first ever against the president, charged with $130,000 payment made by former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen to porn star Stormy Daniels, which Cohen went to jail for in a plea deal, violated several campaign finance laws that splashed onto Trump.
	But said trainer of the FEC and Justice Department already considered the case and tossed it.
	Oh.
	Here, let me put that in here.
	Here.
	So that's that.
	What else do we have on the back burner here?
	Anything else that we didn't get to?
	I'm going to get to there's a rumble rant.
	Just scrolling through.
	I want to make sure that I've got everything.
	RFK we covered.
	Charlie Kirk we covered.
	Dylan Mulvaney we covered.
	Oh, hold on.
	Dylan Mulvaney.
	On that note.
	So Chris Rock put out a video showing his disdain for Bud Light and his protests, which he took out a rifle and shot up a stand of Bud Lights.
	People are now claiming...
	Whatever.
	I didn't know who this person was.
	I don't know how I get recommended these things, but someone puts out Real Housewife of Michigan.
	Kid Rock, this is awkward because he's drinking a Bud Light.
	Oh, the person on the right has a mic.
	Okay, fine.
	I thought they were doing something else.
	It's very awkward.
	To which I replied, it would be a little more awkward if he pretended to boycott a product that he never used.
	I don't know.
	I've always been sort of reluctant to boycotts in general.
	But I guess I adhere to them philosophically because I do say vote with your dollar.
	but it's these organized boycotts of products that you don't actually use that bother me a little more, but how he's going to boycott the product, which means that he uses it.
	So the, or used it, the fact that someone found a picture of him drinking the beer that he's now shooting up with the, with his with his rifle and saying that he's going to boycott and never use again because he doesn't agree with the ideology of this partnership.
	That doesn't make him a hypocrite.
	That actually makes him rather consistent because you can't boycott a product that you don't use.
	Common sense.
	Okay.
	I'm hearing noise now.
	I think.
	We've done it all.
	Everybody?
	No, I'm not going to...
	No, we're going to end on this because we talked about this yesterday with Billboard Chris.
	I'm going to play this entire thing again and I just want to highlight because it's been bothering me overnight.
	It's been bothering me.
	I just cannot get over it.
	I've invited the doctor onto the channel.
	We'll see.
	The thing is, I'm not even sure that she's a doctor.
	Let's just listen to this one more time.
	We listened to it yesterday, but I want to end with this.
	We're going to play it out.
	We're going to move on over to locals in a second.
	Gender-forming hysterectomy is very similar to most hysterectomies that occur.
	A hysterectomy itself is the removal of the uterus, the cervix, which is the opening of the uterus, and the fallopian tubes, which are attached to the sides of the uterus.
	Some gender-affirming hysterectomies will also include the removal of the ovaries, but that's technically a separate procedure called a bilateral oophrectomy.
	And not every gender-affirming hysterectomy includes that, and people who are getting gender-affirming hysterectomies do not have to have their ovaries removed.
	Boston Children's Hospital.
	We live in a world now...
	Where you have to refer to someone as her penis.
	She has a penis.
	Literally, there was a case of sexual assault of a trans individual and they, I mean, I think they actually used the word her penis to describe a certain element of this.
	We're living in a world where people are expected to be compelled to say she has a penis, her penis.
	We're living in a world now where we're being compelled.
	To create terminology called a gender-affirming hysterectomy.
	Gender-affirming hysterectomy is very similar to most hysterectomies that occur.
	Oh, by the way, hysterectomies that occur.
	Like a hysterectomy, it just occurs.
	It's a natural event.
	It just happens.
	Hysterectomies that are carried out by doctors.
	And generally speaking, there's a damn good medical reason for which hysterectomies occur, are carried out.
	Gender-affirming hysterectomies.
	I've invited this doctor onto the channel to talk about the context in which a gender-affirming hysterectomy could possibly occur, how it can possibly be justified, and whether or not...
	Discuss it.
	There is not a chance in hell that invitation will ever be accepted.
	We are cloaking...
	Horror with, what's the word?
	Virtuous terms.
	Gender-affirming hysterectomy.
	It's like gender-affirming lobotomy.
	How about an identity-affirming amputation?
	Imagine that.
	Amputations occur when you get frostbite, diabetic coma, stuff like that.
	Amputations are sometimes needed to be carried out to save a life because on a medical emergency, an accident occurs and you have to do it.
	Imagine we just started...
