All Episodes
Previous Next
June 1, 2023 - Viva & Barnes
33:20
Poilievre Goes NUCLEAR! Project Veritas Goes SELF-DESTRUCT! Twitter Goes WOKE? Viva Frei Live!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I'm breaking all the rules.
I'm breaking all the rules.
I guess we might make some mistakes.
Who knows?
This is so good.
This is so good.
It's unbelievable.
I think one of the biggest problems we have in D.C. is that everyone's egos are too big.
I actually prefer to have no titles at all.
This is better than The Bachelorette or The Bachelor.
This is cool.
You're opening yourself up.
I'm just being me.
Let's go.
Yeah, absolutely.
Absolutely.
Oh, we need to give props to whoever did.
I'm going to share this in the comments section.
For those who are listening on podcast tomorrow or the day after or whenever I remember to put this up, we just watched like a ping trip type mashup of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, AOC, and Mr. Elon Musk, seemingly reenacting an episode of The Bachelor or The Bachelorette, depending on who's going after whom.
I don't know.
It was a date.
AOC.
Romantically, lovingly staring at Elon Musk, who is compassionately staring back at AOC.
You've got to give credit where credit is due.
The reason why AOC is so compelling on social media, in politics, she has energy in her eyes.
She still has maintained or retained the energy in her eyes.
The weight of the world, the insidious nature of politics has not yet crushed her soul to the point where the crushed nature of her soul Is exuding through her dead eyes.
She's got eyes that are alive.
Unlike Justin Trudeau, who we will be dealing with a lot today.
That mashup was fantastic.
So share it away.
I mean, what I love is that I show it to my wife and she's like, yeah, I saw that already.
Where have I been that I haven't seen this mashup?
Epic mashup.
And if anybody doesn't know who Pink Trip is, P-I-N-G-T-R-1-P, he does the Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson, all of those amazing mashups, Alex Jones.
They're hilarious.
That was not Pink Trip, but it was equally, equally as high quality.
Everybody, good afternoon, East Coast.
Good morning, West Coast.
And good evening, Europe.
And good morning, New Zealand.
We've got like three big topics today.
And then we're going to see where else this meanders.
But these three big topics, in order of massiveness, I believe they go from Elon Musk and the new WEF CEO.
Seemingly, apparently, I won't say canceling what was to be an offer made to The Daily Wire to prioritize broadcast, promote Matt Walsh's What is a Woman to everyone on Twitter.
I don't think they're canceling it, but it seems like they have reverted to the freedom of speech, not freedom of preach, despite apparently having entered into an agreement with the Daily Wire to platform and promote Matt Walsh's Daily Wire.
That, I think, is...
We're going to deal with that one first because it's not so shocking.
It's surprising and it raises questions that have to be addressed.
After that, we're going to get into the more shocking but not the most shocking.
James O 'Keefe being sued by Project Veritas.
Project Veritas, if it wasn't yet done burning down the building, right now they are, to quote Happy Gilmore, Shooter McGavin, pissing on the ashes of what was Project Veritas.
Project Veritas is suing James O 'Keefe, OMG Media, and two other former employees of Project Veritas for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties, etc., etc.
They were at 1.1 million followers on Twitter.
I don't know how they still have that many people who follow them.
I have unfollowed.
I do not block because that would look bad.
I need to stop getting emails from them because they will never get another penny from me.
But they've decided that they're not yet done burning down the building that was Project Veritas.
They're going to urinate on the ashes.
And while they're at it, they're going to try to turn this into an uncontrollable Nova Scotia-esque brush fire and just take down everyone with them.
They're trying to take down James O 'Keefe.
They're trying to take down OMG Media.
And the basis through which they're doing it...
Again, no medical advice, no legal advice, no election fortification advice, and this is not legal advice.
This is just my humble opinion being mildly familiar with the allegations, the process, and the lawsuit.
They are walking themselves into massive counterclaims from the people they are suing, and they are walking themselves into massive lawsuits, both from donors, who might say, we didn't donate to your campaign so you could do this with the monies.
And potentially from employees who are going to be out of a job because Project Veritas is going to be rubble by the end of this lawsuit.
Rubble.
And if they don't get sanctioned for what is, in my humble opinion, objectively malicious lawfare, in that they yeet James O 'Keefe from the company, suspend him, defame him, allege that he stole a sandwich from a pregnant woman, and then when he goes out and starts his own thing...
They say he's in breach of his employment contract because they didn't terminate him until May 2023.
