Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 10, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

01:44:59

Trump Found Liable? Media Still Lying! Tucker Joins Twitter? AND MORE! Viva Frei Live

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hey, it's Tucker Carlson.
	You often hear people say the news is full of lies, but most of the time that's not exactly right.
	Much of what you see on television or read the New York Times is in fact true in the literal sense.
	It could pass one of the media's own fact checks.
	Lawyers would be willing to sign off on it.
	In fact, they may have.
	But that doesn't make it true.
	It's not true.
	Wordsmiths of the devil.
	I want to put it on a shirt.
	I just don't know who would ever wear that, but let me continue with Tucker Carlson.
	At the most basic level, the news you consume is a lie, a lie of the stealthiest and most insidious kind.
	Wordsmiths of the devil.
	Facts have been withheld on purpose, along with proportion and perspective.
	Wait until you get to the punchline of this, people.
	For those listening on podcasts, this is Viva interjecting with Tucker Carlson's most recent announcement.
	You are being manipulated.
	How does that work?
	Let's see.
	If I tell you that a man has been unjustly arrested for armed robbery, that is not, strictly speaking, a lie.
	He may have been framed.
	At this point, there's been no trial, so no one can really say.
	But if I don't mention the fact that the same man has been arrested for the same crime six times before, am I really informing you?
	No, I'm not.
	I'm misleading you.
	Screen grab.
	Dishonest journalists post this as a joke.
	Because Tucker Carlson said, I'm misleading you.
	But they don't mention exactly...
	We'll get there.
	We'll get there.
	But let's just...
	First of all, I love the backdrop.
	I mean, I don't know if this is his house.
	It's flipping beautiful.
	That's a lot of hardwood or beautiful pine with a nice library with many leather-bound books in the background.
	Okay, carry on.
	Carry on.
	And that's what the news media are doing in every story that matters, every day of the week, every week of the year.
	What's it like to work in a system like that?
	After more than 30 years in the middle of it, we could tell you stories.
	Please, please, Tucker, tell us stories.
	In fact, I would love for you to come on and tell us the stories.
	Okay, we'll get to the end of this.
	The best you can hope for in the news business at this point is the freedom to tell the fullest truth that you can't.
	But there are always limits.
	And you know that if you bump up against those limits often enough, you will be fired for it.
	That's not a guess.
	It's guaranteed.
	I think Tucker might be talking about himself right now.
	If I'm taking a wild guess, that is what he means by this.
	He didn't say it.
	I think that's what he meant.
	Every person who works in English language media understands that.
	The rule of what you can't say defines everything.
	It's filthy, really, and it's utterly corrupting.
	You can't have a free society if people aren't allowed to say what they think is true.
	Speech is the fundamental prerequisite for democracy.
	That's why it's enshrined in the first of our constitutional amendments.
	Amazingly, as of tonight, there aren't many platforms left that allow free speech.
	I'll see you next time.
	There's one, even though people think that it's not a...
	You can't say certain words, the F word, although they seem to get censored.
	I think that might be a settings issue.
	Tucker has decided to go with Twitter over Rumble.
	I don't know anything of any internal deals offerings.
	There was an offer from Valuetainment.
	There was an offer from Daily Wire, from what I understood.
	Tucker has opted to go with what he thinks is the last bastion of free speech.
	I'll respectfully agree to disagree.
	Twitter's one of the last bastions.
	The last big one remaining in the world, the only one, is Twitter, where we are now.
	Twitter has long served as the place where our national conversation incubates and develops.
	Twitter is not a partisan site.
	Everybody's allowed here.
	I think there's a great many people who might disagree with you on that.
	We'll get to that in a second, Tucker.
	And we think that's a good thing.
	And yet for the most part, the news that you see analyzed on Twitter comes from media organizations that are themselves thinly disguised propaganda outlets.
	You see it on cable news.
	You talk about it on Twitter.
	Just wait until you get to the punchlines of this, people.
	The result may feel like a debate, but actually the gatekeepers are still in charge.
	We think that's a bad system.
	We know exactly how it works, and we're sick of it.
	Starting soon, we'll be bringing a new version of the show we've been doing for the last six and a half years to Twitter.
	We bring some other things too, which we'll tell you about.
	But for now, we're just grateful to be here.
	Free speech is the main right that you have.
	Without it, You have no others.
	See you soon.
	Testify, Tucker!
	Of course, what you just said there, Tucker, is going to piss a lot of people off, and they're going to have to continue with their relentless attempts to destroy you.
	Prospering Woman says he is right regarding the size of Twitter.
	Rumble would crash with 7 million people watching a live stream.
	We're going to see what's going to happen.
	People still view Twitter...
	As a tweet website, not appreciating that when you pay for Twitter Blue people, because the blue checkmark now no longer means anything, when you pay for Twitter Blue, you get to edit your tweets.
	Not replies and not replies to other people's tweets.
	And you get to post long format video.
	And I've got to tell you, I don't know how I lived for so long without the ability to edit tweets and without the ability to post anything longer than 2 minutes and 20 seconds.
	For the last, how long have I been on Twitter?
	I've been active on Twitter, I guess for five years, maybe a little more.
	I would sit there like micro editing to get things down to two minutes and 20 seconds.
	I now have total freedom.
	Ginger Ninja says, I can't find you on Rumble.
	I most certainly am in Rumble.
	I'm live on Rumble Ninja.
	The link is in the pinned comment on YouTube.
	We're live.
	Give me a panic attack.
	We're live on Rumble, live on Locals, and live on YouTube for now.
	Until we go exclusively to Rumble, and until we go after that, even more exclusively to Locals.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com I forgot what I was saying.
	Oh yes, the living without edits in long format.
	So Twitter, I mean, to the dismay, I think it's an ecosystem that will overlap and synergize well with each other.
	I'm very much partial, very much biased to Rumble.
	But Twitter is competing with YouTube in long-term format, a long-term video format, and a place for uncensored discussion where I tend to think, to some extent, truth prevails.
	It's got its problems.
	To some extent, the cream rises to the top, although I've got an analogous expression to that.
	The cream rises to the top as if to suggest that quality ends up trumping in the long run.
	You know what else rises to the top?
	Anyone who's, you know, floaters also rise to the top.
	So poo-poo also sometimes rises to the top.
	It's not always a good thing.
	So sometimes, you know, disinformation, misinformation, and the noise rises to the top on Twitter, as we're going to see today in the wake of the orgasmic wet dream of the left.
	Trump has finally been found liable of battery.
	Not the more serious charge.
	And we'll try to make sense of all of this, people.
	We're going to make sense of all of this when we go to Rumble.
	So sometimes the noise does rise to the top, even on Twitter.
	But my goodness, as far as it goes, because your alternatives are Twitter versus Facebook, Rumble versus YouTube, as far as it goes, Twitter is the place to actually get information and to actually, you know, have competing ideas, competing arguments.
	Rumble is, as far as video, Hosting goes.
	And as far as media platform goes.
	As far as media platforms go.
	As far as a media platform goes.
	There's a difference.
	Not Tucker Carlson, but Stephen Crowder pointed it out.
	There's a difference between social media and media.
	And to some extent, YouTube is for social media.
	Viral videos and some other stuff which is not relevant when it comes to the...
	The absolutely important discussion about free speech and information.
	Rumble is becoming a network, a media platform where people go to get news and to follow trusted voices and to actually learn what's going on in the world above and beyond the politically curated content that is on YouTube and legacy media.
	Now, by the way, before we get into the response to Tucker's announcement.
	Let me just say two things as I bring up the Super Chats.
	Sorry to stress you out.
	I'll try to refresh or update my app, maybe.
	Ginger Ninja, don't worry about it.
	Better we make sure things are working properly.
	So first things first, no legal advice, no medical advice, no election fortification advice.
	We will be going over to Rumble exclusively after, you know, half an hour or so where we tap into the market.
	That is YouTube.
	Let everybody know, hey guys, after this, we're going to go over to the platform that actually values creators.
	Values Free Speech.
	And tomorrow, when it's no longer live, I'll post the entire stream or clips of it onto YouTube and you can get it then.
	Remember when YouTube first cancelled their...
	What do they call it?
	Their annual YouTube video?
	What did they call it?
	They called it...
	Oh, YouTube Rewind.
	Remember when they cancelled it for the first year?
	I forget what was going on and they said, you know, we shouldn't do it this year and it's not appropriate.
	And they never did it again because YouTube gave up caring about the creators.
	Period.
	Rumble is...
	I won't say it's at the honeymoon stage where it values the creators because it will never get past valuing the creators.
	Rumble values the creators.
	Rumble is building its brand, its business off the creators, off of the warranties and representation and guarantees that it's making to the creators.
	YouTube, once it made its money off the backs of its creators, said, big middle finger to you, creators, and it started with cancelling YouTube Rewind for the first time.
	Rumble has better chat.
	Rumble has a...
	It's a much more active chat.
	I want a slow mode on Rumble chat.
	I don't know if it's there yet, but they're working on all the kinks.
	So Tucker Carlson comes out and announces he's going to Twitter exclusively.
	I think...
	Whoever made that comment before, now I understand.
	Tucker bringing...
	Rumble would be able to deal with it.
	Rumble was dealing with Steven Crowder bringing 200,000 live viewers.
	At the same time, I mean, they're growing.
	They're learning how to deal with it.
	But they dealt with it.
	And they built stronger as a result.
	True, there might have been logistical issues there.
	But I don't think that's why Rumble would have said, you're better off at Twitter to Tucker.
	And I don't think that's why Tucker said, I'm going to go with Twitter versus Rumble.
	I have no knowledge of any deals, any offers, whatever, that are not public.
	And I do think that Tucker's probably at a point in his career now where it's not about the money.
	So between $100 million...
	From Valuetainment.
	You know, if it was an extra 10, 20 million at Twitter, I don't think that would move the needle.
	I think right now it's, you know, guarantees that he will not be foxed.
	He will not get foxed hard like he did this time.
	And also reach and relevance.
	Not that he wouldn't have had that on any other platform.
	I think he just thinks, you know, Twitter is now where the discussion is going, the right place.
	And God bless him.
	Godspeed.
	Kick some ass, Tucker.
	As you will.
	But with ass-kicking comes jealousy-making.
	Let me just see here.
	And it's an ironic thing that it comes on the heels of Trump's being found liable for sexual battery, not rape, battery, and thus liable for defamation for having denied that the sexual assault, which the jury came to the conclusion didn't happen, when he defended himself against that, he committed...
	Defamation?
	When he said it didn't happen, she's a nutcase.
	He committed defamation in denying an event that the jury concluded did not happen, even according to the balance of the probabilities.
	We're getting ahead of ourselves.
	Where was the article from CNN?
	Oh yeah, here we go.
	This is...
	Speaking, you know, coming off the heels of defamation judgments out of New York.
	Coming off the heels of Tucker Carlson's message itself, which we just listened to together, how the media misinforms through omission or just outright editorializes to the point of view.