	Someone identifies as being a one-legged pirate, so we are carrying out a gender-affirming, an identity-affirming amputation.
	It is a backwards world that one has to start getting vocal about.
	Now, I saw one rumble rant in there.
	Let me see this here.
	The rumble rant.
	What is defamation per se, and did Nick Rickey to do it by calling...
	I don't know who the person is.
	I don't know what the person did.
	Defamation per se, and I'm not getting into Rakeda or any...
	I don't know anything about that.
	I don't know who the person is.
	Defamation per se is a statement or an accusation that is libelous on its face.
	It needs no further context in order to be deemed to be defamatory.
	Calling someone a murderer.
	Calling someone a certain bad...
	Yeah.
	That would be defamation per se.
	What's the defense to defamation, everybody?
	The absolute defense?
	Truth.
	So, calling Kyle Rittenhouse a murderer would be defamation.
	I'd say per se, on its face, it's defamatory.
	Then the alternative to defamation per se, as far as I understand, is defamation per quad, which requires some interpretation in order to understand why it would be defamatory, damage the reputation of an individual.
	Defamation per se is just a statement that is so on its face defamatory, it needs no further context to explain the defamatory nature of the statement.
	Per quad requires context.
	Generally speaking, accusing people of specific types of heinous crimes, if it's false, is deemed to be defamation per se.
	Absolute defense to defamation, if it's true.
	So without further ado, I just got a notification for Clifton Duncan.
	Emmy-nominated screenwriter Cameron Pasha on Why Hollywood is Collapsing.
	Hey, look at this.
	When you're done with this...
	Oh, it's a short.
	Anyways, Clifton Duncan.
	Sorry, I just heard something.
	So that's it, people.
	I may or may not be live tomorrow.
	It's Good Friday, so no one's in school, which might make it very difficult to go live.
	I might be on with Eric Hunley at noon if I'm not already caught up for the same reasons why I couldn't go live.
	I might go live.
	We'll see what happens with the day.
	Thank you all for being here.
	I'm going to give you the link to Locals so you can all head on over to Locals if you want to be part of the after party.
	There's no playing it out today.
	No, there's no playing a video out today, so head on over to Locals where the party will continue.
	It's Good Friday.
	Grift on.
	Viva Grift on.
	I don't know where the grift was, but thank you very much.
	SferiB27.
	Viva is going Easter egg hunting.
	You can do that.
	Let's see what we got here.
	If there's any Hollywood pedo crashing from Digital Soldier 49. Clifton Duncan.
	Great guy.
	Does great interviews.
	There's a discussion about circumcision, which I'm not getting into.
	Trans movement is a bully movement.
	DCRMB.
	A lot of people are feeling that way right now.
	Gays and women in particular.
	We're feeling that way right now.
	Oh, SFerryB27 says, Viva will sell you all types of hopium, but at the end of the day, it's not going to do anything to improve your situation or the country's.
	People like him.
	People like have him work for the establishment.
	People like have him work.
	Yeah, I don't work for the establishment, but I don't know what hopium is either.
	But I'll tell you what will not do anything to improve the situation.
	Violence or doing something that the other side is going to use and weaponize against you.
	And I believe it.
	And if you don't like it, there are other more aggressive, hyperbolic people to listen to.
	But at the end of the day, I'm giving some information, my understanding of it, breaking it down.
	And yeah, trying to find the silver lining in a world that seems to be rapidly sinking like a moral, spiritual Titanic.
	So trying to plug those holes as it happens.
	So head on over to Locals, people, if you want to.
	Viva, thank you for the show.
	DVR Downmark, thank you very much.
	I'm going to end on Rumble.
	Viva rocks, Digital Soldier 49. While I read the comments, as I'm going to end it on Rumble, go over to Locals.
	I will see you there.
	Ending the stream on Rumble in 3, 2, thank you very much for all of it.
	Enjoy Good Friday.
	Happy Passover for all the people out there celebrating Passover.
	I think Easter's coming up soon, so happy Easter.
	And I will see you all sooner than later and on Locals now.
	Peace.
	I think we're off.
	I think we're off on the...
	Now let's go to logos, people.
	Are we here?
	Hope and or faith sustain us, N. Spence.
	Not blind hope and not blind faith, but knowledge and information and gathering the lions and maybe trying to awaken some sheep.
	Let's see what we got here.
	N. Spence sent a $1 tip.

▲