Do you guys are stupid?
Do you think the world is...
I'm getting ahead of myself.
And I'm yelling.
Sorry.
And then the number three on the menu, or it might be number two on the order.
Pierre Poilievre has gone nuclear on Justin Trudeau, bringing to the floor of Parliament...
One of the longest, most devastating, uncorroborated rumors affecting Justin Trudeau.
The other stuff has been confirmed, you know, like the blackface and the groping of the reporters, or the alleged groping of the reporters for which he apologized.
This rumor has been circulating.
It has dubious origins.
Pierre Poliev dropped this nuclear bomb in Parliament, and my goodness, the liberals...
The Ukrainian flags in their profile, Trudeau supporters on Twitter, they're panicking and they are melting down in their defense of Supreme Leader Justin Trudeau, who is the most moral, the most honorable politician that has ever existed in Canadian politics, the most tolerant, the most non-racist, non-misogynist, non-desecrating of the Constitution, best golfer.
Nine holes in one in his first round.
I'm joking.
Justin Trudeau.
So we're going to answer all of those things.
But first, what was I supposed to do first?
Oh yeah, let's make sure everything is smooth running here.
Are we live on Rumble?
We are.
Everyone, hit the plus button on Rumble and let's get this to the landing page of Rumble.
Let me make sure that we're good on locals where if you choose to support what we do, we are on the landing page.
If you choose to support what we do, you can get merch.
At vivafry.com.
You can also go, and for $7 a month or $70 a year, for that price, you'll get the two exclusive documentaries.
Content Plus, you can support us on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
Mr. Mike, Mr. Mike says, bueno, bueno.
That is Spanish for good, good.
Good, good being Robert Barnes's catchphrase.
Okay, we're going to start with the easiest one to get through, and then we're going to bring it on over to Rumble.
We're going to do the James O 'Keefe and Pierre...
What's his name?
Trudeau in detail.
And then I want to post all of it either in clips to YouTube or the entire stream in its entirety to YouTube.
All right.
Son of a beasting.
Did I not...
Is it true, Elon Musk?
Let's make, is it true, Elon Musk?
Trend today.
Okay, so some people don't like the Daily Wire.
People are still mad at the Daily Wire because of the Steven Crowder tiff.
And my goodness, enough with the fighting.
I mean, disagreement is one thing.
One can disagree with people without fighting, but enough with the burning down of the infrastructure in fighting that's going to make everybody look bad.
DeSantis Trump people, I'm looking at you here.
Some people might not like the Daily Wire, might think that they are...
Institutional.
Might think that they are.
What's the word I'm looking for?
Chat, what is the word I'm looking for?
Rhino-esque.
Yeah, okay, fine.
They've done good work, at least from a perspective of stimulating public discourse.
One of the best pieces of work, which I think is...
If you haven't seen the documentary, What is a Woman?
You have to go watch it.
The thing is this.
I can understand how people disagree with Matt Walsh, disagree with Matt Walsh, like not just with his ideas, but with him as a human.
Because, you know, a gruff, snarky man telling men who think they're women that they're not women and pressing them on it.
Like, you think you're a woman?
Okay, well, what is a woman?
Well, I can't answer that.
So what do you think you are?
I don't know, just not this.
Well, what's this?
I don't know, because I can't define what that is.
Okay.
Whether or not you agree or disagree with what he did, he made the documentary, What is a Woman?
It's very interesting and very revealing for those who haven't watched it.
Okay, now this is the news of the day.
And then we're going to say, is it true, Elon Musk?
Hashtag, is it true?
I won't go through the entire 16 thread tweet.
16 thread tweet.
I hate threaded tweets.
Hold on, I'm going to cough.
Excuse me.
But let's go through some of it just to get an idea for what's going on.
Okay.
Twitter canceled a deal with Real Daily Wire to premiere what is a woman for free on the platform because of two instances of, quote, misgendering.
I'm not kidding.
Okay.
What was I going to say?
Oh, yeah.
Canceled the deal.
Wait till you read this because actually it raises some questions as to how Twitter enters into deals if they don't know what the deal is about.
And how they cancel deals if they knew what it was about, but there's an outside new external force coming in and saying, we want to get out of this deal.
Let's find a pretext.
Okay.
One of 16. Two of 16. Jeremy Boring.
One year ago today, we released What is a Woman?
To celebrate the occasion and expand the movie's already enormous impact, we decided to give it away for free for 24 hours on Twitter.
Okay.
Interesting.