	Listen to this tweet from CNN.
	I mean, I thought, again, I thought it was a joke.
	I thought it was a parody.
	CNN comes out with a tweet that literally, I don't want to say literally, says right-wing extremist Tucker Carlson.
	Not Tucker Carlson will relaunch his program on Twitter.
	Right-wing extremists.
	Now, I am a First Amendment proponent.
	It doesn't give you the right to wrongly shout fire in a crowded theater.
	It doesn't give you the right to issue bona fide threats.
	It doesn't give you the right to verbally fraudulently induce someone into doing something.
	So there are limits which we all agree on, but we don't necessarily recognize when saying, I believe in free speech.
	Yeah, sure, but no defamation, no threats, no fraud.
	Or at least those should be sanctioned exercises of speech.
	I believe people should be allowed to accuse others of right-wing extremism.
	It's quite clearly an opinion.
	It's quite clearly a watered-down, diluted, willy-nilly, gratuitous accusation that I think reflects more on the Entity making it then on the individual about whom it's being made.
	And it's not recognized as defamation under American law yet.
	Who knows?
	I mean, they're getting very willy-nilly with what's recognized as defamation under US law.
	Not in the good sense.
	Do this in Canada.
	Actually, you know, I do wonder if Tucker could sue in other jurisdictions for what would be defamation in those other jurisdictions, even if it wouldn't be defamation in the United States.
	But set that aside.
	Right-wing extremists.
	Tucker Carlson will relaunch his program on Twitter, a platform he praised as the only remaining large free speech platform in the world after Fox News fired him last month.
	Yeah, it's such a free speech platform.
	It allows jackasses like the CNN to come out and refer to Tucker Carlson as a right-wing extremist.
	I don't think there's anything of news in this.
	Right-wing extremist, they say it here again.
	He announced he's coming over to Tucker.
	Carlson made the announcement in a video which got more views.
	Tucker Carlson's last two videos probably got more views than CNN in the last month.
	Twitter has devolved in recent months into a chaotic platform where the traditional press has come under Assault from the billionaire.
	Chaotic opinion.
	Devolved opinion.
	Traditional press getting the rightful mockery that it deserves, much like you deserve for this statement, CNN.
	Speech is a fundamental...
	Well, they're going to go over his statement, yada, yada.
	Although Carlson did not directly address his abrupt firing from Fox News in the video, he strongly alluded to it.
	The best you can hope for in the news business at the point is the freedom to tell the fullest truth that you can, but we always have limits.
	All right, whatever.
	I just wanted to show you that.
	It's a joke.
	We don't need to give CNN any more airtime than that.
	Yeah, I don't know.
	Legacy traditional media has come under fire.
	Yeah, because you're a bunch of lying propagandists.
	Defamatory, defaming, lying propagandists.
	And you proved it, CNN, in that short little tweet and that article in which you refer to Tucker Carlson as a right-wing extremist.
	But...
	Because there are actually very few legacy traditional journalists, because there are actually very few journalists remaining in this world.
	And yeah, I do consider Jack Posobiec and Postmillennial to be one of those journalists and one of those platforms.
	Who's this article by?
	This article is by Hannah Nightingale, which I suspect is a pen name.
	Is CNN going to report on this story?
	I have no knowledge above and beyond what I read.
	Post-millennial.
	I know nothing more than what I believe everything I read in the New York Post.
	Anybody who gets that movie reference gets a pat themselves on the back.
	Breaking, Carlson was told by a member of the Fox board that he was taken off the air as part of the Dominion settlement, per Tucker's legal team.
	I'm going to pat myself on the back a little bit for this, but also highlight...
	The benefits of making multiple predictions or at least hypothesizing multiple sequences of events and that if any one or all three of them turn out to be true, you can say, look, I said so.
	I got the impression the timing of the firing of Tucker Carlson was to ostensibly, superficially make it look like he was responsible for the Dominion defamation lawsuit and the Dominion defamation settlement, the whopping, astronomical, incomprehensible, legally unprecedented Settlement of $787.5 million.
	I love where they put in a 0.5 million on a 780.
	Could they not either round it up or round it down on both ends?
	Like, is that how they negotiate?
	I want 800 million.
	We want 750.
	787.5.
	No!
	It has to be 788 million, not a penny less.
	Regardless.
	I said that it looked like they were throwing Tucker under the bus, making it look like there was a causal link between Tucker Carlson, the defamation lawsuit, and Fox's unprecedented A decision to settle for $800 million on the eve of the trial.
	But I said that makes no sense because Tucker Carlson was the only one at Fox News calling out Sidney Powell for not actually bringing the evidence of the Kraken.
	So this is apparently what's going on.
	It might have been part of the settlement.
	We don't know because we haven't seen the settlement.
	Never will.
	And I suspect we'll never get anything more than allegations of this because it would be...
	Wildly, if anyone found out that someone was violating whatever NDA was associated with that settlement agreement, it would be a big problem.
	On Tuesday, it was revealed that Fox News settlement with Dominion Voting System over the claims of the 2020 company, voting machines rule, played an election, yada, yada, yada, was the reason why former Fox News host Tucker was taken off air.
	Two people briefed on the conversation, told Axios that Carlson had been told by a...
	So this is like, okay, two people briefed.
	Said that Tuckerson was told by blank.
	It's totally plausible, totally logical, and makes perfect sense.
	They're pissed with Tucker Carlson.
	He's a very, very wildly successful populist voice.
	They don't want Trump, hell or high water.
	Word on the street is that Fox News has already called Arizona for Biden.
	Bada bing, bada boom, I'm joking.
	Two people briefed on the conversation, told Axios that Carlson had been told by a Fox board member.
	That he was taken off air abruptly last month as part of the settlement with the Dominion voting.
	I mean, it only makes sense.
	Okay, then we got his...
	The $787.5 million settlement was reached by the two parties came less than a week after it was revealed that Carlson was off the air with his final show.
	The settlement reached by the two parties came less than a week after it was revealed that Carlson was off the air with his final show being the...
	I thought...
	Oh, that's funny.
	I thought Tucker was taken off air after the settlement.
	Chat, let's fact check this in real time.
	Was Tucker Carlson taken off air after the settlement was reached or after the settlement was announced or after it was...
	Let me read this again one more time.
	The settlement was reached by the two parties came less than a week after it was revealed that Carlson was off the air.
	I thought the timing was backwards.
	It was the inverse on that.
	It doesn't matter.
	In a letter from Tucker Carlson's lawyers to Fox News, they argued that Carlson's non-compete clause in his contract, which runs through 2025, is no longer valid.
	If they fire you, they cannot avail themselves to any non-compete that would have bound you from competing with them had you stayed on with them, which might explain why they are allegedly, apparently, continuing to pay Tucker Carlson through 2025, where they're going to say, you can't compete with us because we're still paying you, although even that, I think, is a legally specious argument.
	Alleging that Fox employees, including Rupert Murkoff himself, broke promises to Carlson intentionally and with reckless disregard for the truth.
	The lawyers accused Fox executives, which two sources told Axios, Arviet Dinh and Murdoch, of making material representations or promises to Carlson that was intentionally broken.
	The revelation comes as Tucker has launched his new exclusive show on Twitter.
	So it's an interesting thing.
	Let me just go to the chat and see if anyone...
	I think Dominion offered a reduction if they fired Tucker, says Fantisi.
	Hold on, how do I do this?
	Lawyers are always lawyering.
	It seems to me it coincided.
	Yes, after the settlement, confusing statement, but that is what it says.
	Okay, Tucker Carlson was...
	Let me just get the camera here.
	Gosh, no, wrong way.
	I disabled this stupid Instagram thing, Insta360, multiple times.
	Okay, there we go.
	Yeah, I thought Tucker was taken off air after the settlement because I think I would have freaked out.
	I mean, I know.
	I don't remember things anymore.
	I just remember how I would have reacted had they happened that way.
	I would have freaked out about Tucker Carlson.
	No, he definitely came after us because that's my whole theory.
	Okay, doesn't matter.
	Had they fired Tucker, they would not be able to avail themselves of a non-compete.
	As it was, they...
	They seem to be paying him until 2025, so he's still under contract.
	So in theory, maybe he can't compete.
	I don't think that's going to work either, especially when it seems that someone at Fox is leaking defamatory, what they think is defamatory videos or prejudicial videos to media matters.
	So that's it.
	It'll be an interesting thing to see what happens now with Tucker on Twitter.
	But if true.
	Dominion said, fire Tucker as part of the settlement, even though Tucker was the only one at Fox News not defending Dominion, but defending Dominion in that he was calling out Sidney Powell, saying that, yes, everyone had a problem with electronic voting until they didn't.
	You can go find some CNN reports and some BBC reports from years ago calling out the risks of electronic voting, but they've forgotten about that.
	Now it's the most secure thing ever until it isn't.
	Tucker Carlson was the only one at Fox News holding Sidney Powell's feet to the fire on failing or refusing to deliver on her promises of releasing the Kraken.
	So it would be very, very interesting if Dominion, in fact, insisted that as part of the settlement, the most populist, influential voice on Fox News be fired.
	Anyhow, bottom line, to hell with Fox News.
	And to hell with CNN, those defamatory bastards.
	What else?
	There was something else about Tucker Carlson.
	Oh, that's right.
	That's right.
	This one segues into we're going to talk about this here.
	Then we're going to go over to Rumble.
	Oh, I feel bad sometimes when I ratio people on Twitter or bring to light their insidious dishonesty.
	But if Twitter is good for nothing else, that's what it's good for.
	And that's what I expect other people to do to me.
	Not the dishonesty because I'm never dishonest.
	Bring to the fore any mistakes that I made.
	So that I may correct them, retract, and do what is necessary to rectify any mistake that I made.
	But when people are so overtly dishonest, and we're going to get into the overt dishonesty in the coverage of the Trump guilty conviction, depending on which idiot you listen to who can't distinguish between a civil trial, which is based on preponderance of the evidence, and a criminal conviction, which is based on beyond a reasonable doubt, we'll get there.
	One who has been particularly good for...
	Content on this subject.
	Rachel Gilmore people, also known as Canada's Taylor Lorenz, also known as perhaps the most shameless source of disinformation, misinformation, woke journalism, comes out with this tweet yesterday.
	I have a feeling.
	I have a feeling this image is going to be very useful.
	You're right, Rachel, but not for the reasons that you thought it was.
	She puts up the screen, grab it and says, I'm misleading you.
	It's funny.
	I had watched the video.
	I didn't remember this statement in the video.
	I thought this was from another montage.
	So I go back and watch the video again because the backdrop was the same.
	Oh, where is...
	There we go.
	I've ratioed...
	Rachel, on her own tweet, where I think she got 190, not that it matters, people, but it's an indication that, you know, on Twitter, of competing ideas.
	And I was just listening to the Japanese scientist on Joe Rogan.
	I keep messing up his name and I don't want to.
	You know, he says, you only get to the truth.