Remember, Twitter has apparently teamed up with Tucker Carlson.
And we haven't heard much.
Have we heard anything about that recently?
I might have been out of it because I was in a car for three days.
Okay.
Three of 16. With Twitter's recent commitments to free speech, that is editorializing, Jeremy, but we know where you're going.
We thought it would be perfect, a perfect place to distribute the film and drive the conversation forward on one of the most important topics of our day.
Certainly one of the most prevalent when you have, you know, the question is to should men, biological men, should men be allowed to compete in women's sports?
It's an important discussion, but my goodness, had we not descended into the realm of idiocracy, it's not a conversation I ever would have thought we would have ever had, especially after 50 years of women fighting for women's rights.
Okay, 4 of 16. Twitter responded with enthusiasm and offered us the opportunity to buy a package to host the movie on a dedicated event page and to promote the event to every Twitter user over the first 10 hours.
That's interesting.
You're going to be able to promote it.
Like, apparently Twitter agreed to allow the Daily Wire, buy a package, and you can promote it to everyone on Twitter, even the people, you know, with avatars and profiles that you know would not want to be recommended this content.
I mean, however you feel about it, there are a shizer load ton of people on Twitter that you know will consider it an act of violence.
To have this documentary promoted to them on the platform.
100%.
So it's already a surprising thing that Twitter apparently allegedly already agreed to.
5 of 16. We accepted and signed an agreement.
Okay.
Sounds like you have a contract.
After we signed, Twitter asked to see the film to better understand what parts may, quote, trigger users so they could better prepare their response.
They said they were still all hands on deck to do the launch, so we sent a screener.
Okay.
This is where I'm confused, and I'm not attacking Jeremy Boring whatsoever, nor am I saying anything about Twitter.
They signed the agreement, and then it says they wanted to see the film to better understand what parts would trigger their users.
I don't understand how they signed the deal without having seen the documentary, or if this is a question of phrasing, and they signed the documentary, sorry, they signed the agreement, but then they said, well, we want to see it again to know what parts are going to trigger people.
The way it's drafted, it sounds like Twitter agreed to sign this contract and hadn't seen the documentary.
And now after the agreement to sign, someone came in and said, do you know what that flipping movie is about, dude?
Do you realize what you've done?
And now they say, we're going to go watch the video.
Just let us see the video.
We're going to prepare our response.
Oh, then it might get to a new CEO who says, hells no, I don't know that the CEO said any of this.
I'm just hypothesizing internally as to how this might have actually unfolded.
Just make sure that we're still here.
We are good.
6 of 16. After reviewing the film, though, they signed an agreement without having first reviewed the film?
That seems unlikely.
Is this a re-review of the film?
Is this reneging out of an already concluded contract?
Twitter let us know...
Oh, sorry.
Twitter let us know that not only could we no longer purchase the package they offered...
Did you not already get an acceptance there?
They would no longer provide us any support and would actually limit the reach of the film and label it as hateful conduct because of misgendering.
That's interesting.
Now, this is where I'm going to do a caveat.
Remind me after I finish this.
Specifically in the film, a father, this is the Canadian father in British Columbia, refers to his 14-year-old daughter as her, and the store owner uses the wrong pronoun in a confrontation with a trans person.
We reminded Twitter that they removed misgendering from their policy.
This is 8 of 16. That the term misgendering itself is misleading, and that enforcing such policy, enforcing a policy places on the side of the most radical elements in society.
This is not exactly how you're going to convince them to go back on their original agreement.
I would say, dude, you signed a contract.
What do we stand to lose?
I don't know, but you signed a contract, apparently.
You signed a contract not knowing the documentary that was the object of your contract, and now you want to back out of it because after you signed the contract, you said, oh, we don't like this documentary that we signed a contract over?
Twitter said, by the way, this is fantastic, 9 of 16. They removed misgendering from the policy because they didn't need to be that specific, but they still consider misgendering abuse and harassment.
I would like to see that correspondence, Jeremy, if you're watching this.
They gave us the opportunity to edit the film to comply.
We declined.
Let's see here.
They asked about the visibility.
Yada, yada, yada.
Speech not reach.
You have the right to speak.
You know, this is paraphrasing.
You have the right to speak, but we have the right to make sure that nobody hears what you're saying.
Okay.
We brought all our shows to Twitter Tuesday because we believed Twitter was committed to free speech, especially on this issue.
After all, the Babylon Bee was silenced on Twitter on this very issue, and that, in part, prompted Elon Musk to purchase the platform.