	You only get to good ideas by allowing for competing ideas such that the wrong, the bad, and the lieful ideas get pushed to the bottom and the truth shall prevail and the truth shall set you free.
	And I just...
	Put this beautiful meme together.
	I'm not a meme master, as you can see by the way in which this was done.
	You'll remember what Tucker Carlson said.
	Reality.
	But if I don't mention the fact that the same man had been arrested for the same crime six times before, am I really informing you?
	No, I'm not.
	I'm misleading you.
	As I just said, it was reality versus Rachel Gilmore reality.
	And the ultimate irony.
	Is that that entire clip from Tucker Carlson was specifically about how the media, how dishonest journalists, how propagandists, state-funded propagandists, although in Rachel's case, she no longer works for Global News, which was not state-funded, but it was certainly state-subsidized through its continued promotion of the narrative such that their COVID ad dollars wouldn't dry up.
	The entire purpose of what Tucker Carlson was saying was how the media lies through omission.
	And what did Rachel Gilmore do with that tweet is she attempted to mislead through omission by omitting exactly what Tucker Carlson was saying.
	It felt good.
	I will not lie.
	I'm a superficial person sometimes.
	It doesn't feel good to feel good.
	It feels good because the truth should be more popular than the lie.
	And the truth should be more popular than the incorrect statements.
	Now, I think it might be the perfect time.
	Let me see if there's anything else on the Canadian front.
	Do we do one more quick one about how?
	Yeah, because it's on the topic.
	It's on the topic, CNN, how they mislead you through what is insidious editorializing of what should otherwise be journalism.
	People have to understand that, you know, the difference between an op-ed, an open editorial, the difference between an opinion piece and the difference between journalism.
	Once upon a time, Was the absence of editorializing the facts.
	Unfortunately, the media just can't do it.
	So instead of Tucker Carlson announces he's going to Twitter, it's right-wing extremist Tucker Carlson that is editorializing.
	What was this one about?
	That's not the right one.
	That's not the right...
	Get that out there.
	That's not the right one.
	We're not there yet.
	What was the other one?
	Talk about editorializing.
	That's what it was.
	So it was CNN, yet again.
	CNN.
	I mean, look at this.
	Because editorializing can be malicious in its intent to defame someone like with the Tucker Carlson, or it can be, what's the word, cover-uppy-ish, as is the case with covering up for the seemingly failed state, the crime pool, cesspool state that California has become, at least in its concentrated, built-up areas.
	Scott Baio.
	I knew the name, but he was in some old-time stuff.
	Scott Baio tweeted that he is ready to relocate out of California after 45 years of crime and homelessness.
	Let me get to the article in a second.
	I want to see what Scott Baio's tweet...
	You know what?
	I think it's even worse than I thought it was.
	We're going to get to that tweet in a second.
	Relocate.
	He's ready to relocate.
	That's one heck of a nice...
	Relocate is one way to describe it.
	I guess flee would itself also be editorializing.
	It might be more accurate editorializing, however.
	Well, I'm relocating because my house is on fire.
	Yes, he's decided to relocate in the middle of the night because his house is burning down.
	Relocate would be an odd choice of words.
	Flee.
	That's an odd way to say flee.
	But if you go to the article, let's just see what the tweet said.
	Tweet?
	Here.
	The former Charles in Charge star tweeted last week that he is going to exit stage right from California after 45 years.
	Bio shared a screen grab and a quote from a story about a homeless encampment near Beverly Hills reported to CNN.
	The most recent survey conducted by the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority found approximately 69,000 people experiencing homelessness in LA and 41,000 in the city.
	In L.A. County, 41,000 people homeless in the city of L.A. That's a big town.
	Bayo quoted from the article.
	Bayo's tweet prompted mixed responses.
	I'm sure they'll miss such an important right-wing shill like you.
	Oh, you've got to love the beauty of free speech on Twitter.
	Because you're a right-wing shill if you do not accept living in the left-wing cesspool.
	Baio, an outspoken conservative, replied, maybe not, but they'll certainly miss the high taxes I pay.
	Oh, that is the proper retort.
	Okay, that's the story.
	But let's just remember they said relocate.
	He's relocating.
	Relocating because the house is on fire.
	After 45 years, I'm making my way to finally exit stage right from California.
	That's not relocating, although I guess it is.
	That's fleeing the cesspool that...
	The place in which he spent nearly a half decade of his life has pushed him away.
	Oh boy.
	Hold on a second.
	Have I fallen way back?
	Exiting.
	Exiting.
	He'll be exiting.
	Exiting stage right.
	You know what it's called?
	It's called fleeing.
	It's called voting with your dollar.
	And for these...
	You know, the one jab, well, if you decide to leave, you must be a right-wing extremist because being a left-wing tolerant, you know, the tolerance of the left means sitting there and agreeing to live in squalor and live in the filth that has become the consequence of failed left-wing policy.
	Gavin Newsom said he was going to solve the homelessness problem in 10 years.
	There's this ridiculous clip from decades ago.
	Looks like a scene on a Robocop.
	Did I say Gavin Smith or Gavin Newsom?
	Gavin Newsom saying he's going to end homelessness in 10 years.
	You become intolerant right-wing for saying, I'm not subsidizing this anymore.
	I don't have to live with this anymore.
	I don't have to live in a city where I can't go to the park with my kids because there's needles everywhere, because there's crime everywhere.
	People are fleeing New York.
	It's going to become by definition.
	You leave New York, you're a right-wing extremist.
	You leave California, you leave Canada.
	I should have to live under tyranny.
	I should have to live in the squalor of a failed state.
	I should have to pay for it with my taxes.
	And if I decide to object to this, if I decide to vote again, then you have to tolerate the failure of left-wing policies or you're a right-wing extremist.
	And for those who say that, the system doesn't pay for itself.
	The crappy healthcare in Canada doesn't pay for itself.
	You lose the only people who actually pay taxes.
	I think in Canada it's like 20% of the population pay 80% of the taxes.
	Something along those lines.
	It might even be more like 15%.
	You lose your taxpayers.
	You lose your artists.
	You lose your intellectuals.
	That's how a country goes from Venezuela 30 years ago to Venezuela today.
	You don't own people despite what you think.
	And you don't own their tax dollars, despite what you think.
	And when those tax dollars dry up, well, then your crappy infrastructure can't even pay for itself.
	What do you think happens then?
	That's great.
	I mean, it's like what they do in Quebec, by the way.
	It's like what they did when they threatened to separate in Quebec, where they moved for referendum twice, 78-96.
	What happens?
	Anglophones, allophones, people with money, people who make money, people who pay taxes, left.
	And they went to Ontario.
	They went elsewhere in Canada.
	What happened to Quebec?
	There's a reason why it's known as the land of the orange cones.
	Hold on.
	You lose your taxpayers, you lose your free healthcare.
	As though the free healthcare even works as it is now.
	And as though the free healthcare is even free.
	50 cents on every dollar you're paying taxes goes to the healthcare system directly or indirectly.
	From what...
	Eric Duhane told me, the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, of Quebec, sorry, Quebec.
	Oh yeah, so you have one referendum.
	Chase out your Anglos, chase out your Allos, chase out your, you know, not that you're their biggest taxpayers.
	I don't know if Anglophones or Allophones paid more taxes than Francophones who stayed.
	You chase them out.
	What ends up happening?
	Toronto, that awful city that is like New York without the charm, becomes the artistic hub, the economic hub of Canada.
	It didn't happen.
	I would say it didn't happen organically.
	It happened as a result of chasing out Anglos from Quebec with the first referendum and the second referendum.
	And they're doing it again now with their third revamping of Bill 101 under Bill 96, making it even harder for allophones, anglophones, to live and do business in Quebec.
	Can't share any anecdotes that are not personal, but that's what happens.
	Enjoy it.
	Okay.
	Viva, your plan to entice the masses from YouTube to Rumble may have reached its inflection point.
	2,300 on Rumble, but only 1,000 on YouTube go Rumble.
	Yeah, true.
	And I still say this as the intro because anybody watching it afterwards should know.
	But yeah, it's quite impressive, Pasha.
	I mean, even for our Sunday night streams, we'll have a few thousand people, 4,000 or 5,000 people on YouTube, and then they come over to Rumble, and then we hit 20,000 people on Rumble.
	It's magnificent.
	Anyhow, speaking of inflection point, it might have reached it.
	You might be right, and that's the perfect segue to head on over to Rumble.
	Let's get ready.
	Oh my God, we're going to get into the Trump stuff, people.
	It's discouraging.
	It makes it hard.
	You sit around and you're sort of always distracted by the absolute stupidity and insanity of the world.
	You need some minor outflow of money, but not a lot.
	George Vandenberg.
	Fox below.
	Hold on, what was this?
	Okay, I don't know what that chat means, so I'm not going to bring it up.
	Alright, everybody, you got the link for Rumble.
	We're going to go over there in five seconds.
	Four seconds.
	Three, two, one.
	A thousand people should be making their way over.
	What was I going to say?
	Oh my goodness, let's get to...
	I mean, I think it could be an hour that we could spend on this.
	And then the funny thing is, it's not even a question of being a Trumper and supporting this crap.
	It's a question.
	We're seeing what's happening now.
	Lawfare, it's not that lawfare has always proven to be an inconvenience.
	This conviction, and it's not a conviction, this finding of liability by the New York jury, this is setting the new standard.
	Trump will get convicted on his...
	What's the guy's name now?
	I forgot his name.
	The DA.
	Don't tell me.
	Don't tell me what his name is.
	The DA of New York has a B in it.
	What's the name of the guy?
	Okay, now...
	What's the guy's name?
	The DA who...
	Bragg!
	I beat you, John Coldgold, but thank you.
	Alvin Bragg.
	This finding of guilt, finding of liability, we have to even use the terms properly, and now I'm getting flipping.
	Now I'm getting conditioned to use the wrong words by the people who are using the wrong words.
	This finding that George, that Donald John Trump is liable, not for rape, because the jury didn't believe with balance of the probabilities that Carol was raped by Trump, but she didn't know what happened.
	And they don't believe that it was rape, despite what she said on CNN, despite what her claim was.
	I was going to make a joke.
	They deliberated for three hours.
	Charges of allegations dating back to the 90s.
	So this is allegations that are 30-plus years old.
	After two weeks of trial, where there were questions of...
	I don't know that the question of statute of limitations came up because it's a defamation case, defamation from the battery, how they got past any statute of limitations that applies to the battery because the 35-year-old allegations, two weeks of trial, the jury deliberates for three whopping hours.
	I don't even know if that included lunch break.
	That is a conscientious jury, people.
	That's a jury of people who didn't come in with a foregone conclusion.
	They thought about it.
	They argued about it.
	I was going to make a joke.
	The only reason it took three hours is because there were seven of them.
	Six of them wanted to find Trump liable for rape.
	And the one jury member was like, guys, that's a bridge too far.
	Let's just keep it reasonable.
	Okay.
	Donald Trump sued for defamation.
	Because Carol alleges that Trump raped her in the 90s.