Okay, that's how it started.
I should buy it.
How much?
Let's see here.
Okay, 13 of 16. Let's just finish this up.
The other tech platforms have already decided where they stand in the trans debate and demonetized and deprioritized all those who disagree.
Now Twitter has joined the ranks of the other tech superpowers in ensuring one side of the debate is...
Bear in mind, this is like sort of allegations in a lawsuit.
This is Jeremy Boring's side of the story.
I'd love to know if this is true.
I'd love to see what Elon Musk's response is to all of this.
14 of 16, Elon Musk is not beholden to conservatives.
He has the right to run his business as he sees fit, but as Twitter is going to throttle one side of one of the most important debates facing society, it cannot claim to champion free speech.
Especially since Elon had the children, the priority of the children as his number one guiding factor, that being the reason for which he's not letting...
Alex Jones back on, even though Alex Jones' ban had nothing to do with his comments about Sandy Hook.
Remember that?
He says, you know, using children for politics is not something that he's going to tolerate.
Alex Jones doesn't come back.
Some might say that we have entered a debate where people are specifically using children for politics, and now it seems that Elon Musk, if Jeremy Boring is telling the true side of the story here, is on that side of the debate.
Last one.
16 of 16. We plan to post the movie anyway tonight.
At 8 p.m. Eastern, will Twitter make good on their threat to throttle it and label it hateful conduct, or will Twitter live up to its great promise?
We'll all find out together.
Tune in tonight!
To which I just simply said, is this true?
Oh, cripe almighty.
Now it's not going to be there.
Oh, is this true, Elon Musk?
Is it true?
I'm going to give everyone the link right after I reposition the camera again.
Piece of garbage camera.
And I'm going to say this, misgendering.
Can you imagine?
We live in an Orwellian age where misgendering means not calling someone by what they tell you to call them even if what they tell you to call them contradicts their biological sex.
I think the world might want to just get back to actual language and appreciate that misgendering someone by referring to someone as their biological sex.
Just appreciate that it's not misgendering to refer to someone as their biological sex.
It's misgendering to do the opposite.
Oh, it's something else.
You're not misgendering someone by calling them something that is their biological sex, despite what they feel internally.
You are, in fact, misgendering them by calling them something other than their biological sex.
Now, make another word for it, much like in the gay marriage debate.
They said, look, you want to call it marriage?
You want to get married?
Get all the government benefits, whatever they are, from marriage.
But we are, you know, those who believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman, as, you know, in the Bible, whatever, call it civil union.
That's what Quebec did for a little while.
I personally understand that debate.
I think it is a word.
I don't know that the origins may have been X. I would be...
I would not be miffed.
And am not miffed to the extent that marriage can be between any two consenting adults.
Although I understand the debate to the contrary.
So that's it.
And the question is, is it true, Elam, that this is going on?
And if it's true, whose decision is this?
And if it was someone else's decision, how did this decision come about after you had already allegedly signed an agreement?
Did you sign an agreement?
Who knows?
We'll see.
Now, let me see something right here.
That's story number one.
It's caused a bit of a backlash because there are people who are paying a lot of money, and I'm talking about Tim Pool and others here.
People who've paid a lot of money for those gold, or are they gold?
They're gold badges.
Industry.
And they cost ridiculous amounts.
Chad, if you know, like thousands of dollars a month for that gold organization emblem.
There are people who have those who say they're going to cancel all of them if this is the way Twitter's going to be.
Why pay for a premium?
Why pay to support free speech if the platform's not supporting free speech?
Tim Pool has already said that.
And I suspect others are going to follow suit.
I mean, I think Daily Wire.
Let me see something.
Real Daily Wire.
I think they had the gold emblem as well.
How long are people going to pay into a platform?
Yeah, Real Daily Wire has the gold checkmark.
They're paying thousands of dollars a month.
Oh, Elon just responded.
Let's see here.
Let's see.
I love this.
I love this.
Elon Musk.
How many people are going to pay for that if this is the way Elon is going to go or Twitter is going to go?
Let's see.
38 astronauts.
Starlink retweet.
That's not it.
Starlink.
Also, you can now change video speed playback.
Scrolling through tweets while watching...
Come on, man.
Where is it?
Anyone in the chat, can you send me the link?
I'm going to go see if I can find this.
I do not see an Elon response, Peckerwood.
So, Peckwood, I don't see it.
If I see it, if someone can put it in the link, I'll get it.
Or in Locals, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
So people are going to cancel that gold checkmark, and that's going to be a problem.