	She said it.
	And don't take my word for it.
	Let's just go...
	I want to tap your expertise for a moment.
	This is definitely not the right video, people.
	She went on CNN over three years ago.
	And there's an amazing thing about this also that we should all appreciate.
	Yeah.
	She went on Anderson Cooper.
	When is this from?
	June 24th.
	June 24th.
	It's almost four years ago.
	Do this to clear up.
	Damn it.
	I don't even know why I would have that ad.
	I mean, I have no colon problems whatsoever.
	What is this?
	Okay.
	Another commercial?
	Is that a Japanese Plus card?
	When you buy me with your car?
	Okay.
	So she did an interview with Anderson Cooper.
	She did an interview with Anderson Cooper.
	Oh my gosh.
	She's not my type.
	That is what the President of the United States has just said about the woman.
	She did an interview with Anderson Cooper three years ago.
	In that interview, I'll skip right to the end because it's unequivocal what she's alleging.
	And it was a fight.
	And this is not a question I would normally ask.
	And if you don't want to answer, I totally understand.
	But given the prior accusations, which have all been of forms of assault or harassment, you're saying that there was actual penetration.
	Yes.
	Which puts it into a different category of any of the other women who have come forward.
	I think that is the definition of rape.
	One definition.
	That's the definition.
	Yes.
	She's not my type.
	Appreciate.
	We have Carol.
	Accusing Donald Trump of rape.
	That's her story.
	Penetration.
	Gets to trial.
	I think the testimony was a little more equivocal at trial.
	She couldn't tell what it was.
	The jury doesn't believe her story that she was raped, but they believe that she was sexually abused, battered, such that when Trump says she's a con job, I don't know who she is, she's a crazy woman, I didn't do it.
	That's defamatory because they didn't believe that she was raped, but they believed that she was sufficiently something else, despite her charges and her claims and her testimony, that Trump then defamed her when he denied what they agreed did not happen.
	Try to make that make sense.
	It doesn't.
	And this is, again, there might be good excuses why people have to wait a long time or feel reluctant to come up with charges.
	At some point, however...
	It becomes an injustice to 35 years later make certain claims and ruin some's life when...
	All right.
	That's one thing.
	Now, you might have also remembered this very, very interesting, to say the least, mildly interesting clip of E. Jean Carroll talking about how she viewed the, you know, Something.
	Here.
	You can't see it because I haven't shared the screen.
	Sorry, hold on a second.
	Here.
	Listen to this, people.
	This is from the same interview.
	Why isn't this part in the CNN publication of the interview?
	Good question!
	Listen to what she said during that same interview, but you don't find this clip in Anderson Cooper's...
	Interview that was published on YouTube.
	You don't feel like a victim.
	I was not thrown on the ground and ravished.
	The word rape carries so many sexual connotations.
	This was not sexual.
	It hurt.
	I think most people think of rape as a violent assault.
	I think most people think of rape as being sexy.
	Let's take a short break.
	Think of the fantasies.
	We're going to take a quick break.
	If you can stick around, we'll talk more on the other side.
	You're fascinating to talk to.
	Why wasn't this included in that clip that CNN published?
	I watched that entire 11-minute clip of Anderson Cooper's interview with E.G. and Carroll to try to get this clip.
	It wasn't in there.
	Very convenient.
	Inexplicably, but very explicably.
	You have E.G. and Carroll, I'll just call her Carroll, accusing Trump of rape.
	And defamation for denying the rape and calling her a crazy con job.
	The jury does not believe her story when it comes to rape, but believes it sufficiently according to the balance of the preponderance of the evidence when it comes to some other form of sexual battery.
	And then grants finds Trump liable for defamation or $5 million when they themselves didn't believe the most critical part of her story, despite what she said on CNN.
	Try to make that make sense.
	Try to make that make sense.
	The media is having the field day, field day misrepresenting what was going on, misrepresenting what the jury finding means, and not being shy about it.
	I'm going to bring up just a few of the headlines, or a few of the tweets that people are putting out there.
	You got Harry J. Sisson.
	Here's one.
	Here's one.
	Let's just hear...
	Let's just hear what the young people are indoctrinating other young people to think occurred.
	So Donald Trump has been found guilty and liable in a court of law for sexually abusing a woman by the name of E. Jean Carroll, as you can see in the photo above.
	The jury also awarded her $5 million in damages.
	It's a great day for America and it's a great day for justice.
	But for the Trump supporters, I gotta know, how are you going to continue to support this guy?
	How can you consciously support someone who's been found liable?
	For sexual abuse.
	I think a lot of Republicans have to ask themselves that question right now.
	And for the ones who continue to support Donald Trump, all I'm going to say is, wow, it says a lot about your character.
	So Donald Trump...
	Set aside the whataboutism, because one of the easy reports to that is, well, what about Joe Biden and what he did with his allegedly did, you know, what his daughter alleged he did in the diary, which we now know is an authentic diary because it was confirmed by the FBI.
	Set aside the whataboutism about Bill Clinton, you know, arguably sexually abusing a staffer in the White House who's, you know, an intern, however many decades his junior.
	Set aside the whataboutisms about Hillary Clinton trying to destroy the lives of the accusers of her husband's sexual...
	Set aside all of the whataboutisms.
	Understand what happened in this trial.
	Because I don't think anybody watched Gouvet's coverage.
	I don't think anybody was sitting there meticulously following inner-city press's, you know, real-time tweets of what was going on in this trial.
	In this trial, you have E. Jean Carroll, well beyond the statute of limitations of any criminal accusation, of any potential criminal accusation, well beyond, so much beyond, that she could only file a civil lawsuit in the year 2023.
	Or no, sorry, she didn't file it in 2023.
	She filed it years ago.
	She could only file it decades after the incident based on defamation of Trump denying what she claims happened that she wrote about in a book that she was trying to sell at the same time.
	People don't know what happened during this trial.
	One person on Twitter, you know, thought they're making a point that said, oh, E.G. Carroll had 11 witnesses come and support her.
	How many came to support Trump?
	It's like, all right, awesome.
	Justice now has become a high school popularity contest.
	Oh, well, she had more witnesses.
	And what did they testify on?
	I guarantee you that person either doesn't know what those witnesses testified on or does know but will not disclose it because it was absolute judicial bullshit that those witnesses were allowed to testify on what they testified on.
	We'll get there.
	And I also ask rhetorically, how does one prove a negative?
	What witnesses does someone call?
	In order to prove that an alleged rape, which even the jury came to the conclusion, didn't occur, based on the balance of the probabilities, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt, what witness do you bring in to prove that?
	Do you bring in the Burgendorf's employees who weren't there when it didn't happen?
	Do you bring in the lingerie salesperson who weren't there on Trump's...
	Do you call the witnesses who weren't there at the time and date that wasn't specified because the witness has no idea when it was, what year it was?
	But my goodness, she seems to have other convenient details, which I'm going to get to in a second as well.
	What witnesses do you bring in to prove a negative?
	And the witnesses that you do bring in.
	There was a Bergendorf's employee, by the way.
	According to some of the evidence, there was a Burgendorf's employee who came in and testified that Thursday nights were usually very quiet at the Burgendorf's.
	I'm not sure.
	When E. Jean Carroll testified, despite all common sense, so much so that it even surprised Tucker Carlson.
	Anderson Cooper.
	Let me play this tweet.
	In that same interview from years ago, Carol said something that was so implausible that even Anderson Cooper had to take a step back and say, well, you know, people are going to have a hard time believing this.
	And so we went up the escalator.
	We went to the lingerie department.
	It was empty.
	There was nobody there.
	There was nobody on the whole floor, frankly.
	Just bear in mind, by the way.
	In the context of this interview, she's testifying as to how Trump ran into her as she's leaving the Burgendors.
	And he says, I need your help to buy something for a woman.
	And they go gallivanting around the Burgendors like little Kevin from Home Alone.
	And nobody was with them.
	No security for Trump, who could testify that this happened.
	No staff from the Burgendors walking a billionaire tycoon around.
	It wasn't like...
	It's not like it just happened.
	According to Carol, walking around the store together like Christmas shoppers.
	I think you go through bathing suits and cruise wear.
	The store was not popular at the time.
	Nobody was there.
	Nobody.
	On the counter.
	That's going to sound strange, people, that nobody was in the...
	Because Bergdorf's is the greatest store on the earth.
	They take care of whatever you want there, there.
	If you're thirsty, they'll bring your water.
	They'll get you whatever they'll call home.
	Bergdorf's is the greatest store on the earth.
	I mean, can you imagine?
	If you want water, they'll bring you water.
	If anything you need, they'll be there for you.
	Except nobody was there this time.
	Not just that, nobody was there.
	Donald Trump is walking through, billionaire, shopping at the Burgunders, and nobody's there.
	This fantasy, this delusion, it goes even one step further.
	Country to get whatever you want.
	It was a moment in time, nobody was there.
	A dressing room door was open, which is very unusual because usually they're locked and the attendant comes and locks it, escorts you in.
	Okay, so on the...
	So he said lingerie because he wanted...
	Nobody was there.
	Burgendorf is the best store on the earth.
	Someone is there at your beck and call.
	You want water?
	They bring you water.
	You need advice?
	They give you advice.
	Nobody was there for some miraculous reason, according to one of the Burgendorf former employees.
	Thursday nights were typically quiet.
	Anybody who's worked in retail knows that Thursday nights are the busiest time for sales.
	Everybody knows that.
	Why?
	Most people work during the week.
	Most people work during the day.
	Stores, at least in the time, were not open late during the weekdays, but Thursday and Friday, they would be open later.
	And people would come after work.
	Everybody who worked on commissions, and I worked at a rock climbing store, a bike shop, and a shoe store, the sports expert, everybody knew that when you worked on commissions, you wanted the Thursday afternoon shift because Thursday evening was the time when people with jobs and money to spend would come.
	Maybe it was different to Burgendorf's.
	Maybe it was different back in the 90s.
	Maybe it was different in New York.
	I call bullcrap on that testimony.
	Oh, yeah, Thursday.
	I'm sorry.
	When is the popular time?
	Tuesday mornings?
	But set that aside.
	Carol is saying it's the best store on the earth.
	Water, they'll get you everything you need.
	But no one was there that time.
	And not only was no one there, my goodness, one of the changing rooms was unlocked because typically they will unlock it to let you know, but this time it was open.
	I mean, you couple this with her previous statement, which is no longer in the Anderson Cooper interview that I saw on Twitter, on YouTube, about her people thinking of rape as a fantasy.
	They think of it as sexy.
	Well, I mean, my goodness, what she's describing here sounds like what someone would write about in a Playboy magazine if they wanted to talk about a billionaire tycoon that met them at the front store of a luxurious shopping center, took them around, yet miraculously nobody was there.
	And then what else happens?
	Magically, a door is unlocked.
	Ordinarily, it would have been locked.
	There would have been people all over the place.
	There would have been a clerk to let you in.
	To ask you what you wanted.
	But nobody was there.
	And then he took me in there and he did that to me.
	And the jury says, we don't believe that he did that to you, but we really, really fucking hate Trump.
	So let's go with sexual battery.
	Guys, don't do the full-on thing because no one's going to buy that.
	Just go with the sexual abuse, sexual battery, and then we can still get to the defamation as well.
	And then the media gets to run with its headlines.
	Oh, but she had a trial, people, so you can't complain.
	She had a trial.
	And you can't complain about the outcome because, you know, I mean, first of all, when Trump gets acquitted on his two impeachments, the acquittal is political.
	But when he gets convicted after the testimony of someone who is clearly, you know, one card short of a full deck, I think you're fascinating to talk to, Anderson.
	You're fascinating, too.
	Do you want to go out for coffee and talk about how rape is a fantasy to many people?
	You're fascinating.
	When you want to talk about a jury in New York that comes to a unanimous finding of liability based on allegations that are three decades old, unsubstantiated, but for the Looney Tune herself and her friend, whom she alleged to have called right after it happened and her friend, according to a testimony, that sounds like rape.
	You should go to the police.
	No, I'm not going to go to the police.
	And then we never talked about it again.
	Carol's best testimony is that she allegedly, she has friends who came forward and said, yeah, she told me about it at the time.
	What it was, who knows?
	In retrospect, it becomes something else.
	Her main friend, I forget what her name was, who said she called me and I was there with my kids and I remembered.
	And I said, Carol, it sounded like you just got raped.
	And you had your head on the wall.
	You better call the police.
	And she said no.
	And then we hung up and then we never talked about it again.
	Yeah, that makes a boatload of sense.
	What other witnesses were allowed to testify?
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	This is what we call a judicial injustice.
	How long have I been on the wrong mic for?
	I think I've been on the wrong mic for a little while.
	Let me just make sure people can hear me.
	Mic check one, two.
	Do you hear me through the good mic now?
	What's amazing is it means that the laptop mic is...
	I was sounding fine.
	Yeah, it might have been the good mic the whole time.
	Might have just reset now.
	You got E. Jean Carroll, who apparently people think rape is sexy.
	And when she says people think rape is sexy, that might be a little bit of projection because I don't know what gives her the authority to describe how other people view rape.
	That she thinks people think of it as a fantasy?
	Well, my goodness, what she just described to Anderson Cooper.
	Sounds like what one would think would be written about as fantasy in a book.
	Her best evidence, other than the other witnesses who testified about other stuff we're going to get to, her best friend, who said, yeah, she called me the day of.
	I told her to go to the cops, go to the hospital.
	It sounded like she was raped and hit her head.
	And she said no, and then we just moved on.
	And I never heard from her since.
	Her friend also had some interesting texts or Facebook messages where she referred to Trump as a Russian agent, a virus like herpes.
	She said that her friend, E. Jean Carroll, had this obsession with suing for...
	I couldn't find the details.
	Her friend had not-so-nice things to say about Carroll herself, but now she stands by the story, and had some not-so-nice things to say about Trump, his family, and considers Trump to be a herpes-like virus.
	Okay, but hold on.
	The other witnesses came from a New York Times article.
	Here, let's just sit.
	Carol's friend tells a fraught call reporting on attack by Trump.
	E. Jean Carroll, who has accused the former president of raping her, has finished her cross-examinations.
	Her lawyers are...
	This is from a few days ago.
	This was from May 2nd, so last week.
	But I just want to get to this here.
	I'm here because my good friend, my good, good friend...
	Listen to this.
	My friend, my...
	This is her best evidence, by the way.
	My good friend, who was a good person, told me something terrible that happened to her and as I lost her employment and her life became very, very difficult.
	Is this Bernbach?
	I want the world to know that she is telling the truth.
	Okay, the accusation.
	Ms. Carroll said she was leaving the Bergdorf one evening.
	In the mid-90s, when Trump was entering the store, he recognized her and persuaded her to help him shop for a gift.
	We just heard that.
	The phone call.
	Burnback testified that she was in her kitchen feeding her children dinner around 6 p.m. in the spring of 1996 when she got a call from Miss Carroll.
	She said, Lisa, you're not going to believe what happened to me.
	Burnback testified.
	Breathless, hyperventilating, emotional.
	As she listened to the story, Burnback said she found it surprising that Miss Carroll had gone to the lingerie department with Trump.
	I thought it was kind of nutty.
	Maybe because it was.
	E. Jean said to me many times, he pulled down my tights.
	He pulled down my tights.
	I almost couldn't believe it.
	Ms. Birnbach said she went into another room and whispered to Ms. Carroll so the children wouldn't hear her.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	Ms. Birnbach said Ms. Carroll told her she wouldn't.
	Call the police.
	Go to the police.
	And asked Ms. Birnbach to never again speak of what she told her.
	Ms. Birnbach testified that they hadn't talked about it.
	About what they said on that phone call until 2019.
	96, 06, 16. No, 96 to 06. 06 to 16. 23 years.
	Listen to this.
	She asked me not to, and we never talked about it again.
	I'm sure that's exactly what happens when someone claims that they were just raped in a lingerie room.
	By a billionaire tycoon.
	They mention it once, they say don't ever talk about it again, and you don't.
	Brandt spent several minutes delving into the podcast Ms. Birnbach hosted in 2018 to 2021.
	He read excerpts from the transcripts in which Birnbach called Trump an infection-like herpes that we can't get rid of, Vladimir Putin's Asians, and a narcissist sociopath.
	Listen to this.
	What better way to dispel sentiments of bias than having a judge make a sarcastic remark that gets the jury, who's clearly not biased, to snicker and laugh?
	Her strongest testimony.
	That's the strongest evidence.
	What was the other evidence that they had?
	Bring this back here.
	This is where it gets outrageous.
	They had other witnesses testify.
	Jessica Leeds, a former stockbroker who said Trump assaulted her on an airplane in the late 1970s, also testified.
	Ms. Carroll's attorneys called her to establish Mr. Trump's modus operandi, which they said was a pattern of assaulting women.
	Bear in mind, and I'm going to get to this later when we talk about what I call the Banana Republic lawyer David A. French, they allowed Jessica Leeds to testify not on what happened to Carol, not on what happened to her as evidenced by or confirmed by criminal conviction, civil lawsuit.
	No.
	They brought in Jessica Leeds.
	To testify on what allegedly happened to her in another case, in another situation that had never been tested by the courts, that there had never been confirmed by anybody.
	They had Jessica Leeds come in and testify as evidence in support of Carol on allegations that Leeds alleges occurred to her decades before what happened to Carol.
	This is what you call like a mini trial within a mini trial, except there's not even a trial on the trial within the trial.
	There's no satisfying...
	The truthfulness or the accuracy of Leeds' testimony of what allegedly happened to her, they bring that in, her allegations as though those allegations are fact when they're not, in order to support the allegations Carol made when those two incidents have nothing to do with one another except for the purposes of maligning in the eyes of the jury the, do we say defendant in a civil case?
	We say that in Quebec, but the plaintiff and the defendant, Trump.
	And listen to what Leeds says.
	I mean, this is even more fantastical.
	Leeds said she'd been flying home to New York when a flight attendant invited her to first class.
	She said there was one seat empty next to Trump, meaning all the other seats were taken.
	Leeds, who said she didn't know Mr. Trump, shook hands and spoke briefly.
	Then out of the blue, Ms. Leeds says, he decided to kiss and grope me.
	Remember, people, there was one empty seat.
	All the other seats were full.
	It was like he had 40 zillion hands, Ms. Leeds added, adding that he went under her skirt.
	She said he exerted force and wriggled away before returning, she wriggled away before returning to her original seat.
	Several years later, Ms. Leeds said she saw Mr. Trump at a charity event in Manhattan.
	She said, Mr. Trump, wife at the time, Ivanka, walked up to the table where she was sitting.
	Mr. Trump said he remembered her, addressing her with a vulgar anatomical epithet.
	Leeds went public with her accusations in 2016.
	What happened in 2016, people?
	During the Trump's presidential run, denied her allegations, saying she would not be my first choice.
	This is a statement Trump should never have made.
	It's a stupid thing to say, and it's come back to bite him in the ass because it's not how you win over anybody.
	Cross-examination, Trump's lawyer questioned Ms. Lee's timing in revealing her story and political affiliations.
	End of story.
	You've got to understand, people, there is that principle in law that if you allow evidence...
	As to character, because that's really all that this is.
	Now I have to make sure that I'm not mistaking the criminal aspect of it versus the civil aspect.
	I know from my practice as a civil lawyer in Quebec, if you ever wanted to bring in this type of evidence, a judge would have definitively said, I'm sorry, Maître Freiheit, was once my former moniker back in Quebec.
	When I was a litigator back in my wee days in Quebec, it was maître, which means master in French.
	And they called you maître because you're the master of your file.
	If I were in a civil case with someone, let's just say it happens to be about battery, damages.
	And I wanted to bring in, let's just leave it at the non-controversial, less controversial defamation.
	Let's just say I'm suing someone for defamation.
	My client's suing someone for defamation.
	And I wanted to bring in other people who claim to have been defamed by the defendant.
	Okay.
	The first question the judge would ask was, I mean, they would say, is there a judgment?
	If you're bringing in a judgment, what is a judicial fact of sorts?
	Okay.
	Oh, sorry.
	So there was no civil trial, maitre freiheit?
	There was no criminal trial, maitre freiheit?
	You want me to listen to someone complain that they think this person did something wrong to them in their circumstances?
	Set aside the fact that it's decades ago.
	You want me to have a mini trial within this trial as to whether or not what she's alleging actually happened?
	What leads alleged happened?
	There's no judicial fact, judicial record, criminal record that it actually occurred.
	A judge would have told me...
	I'm sorry, Maître Freyett, you should know better.
	I'm not getting involved in an extraneous trial within a trial to determine whether or not what Mr. Ms. Leeds is accusing Trump of having done is true.
	That's not what we're here for.
	And yet that's exactly what Judge Kaplan did, not once, but twice.
	Judge Kaplan allowed in two witnesses to come in.
	The other one, I forget the name of, I think it was the journalist who did the interview with Trump and then she says he aggressively, you know, did something to her.
	Judge Kaplan allowed two other witnesses to come in and testify as to what they allege Trump did to them in separate incidences that never made it to court, that never made it to criminal court.
	That is a trial within a trial on something that has nothing to do with the object of the current trial.
	It's outlandish.
	And then you have people like the Banana Republic lawyer, David A. French, coming out and saying, That the other witnesses came in and provided evidence of assault.
	Don't take my word for it.
	Don't take my word for it.
	Let me just get to the tweet because I don't want to be accused.
	I don't want to be accused of taking anything out of context.
	Yeah.
	Then we're going to get to French's article in the New York Times in which he, a lawyer, headlines the article, a guilty ex-president.
	There is no guilt.
	Or innocence in civil cases.
	There's liability.
	But they knew that.
	What's going on here?
	Here we go.
	Look at this.
	This is from David French's article in the New York Times.
	It's important to note that this was a civil case, not a criminal trial.
	That's well into the article, French.
	That's well into the article after your headline.
	A guilty ex-president.
	We'll get there.
	The burden of proof in civil cases is lower.
	The jury was charged with determining whether Carroll proved her claims with a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt.
	All true thus far.
	Try to reconcile that with your headline of a guilty ex-president, French.
	Oh, I just meant he's guilty morally, not criminally, because it's a civil trial.
	I said it in the article, you dumbass.
	Dumbass referring to me.
	In other words, it had to decide whether Carroll's claims were more likely true than false.
	And you know what the jury concluded?
	It was false.
	It was more likely false that she was raped, but maybe it wasn't his wee-wee, so it wasn't penetration in the rape sense.
	It was battery in the sexual sense.
	It was something else.
	But the case was not a simple matter of he said, she said.
	Listen to this, by the way.
	The case was not a simple case of he said, she said, according to French.
	Carol provided her own testimony, of course, but she also presented evidence that she had told others about the assault at the time, as well as evidence from other women that Trump had assaulted them and touched them without the I'm sorry, French.
	You're a lawyer.
	And you know better.
	Carol did not provide evidence that Trump had assaulted other women.
	She provided evidence that other women alleged that Trump had assaulted them.
	In untested, unconfirmed, and...
	Untried cases.
	It's just that minor distinction between Trump having assaulted them or Trump having allegedly assaulted them.
	You know, just that minor one word that oftentimes distinguishes between defamation and not defamation.
	Oh, but it's not a simple case of he said, she said.
	Carol had her own evidence, and that evidence consisted of what other women said he did to them.
	But hold on.
	Let me just...
	Look at this.
	Let's get this here.
	Did he change?
	No.
	A guilty...
	Ex-president.
	For anybody who can stomach New York Times, David French, a guilty ex-president.
	From the beginning of the hashtag MeToo movement, both its advocates and good faith critics have made a series of powerful, necessary points.
	The courageous women who blew the whistle on powerful men, except Tara Reid, exposed a culture of impunity that still exists decades after the development of workplace harassment law and generations after a dramatic increase in female participation.
	Workforce participation.
	They did more than merely blow the whistle.
	They also educated the public.
	Abuse is still abuse even if a woman is too terrified in the moment to scream.
	Abuse is still abuse even if a woman does her best to carry on with her life.
	The list of lessons.
	So righteous and so virtuous.
	Is abuse abuse if the witness might be lying?
	Was abuse abuse in the case of the La Crosse Duke kids?
	Is abuse abuse when the woman lies?
	Surprise, surprise.
	Women are people.
	People lie.
	Ipso facto, women lie.
	Some.
	Sometimes.
	Men lie, too.
	People lie.
	The courageous women, by the way, unless they're Tara Reade, then F off, despite the fact that we recognized, and we being lawyers at the time recognized, it happened.
	But, you know, it's their only way to defeat Trump.
	Trump declined to testify at the tribal, but the jury did see his videotaped deposition, during which he denied Carroll's claims, but also doubled down on his infamous assertion.
	I just start kissing them, he said.
	It's like a magnet.
	Just kiss.
	I don't even wait.
	And when you're a star, they let you do it.
	You can do anything.
	Grab him by the...
	You can do anything.
	There are people out there who take that as an admission.
	Trump admitted to it.
	He admitted to criminal conduct.
	You can do anything.
	Do you notice the interesting thing that the liars who propagate this lie do not point out?
	Within that statement itself, anybody who's watched it knows, there is a distinction between what Trump admits that he himself did.
	I just start kissing them, he said.
	It's like a magnet.
	Just kiss them.
	I don't even wait.
	Versus what he says, the you being the impersonal and what others do.
	Because we all do know in that cesspool of Hollywood, this is what Trump is describing.
	Whether or not Trump himself has done it, this is the way that cesspool of Hollywood works, both for men on women and, for those of you who know, also for men on men.
	But you notice that he says, he was talking about having moved on a girl.
	I just moved on her.
	But then changes it into, when you're a star, you can do anything, he added.
	You can do anything.
	People take that as an admission, even though he shifted from the I to the U. Doesn't matter.
	One screen, two films.
	In the deposition, Carol's lawyer, Robert A. Kaplan, not related to the judge, I guess, asked Trump, No one will accuse Trump of not saying more than he ought to in terms of not making people who are prone to dislike him dislike him even
	more.
	Although, as many people rightly point out, there's nothing he could have said in this case.
	To change the foregone conclusion of the jury, as Robert says, motivation is the guide of reason.
	And not vice versa.
	He says it better than I do.
	The idea that this is motivated reasoning.
	The jury was going to come to the conclusion that they wanted to come to regardless.
	Had Trump not said what he said there, they would have still used his silence against him.
	It's like, oh, he decided not to testify.
	He's guilty.
	Oh, he said something stupid in his deposition.
	He's guilty.
	But that's what...
	So French comes out and says, she provided her own evidence.
	Her evidence consisted of other women alleging that Trump had done something to them also decades earlier.
	Never sued.
	Never filed charges.
	Waited in the airplane lady's case 40 years to come out with it.
	Went into first class.
	One empty seat remaining.
	Trump is all...
	Oh, I'm sure nobody sees that.
	I'm sure nobody talks about that if they see Trump or anybody for that matter in first class.
	With 40 zillion hands coming on to a lady in the last seat of a crowded...
	What's it called?
	First class?
	First class.
	But listen to this.
	So you got a lawyer out there referring to a guilty ex-president, even though there's no guilt in a civil trial, as he rightly points out later on.
	And you get the minions.
	The Sissons coming out, talking about he was found guilty and liable.
	Guilty and liable.
	They don't understand the law.
	They don't care about justice.
	I didn't put it with a capital J, but I like it.
	It's only about seizing power, maintaining power, and abusing that power.
	Let's just go through some of the...
	Some of them got called out.
	Rep.
	Eric Swalwell.
	Listen to this.
	Listen to this.
	This is a member of Congress.
	Rep.
	Eric Swalwell.
	Donald Trump has been convicted of sexual assault.
	Oh, I think he changed that.
	Hold on one second.
	Hold on one second.
	I'm sure he changed that.
	What is this?
	Hold on.
	Let me see here.
	Nope.
	He didn't change it.
	He doubled down on it.
	Yep.
	Okay, never mind.
	I thought maybe for a second he changed it, but no.
	He put out another tweet in which he double-downed him.
	Convicted sexual abuser.
	So let's just...
	It's not just semantics.
	It's zeitgeist-ian.
	It controls the narrative.
	It controls what people understand, even if it's the wrong thing to understand.
	Morally, someone can be found...
	O.J. Simpson.
	And that's where I made the mistake.
	Twice.
	The first and the last time when describing it.
	He wasn't convicted in the civil case.
	He was found liable, responsible.
	Donald Trump has been convicted of sexual assault.
	He's not convicted.
	Found liable.
	Why?
	Because it's preponderance of the evidence under the best of circumstances.
	Preponderance of the evidence.
	Evidence which consisted of, I don't remember the year, the date.
	I called my friend and told her not to talk about it.
	She never did.
	And I got two other people who also never went to the police, never filed suit, never had any definitive...
	Any definitive element of law confirming what happened to them?
	So my evidence is what other people said happened to them 10 years earlier.
	And then we got to...
	So that's Swalwell, spreading that disinformation.
	Who do we got here?
	Rob Reiner.
	Not that anybody goes to Meathead for information.
	Fact.
	A man indicted for campaign finance crime of paying hush money to a porn star and found guilty of sexual abuse capitalized is poised to be the Republican nominee for president.
	Found guilty.
	Number two.
	Is CNN still going to do it?
	Oh, who's this one?
	Alexander Vindman.
	With a sexual predator, twice impeached insurrectionist.
	Can you?
	It's like these people are demented.
	They're sick and demented.
	And that's not confession through projection.
	Is CNN still going to do a town hall with the sexual predator, twice impeached insurrectionist, former president, real Donald Trump?
	I'm not watching it.
	Oh, okay.
	Well, we care.
	I think it's absurd for a major network news.
	Major news network to normalize Trump.
	And then you got...
	This is how they're going to create the narrative where, in people's minds, Trump will be...
	First of all, in people's minds, he was already convicted of impeachment.
	People don't understand that being impeached versus being acquitted of the impeachment are two different things.
	People think he was found guilty.
	People are now, in their minds, going to be convinced that Trump was found guilty in a criminal court.
	And even if they're not, they're going to have...
	Zero, zero appreciation for the political sham that this trial was.
	We'll see where this goes.
	Let me see.
	I have more on this.
	Hold on.
	So Hartland Denison says, Lawyer Viva, aren't these statements of criminal conduct actionable?
	Lawyer Viva, aren't these statements of criminal conduct actionable?
	I cannot give legal advice.
	I would not make these statements.
	I think it's a no-brainer that they are.
	These are factually incorrect statements of fact alleging serious criminality.
	Because remember, accusing someone of jaywalking, that level of criminality doesn't rise to, at the very least from my understanding, it does not rise to...
	Per se.
	Defamation per se.
	Accusing someone of rape.
	Saying someone has been convicted of rape when they haven't.
	I think it does.
	Making statements of facts that evidence of sexual assault was adjuiced.
	We're getting very close right now because what you're basically saying is that although in this case was civil, other cases Trump had been found guilty or liable of sexual assault when it's factually incorrect.
	I wouldn't want to be the one making the statements.
	And if it were my client, if I were still a practicing attorney, I would say, don't make that statement.
	Even when people say, well, you know, I've got a docket.
	You're walking a line.
	We don't have a docket here.
	Not even the airplane lady has a docket.
	Airplane lady has nothing.
	Journalist lady had nothing.
	They made allegations.
	And French...
	Passed off those unsubstantiated, unproven allegations as evidence of sexual assault or evidence of assault.
	Okay, hold on, hold on, hold on.
	Let me see what else we got here.
	As far as the articles go.
	Oh, I had a French's article up.
	I had the archive version.
	Let me see.
	What did he say again?
	He had evidence from other women that Trump had assaulted them and touched them without their consent.
	Those were allegations, French.
	That's why I say alleged shooter, not shooter.
	Alleged rapist, not rapist.
	All right, hold on one second.
	E. Jean Carroll.
	What was this article here?
	Newsweek.
	So this was 0510.
	E. Jean Carroll shared a seven-word message with Trump's attorney.
	E. Jean Carroll had just seven words for Donald Trump's attorney, Joe Tekopina, after the jury's verdict in her victorious lawsuit against the president.
	He did it, and you know it.
	You know what the funny thing is?
	And this is why I try to not play devil's advocate, but just understand.
	He did it, and you know it can be true in E. Jean Carroll's head.
	He did it, and you know it.
	The question is, what is the it to which we're referring?
	Do I believe that this incident happened, but it was consensual?
	No.
	I'll tell you this.
	She won a jury verdict in New York.
	Great.
	After evidence that ought never had been admitted was adduced as evidence in front of a judge who was making sarcastic remarks in front of a jury.
	One has to live with that juridical fact now.
	There was a finding of liability in this case.
	Do I believe that it happened?
	No.
	Do I believe that even if it were consensual, Trump would have gone into the changing room?
	With another woman in a Burgendorffs or Burgendorffs, whatever the hell that store is, on a Thursday evening?
	Do I believe that the Burgendorffs was empty?
	I don't believe anything in this story.
	But, unfortunately now, leave something in the hands of the jury, even if you think you got a slam dunk case.
	A jury of your peers is not always a jury of your peers.
	He did it and you know it.
	The it might be nothing, depending on who you ask.
	Oh yeah, I did it.
	The it was nothing that afternoon.
	And I know it.
	On Tuesday, the Manhattan jury of nine men, nine men and three, so it was 12, not seven, found the former president liable for sexually abusing and defaming Carol.
	Awarded her.
	They did not find him liable of rape.
	Try to get the mental gymnastics around there.
	I'll steel man it.
	Okay, I'll steel man it because you have to.
	She alleges it was rape.
	Her testimony was a little more equivocal.
	She said there was penetration.
	Was it a penis?
	Was it a finger?
	I don't know.
	If it's a penis, it's rape.
	If it's a finger and she doesn't know, it's not rape, it's sexual.
	I mean, I guess.
	I'm actually not sure what the definition of rape is in New York State.
	So, steel magnet, she doesn't know what it was.
	Did it rise to the level of rape or was it just sexual battery?
	Did it go in or did it just happen on the outside?
	I don't know.
	So, they didn't believe the evidence was there for rape, but the evidence was there for sexual battery, which is a lesser threshold to reach even based on the balance of the probabilities, the preponderance of the evidence.
	steel man it that's how they got there carol had claimed in her lawsuit that trump assaulted her raped her dressing room yada yada we did he denied any wrongdoing earlier the week speculation is about what trump would testify he never did okay fine uh asked what she would have said to trump had she had the chance i said it to joe to cabina today uh okay fine Who is that on the left?
	On Wednesday, Carroll described being overwhelmed with joy and happiness and delight.
	Oh, by the way, you know what other evidence was not allowed to be adjuiced?
	They allow all the highly prejudicial but not necessarily probative evidence on Trump.
	But they don't allow Trump to adjuice his evidence who's financing E. Gene Carroll's lawsuit.
	Can't know that it's the founder of LinkedIn.
	I don't remember the individual, but a highly democratic billionaire.
	Funding, bankrolling Carroll's lawsuit against Trump.
	The jury can't hear that.
	That would be more prejudicial than probative.
	But a story of what a woman alleges happened to her on an airplane in the 70s, well, that's far more probative than it is prejudicial.
	Now I hope that that's the same rule in civil in California as it is in criminal, but whatever.
	I reserve the right to be wrong on that, but the concept remains the same.
	What else?
	Do we have anything interesting in here?
	Attorney Jimmy White, who represented over 100 sexual abuse victims in the case of Larry Nassar, the sports doctor, yada, yada, yada, previously told Newsweek that the 5 million in damages is unlikely to change Trump's day-to-day life.
	He added the political implications are the most damaging aspects of the country.
	Thank you.
	You said the quiet part out loud.
	That's what everybody knows.
	And the biggest problem with something like this, for those who look at this and either in your mind rightly or wrongly view this as political persecution, lawfare, is that it...
	In fact, makes it harder for other women to be believed because people are now going to reflexively look for political, financial, ulterior motivations for which someone might be making potentially false accusations.
	The Democrats don't care that they weaponized the #MeToo movement to the point where it was no longer about protecting women victims of abuse.
	They weaponized it to the point where it made it virtually impossible for people to believe all women and therefore and thusly made it more difficult for victims, actual victims of actual abuse to come forward because they're afraid of being maligned because nobody believes it anymore because it's been weaponized for political purposes by the party that purported to care about the victims in the first place.
	man man Oh, Krasenstein had an interesting take on this.
	Be careful what you wish for.
	To all those who are attacking the New York court system today, all because a jury held Donald Trump liable for sexually abusing...
	Well, give him credit for at least using the proper terminology.
	Remember that you are also attacking the same New York Supreme Court that convicted Harvey Weinstein of rape, of sexual assault.
	America has remained the beacon of liberty and justice for all, not because people are attacking the court system here in this country, but rather because of the people respecting it, honoring it.
	It's an interesting take, Ed.
	I don't mind, Ed.
	The Krasenstein brothers seem to be trying to play the middle ground, even though they are very bad at hiding their political preconceptions.
	I have a different take on this, Krasenstein.
	It's not the same system that convicted Trump that also convicted Harvey Weinstein.
	It's the same system, the same flawed, politically motivated system that politically motivated...
	You know, found Trump liable.
	It's that same broken, corrupt political system that allowed Harvey Weinstein to get away with his abuse for decades.
	To compare Trump to Harvey Weinstein, it's a disingenuous comparison because they're not comparable.
	Harvey Weinstein was an open secret in terms of...
	Some people might go out on a limb and say it's not abusive.
	Everyone was doing it to further their own careers.
	I don't go quite there.
	It was abuse.
	Everybody knew it was happening.
	The casting couch is not a rumor.
	It's not an exaggeration.
	It's a matter of fact.
	Everybody knew what Harvey Weinstein was doing for decades.
	It was the broken, politically motivated system that protected Harvey Weinstein that allowed it to continue for decades until it could no longer be continued.
	It's that same system that just found Trump liable of sexual battery and defamation.
	That's the system, Ed.
	So you're right in theory, but you're identifying the wrong element of the system.
	Trump was not a Harvey Weinstein.
	Other than, you know, people coming out 35 years later with outlandish stories.
	E. Jean Carroll's story, I mean, to me it's outlandish, but I wasn't on the jury.
	Wasn't outlandish to the jury.
	The lady on the plane.
	To me it's outlandish.
	These are not the same things as what Harvey Weinstein and the systemic abuse in Hollywood.
	Trying to equate the two is moral relativism at its best.
	But it is the same system that just found Trump liable that allowed Harvey Weinstein and his ilk to get away with their grotesque depravity for so long.
	I think that's actually it, people.
	We're done for Trump.
	Let me go to the chat and see if there's any questions.
	Felony with a PH says, so hard not to get blackpilled here, so void of any integrity.
	People are saying, yeah, wait until it gets overturned on appeal.
	It's extremely difficult to overturn jury cases on appeal.
	Robert and I will talk about it on Sunday.
	Boy, howdy.
	But it's very difficult to overturn a jury verdict.
	And even if they do overturn it, it's like, okay, well, they shouldn't have admitted certain evidence.
	The jury was tainted with this evidence that they should never have seen.
	I don't know about the statute of limitations business.
	Even if it gets overturned in some fantastical outcome of events, it doesn't matter.
	All right, so they overturned a jury finding.
	Nothing's going to change what just happened.
	And what happened here, it's political ecstasy to some, but it's a destruction of the very fabric of the system to others.
	And how you view it is just depending on...
	It's not even political orientation.
	It should not be political orientation.
	Everybody chiming on Twitter, regardless of your political orientation, you have to condemn Trump.
	Dude, I'm as sort of distant from this as it gets.
	I'm a Canadian dude.
	In as much as what I think about Trump and his treatment, and in as much as the treatment of Trump has been my red pilling of red pills, this is an absolute bastardization of the system.
	It cheapens the system.
	It causes people to lose faith in the system.
	And this was the first domino.
	Trump will get convicted on Alvin Bragg's bullshit charges.
	He will.
	It will motivate more bullshit charges in Georgia on the election.
	There'll be a conviction there, too, because we have now realized not only does lawfare work, people are now empowered.
	They've gotten their political permission slip to carry out their...
	Wet dream of political retribution.
	Get me on that gosh darn jury.
	Put me in a jurisdiction where you know nine and a half times out of ten, you're going to get a jury that is going to want to lean a certain way.
	And it's a foregone conclusion.
	It cheapens the system for everyone.
	And it actually victimizes real victims, but the people who are so politically invested in this outcome...
	They just don't give a sweet bugger all.
	They never did give a sweet bugger all about the victims.
	It's politics, the pursuit for power, the pursuit to retain power, and the pursuit to weaponize that power once they have attained it.
	Politics ruins everything.
	Fin of rant.
	Okay.
	Now, there were rumble rants that I wanted to get to.
	That's what I was going to go to.
	Let me see here.
	Trump found liable?
	Me?
	Raluca W. $5 says, it's the forward approach.
	Okay, and then Sancho, that was $5 from Raluca W. Sancho Relaxo, $2 rent, says, Viva, open YouTube in Brave browser.
	It strips the ads.
	And I don't mind.
	Hey, look, I saw the ad for that abdominal thing.
	I'll see if I can find the ad for it, actually.
	Hold on, let me see here.
	I bought it.
	It's the second time in my life I bought something off.
	Based off of an internet ad, the first time was that little telescope or the telephoto lens that goes on iPhones.
	I bought that off an Instagram ad.
	That was the first and only thing that I'd ever bought based on an internet ad.
	I bought this, that ab thing.
	A military guy found out how you do the equipment of doing 50,000 crunches.
	And I like, I ordered it.
	70 bucks.
	We're going to see if it works.
	I'm going to do a product review.
	My wife says, Dave, you can't have more abs.
	That was funny.
	Okay, so hold on.
	Just got another rant here.
	Nike7.
	Viva, with the time and energy you are putting into the trans debate, please have Blair White on for a sidebar.
	You roll in the same circle.
	I've had Blair in a heartbeat.
	DL...
	Thank you.
	I do have to scream.
	I think we follow each other.
	I'm fairly certain we follow each other on Twitter.
	Oh, by the way, everybody, Dave Smith tonight.
	We had to postpone.
	Nothing bad.
	We had to postpone.
	So it'll be rescheduled.
	Miscuzzi.
	Tomorrow, Bryce Eddy.
	I think I said it's at 1 o 'clock.
	Friday, I'm going to be in local studio with Hunley and Grobert.
	Next week, we're going to have good stuff.
	DLTHO80, do you believe the judge overstepped his position during the trial?
	I think the judge should have an ethics investigation done him.
	I think the judge is a woman, if I'm not mistaken.
	And do I think that the judge was absolutely biased and let in evidence that should not have been allowed in and did not allow in evidence that should be allowed in?
	Absolutely.
	Oh, I forgot to mention.
	Of the evidence that they didn't allow in was also E. Jean Carroll having made similar accusations against other men.
	It's an amazing thing.
	It's an amazing thing.
	Trump, other women alleging Trump groped them 15 years prior, that gets allowed in.
	E. Jean Carroll having wrongly or baselessly accused other men of some whatever fantasies go on in her head, not allowed in.
	E. Jean Carroll having used racial slurs, from what I understand, or derogatory slurs about an ex-husband, not allowed in.
	So yeah, I think that, I mean, investigations, I don't know how that works.
	You know, if it's an impeachment or if the judge was, if it's an elected judge, I don't know.
	But the judge, clear evidentiary rules were broken in my humble Canadian legal training experience.
	It's the Fortress Viva open browser.
	Okay, and R.O. Poppy says, New York changed the law post hashtag me to allowing one year moratorium of the statute of limitations.
	Well, isn't that special?
	All right.
	Now, what else is in the chat, people?
	RFK came out today and said, no matter what, I'm not joining Trump on a ticket to dispel all myths.
	So that's pissing people off, and I find that something of an unnecessary statement to make, but whatever.
	All right.
	On the lighter side of things before we end up here, still good stuff, by the way.
	Yeah.
	Here.
	Speaking of how lawfare people have been empowered, it works.
	And as much as I think George Santos is a liar, and I think there might actually be some substance here if one lies for the purposes of fundraising, U.S. Rep George Santos, the man who seems to have lied about pretty much every aspect of his life, as if that's somehow different than Joe Biden lying and plagiarizing or whatever.
	And here the whataboutism is not a whataboutism.
	It's okay, well, if this is the new standard...
	Let's go after all politicians for lying on campaign issues.
	But George Santos arrested on federal criminal charges.
	Hashtag to be discussed Sunday as well.
	Santos, the New York Republican, infamous for fabricating key parts of his life story, has been indicted on charges.
	He embezzled money from his campaign.
	Now you see, this is what I mean.
	When you come up with bullshit charges at one point, like brag with Trump, what's the embezzlement here?
	Did he try to write off a Mountain Dew as an expense?
	Did he try to write off a portion of a meal that included the alcohol for an expense?
	Now they've cheapened all accusations where I don't believe anything anymore.
	And maybe that's the purpose.
	Embezzling.
	Yep.
	He went out for dinner with his wife and a business partner or an election person and he accidentally or he included his wife's meal on the menu and he couldn't.
	I don't even know if he's married.
	Lied to the Congress about income and cheated his way into undeserved unemployment benefits.
	Oh, well, you're going to go after, I guess, statute of limitations for Elizabeth Warren.
	Prosecutor said Warren Wednesday.
	The indictment says, do they have an indictment?
	Oh, sweet!
	Cha-ching!
	We're going to go through this real quick.
	I got the indictment.
	It says Santos induced supporters to donate to a company under the false pretense that the money would be used to support his campaign.
	Instead, it says he used it for personal expenses, including buying designer clothes and paying his credit cards and car payments.
	With the designer clothes, I don't know how much you get to write off for clothing for a campaign.
	Is this a brag indictment or is this a legit indictment?
	Now we never know.
	And now we're going to approach even what would otherwise be legitimate indictments as politically motivated hogwash.
	He's accused of lying about his finances on congressional disclosure forms and applying for receiving unemployment benefits while he was employed as regional director of an investment firm that the government shut down in 2021 over allegations it was a Ponzi scheme.
	None of this sounds very good and I wouldn't put any of this past him because of the egregiousness of his lies, which I think are kind of egregious.
	Seeks to hold him accountable for the fraudulent schemes taken together.
	The allegations of the indictment charged Santos with relying on repeated dishonesty and deception to ascend to the halls of Congress and enrich himself.
	Santos surrendered Wednesday and was taken to the federal courthouse on Long Island.
	Oh, he's going to get a fair trial.
	Where he was expected to make an initial court appearance later in the day on charges of wire fraud, money laundering, theft of public funds, making false statements to Congress.
	Reached by the Associated Press, Santos said he was unaware of the charges.
	That was on Tuesday, 34. Let's just see how far this goes down.
	This goes on.
	Let's see here.
	Let's get some of the accusations.
	In regulatory filing, Santos claims he loaned his company and related political action committee more than $750,000, but it was unclear how he could have come into that kind of wealth so quickly after years in which he struggled to pay his rent and face multiple eviction proceedings.
	Santos, if he didn't get the money he claimed...
	If he didn't get the money...
	The million in dividends that he got.
	All right.
	So where did the money come from?
	Santos has described the Devolder organization as a broker for sales of luxury items like yachts and aircraft.
	The business was incorporated in Florida shortly after Santos stopped working as a salesman.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	November 2021, Santos formed Redstone Strategies, a Florida company that federal prosecutors say he used to dupe donors into financing his lifestyle.
	According to the indictment, Santos told an associate.
	To solicit contributions to the company via emails, text messages, and phone calls and provided the person with contact information.
	Okay.
	Santos transferred $74,000 from the company coffers to bank accounts he maintained.
	The indictment said he also transferred money to some of his associates.
	Okay.
	Doesn't look good.
	I'm going to go read that indictment.
	We're not going to do it right now because it's a little...
	How long is that indictment?
	It's a long indictment.
	And then there was one other fun news of the day.
	Thank you.
	Let me see what it's there.
	One other fun story of the day before we move on over to Locals.
	I had on Monday, James Fox, UFO documentarian, UFO hunter.
	Well, I don't think he calls himself a UFO hunter.
	UFO documentarian.
	Knows about as much as about UFOs, UAPs.
	They now call them the Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon.
	And when he was on Rogan, he talked about a video that he saw that somebody had that the guy refused to publish it.
	He said it's a compelling video.
	And allegedly, these guys, they're running from a vessel.
	They go into their car.
	Lights shine down.
	They record the base of this spaceship.
	It's on VHS and this guy has it.
	And allegedly, Logan Paul saw it.
	And allegedly...
	Surreptitiously recorded the video.
	So you got a recording of a recording of an encounter.
	And YouTuber Logan Paul claims he has secret UFO videos said to be the most compelling ever.
	Do I want to watch this?
	To ask him if he's seen anything like it.
	And in that case, maybe if he can...
	Verify the legitimacy of this tape.
	The footage is compelling, not convincing.
	What was the guy's name that wouldn't sell it to you?
	Chuck Clark.
	Chuck Clark, who has been gatekeeping this footage like a freaking OnlyFans girl, would not sell you the footage for a rack of hundreds.
	He's not safeguarding it like an OnlyFans girl because they literally sell stuff for a right price.
	He's not selling this.
	Right?
	So you said, hey man, do you mind just showing it to me?
	And while he showed it to you, you It's from 1995.
	The tape had been worn down.
	It's been played probably over 100 times.
	And so the quality is not great.
	And it doesn't have enough meat on the bone and proof for me to put it out confidently and be like, this is legit UFO footage.
	The disc hovers so fluidly.
	It's like buoyant almost in the air.
	And I'm not sure if that type of...
	Movement, like as fluid as it was, was possible in 1995.
	Why play games?
	Either release it or don't.
	Influencers seek to influence, period.
	Anything they recognize as getting people's attention, they will seek control of the source.
	We are just cattle for these stimulus-addicted influencers.
	Can't disagree with that.
	All right, so anyways, that's the story.
	That's the video footage.
	And James Fox was on it, was on Rogan talking about it.
	Here's the thing, though.
	It's not his either.
	It's not the people who shot it, gave it to him, and expected he would keep it hidden for himself.
	It's not the footage.
	Okay, that was James Fox on.
	And then we got some other videos.
	Anyhow, if you haven't seen that interview from Monday, go watch it, because it's amazing, if I do say so myself.
	Now, people, we're going to go over to...
	I want to read that indictment.
	Maybe we'll read the indictment at Locals.
	I'll put it to a vote on Locals.
	I'm going to do two things here.
	I'm going to give you the link to that New York Post article.
	And I'm going to...
	Sorry, I just got distracted.
	Viva, it's GTSY.
	What does that mean?
	Brother Salty Legion in every region.
	Re.
	New York is a dump, says Bank Bandit.
	These guys weren't even born yet, says Dirty Harry.
	The guy's full of shit, says Sariel.
	Bullshit.
	Well, James Fox says he saw the video as well.
	Yeah, so that's it.
	Now, what I'm going to do here, people, we're going to go over to Locals.
	To play us out today, we're just going to watch a little bit more E. Gene Carroll.
	We've got to appreciate...
	Do we play E. Gene Carroll?
	Yeah, let's do that.
	Viva Fry, get Tom McDonald on to discuss his music.
	Fat Slice.
	Let me ask everybody this.
	Go tweet, tag both of us, and say you guys want it to happen.
	I would love to interview...
	Tom McDonald.
	Ten minutes is not enough, but everybody's very busy and everybody has more than they can do in a day.
	I have so many questions that I know that I want to ask Tom about addiction, about recovery, about mental breakdowns, about overcoming that, about living with that sort of Democles over your head.
	It needs more than 10 minutes.
	It was a nice interview he did with Ben Shapiro.
	10 minutes is not enough to get into anything about his life, childhood, growing up in Canada.
	What amount, what percentage of the lyrics in his songs are based on reality?
	How much is exaggerated?
	So many questions.
	I'd love to make it happen.
	Go to Twitter.
	Apparently, if someone says, if this tweet gets a million retweets, it has to happen.
	I think that's legally binding on Twitter, so let's try to make that happen.
	But in the meantime, people, locals.
	Go to locals.
	We're going to go down there now and maybe, just maybe, we'll see if anybody wants to boringly go through the indictment or maybe I'll just pump out another car vlog today and go read the indictment and highlight the important sections.
	If this is going to be Viva...
	Hold on.
	If this is going to Viva...
	Then he toodles everyone.
	Greg in Houston.
	Hold on.
	What the heck?
	Hold on.
	What does that mean, Greg?
	Greg in Houston says, if this is going to Viva, then toodles everyone.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	If this is going to Viva Barnes, then toodles.
	It is.
	It's going to Viva Barnes now.
	Let me just put on...
	Let's just...
	To play us out with this, peeps.
	Enjoy the day.
	Thank you all for being here.
	No sidebar tonight.
	Dave Smith will happen.
	I might put out a car vlog.
	I might...
	Do lots of things.
	Let's just play this out again one more time.
	Here.
	Is this it?
	That is what the president of the United States has just said about the woman who says he sexually assaulted her.
	She's not my type.
	Forget it, guys.
	Let's just end it.
	Shoot, did I just shut down the entire stream?
	I didn't.
	Let's just go on over to Rumble now.
	Everybody, I'll see you there.
	Thank you for being here.
	Thank you for being part of this community.
	Come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	What a day!
	Gotta go back to Twitter and see, like, it's sports.
	People running like, oh yeah, we got them.
	Now we're gonna get them on the brag indictment, then we're gonna get them in Georgia.
	This is what happens when the political machine says, we're coming for you.
	Lawfare, people.
	All right.
	Go Panthers.
	Tonight, it's going to happen.
	See everybody soon.
	See you on Locals.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	Peace.
	Locals, are we here?
	Do your Robert Gouveia impression.
	Go over the indictment and translate the legal language to English.
	All right, so hold on.
	We're on Locals, peeps?
	Livestream Trump CNN interview.

▲