People might cancel the blue checkmarks.
People want to support a platform that supports free speech.
That's why y 'all want to head over to Rumble, as we're going to do in five minutes.
But you piss off the people who are supporting you, and not piss them off as in cater to their whims, but piss them off as in renege and...
Go back on the promises you made that bought their support in the first place.
That's what people have to understand here, is that this is not a question of cancel culture.
Like, Elon's doing something I don't like, I'm going to cancel them.
No.
Elon lured people into paying thousands of dollars a month for those, you know, check marks, the blue check marks, eight dollars.
He lured people in, or enticed them in, I should say, until I know his intentions, on the basis of promising supporting free speech.
If he goes back on that promise that lured people in, well, it's not really a cancellation anymore.
It's more like, you duped me, you tricked me, I'm not going to continue financing it.
Good luck.
Would never have been here in the first place if I weren't for that.
And then the other thing that I wanted to clarify is that in the documentary, Quote is a Woman, there is the portion dealing with the father in British Columbia who was jailed for contempt for a number of reasons, but one of which was alleged to have been misgendering his daughter.
In one of the court decisions coming out of that case, the judge in the decision, and I covered it at the time, suggested that it wasn't part of the order or the decision itself.
It was, I guess, obiter.
Like he said it en passant as part of the judgment.
Misgendering your child could be deemed to be...
Could be construed as, could be regarded as family violence.
And then you saw headlines coming out of Canada, coming out of the States saying, Canadian court says misgendering is family violence.
It wasn't quite as unequivocal as that, black and white as that, but it was pretty damn, you know, problematic nonetheless because we have a Youth Protection Act and it covers violence.
And the judge said, look, misgendering your child can, could be, in some realm of the universe, it could be determined to be family violence.
That's a big flipping problem.
Not a judge even said that.
Now, in that particular case, again, headlines were saying that this guy, this father was jailed for misgendering his daughter.
I'm clarifying this in the same way I clarified the Pat King story, not because I agree with it and not because I'm trying to, you know, destroy a narrative, but because people need to know the details in order to not get caught up in headlines that are mildly inaccurate.
He was jailed for contempt.
For not abiding by a court order, which included a number of things, one of which was not revealing his son.
I don't remember which way the kid's going.
Which was not revealing his kid's name or the doctor's name.
And then there was some repeatedly misgendering his kid.
So the jailing in that case was for contempt, which was a little bit more specific and not related to misgendering, but rather violating other provisions of the court order as relates to disclosing the kid's name, the doctor's name, medical information.
So it was not quite as clear as the headlines implied it was.
Doesn't change the outrageousness of the situation.
It's just best to know the details and know what you're talking about before you get confused.
So that's it.
Now let me see.
There was another rumble rant.
Peckerwood says...
Health shocker Jamie Foxx left paralyzed and blind from blood clot in his brain.
Source MSN.
Prayers for Foxx.
I'll pull up that article.
I mean, I'll pull it up when we get to the other side.
It's just terrible.
Three in 10,000 adverse reactions for something that doesn't prevent contracting, transmitting, carrying that which it's supposed to protect against.
It's nothing to see here.
Okay, there's the link to rumble period.
Let me see if I've missed anything in the chat.
Okay, I don't think we did.
How long until Tucker is banned from Twitter after he starts with this show on Twitter?
We'll see.
Has anyone heard anything more of the Tucker-Elon relationship?
I said it was a mistake.
You know, I appreciate Tucker's massive.
He would have been the biggest voice to join Rumble.
It was a mistake for Tucker not to go to Rumble and then use Twitter as a subsidiary platform as opposed to going to Twitter as the main platform and shirking off Rumble entirely.
It's a big mistake.
And it's not to say that I trust or distrust Elon Musk.
Trust but verify.
Don't trust anybody with more than you can allow them to steal from you.
But I am not just exclusive with Rumble.
I love Rumble.
I became exclusive with Rumble because I believe in Rumble and I believe in Chris Pawlowski.
Full stop until any evidence to the contrary because thus far, all we have is evidence to support my belief and my decision.
With that said, people, Get your butts on over to Rumble, and you can see this later on a replay or in a clip on the YouTubes.
We're ending on Rumble now, and we're going to talk about...
We're going to start with Justin Trudeau and Pierre Poilier's parliamentary nuclear bomb that he dropped yesterday, I think.
All right, mosey on over.
Mosey on over to Rumble, people.
Or vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
Ending on YouTube in three, two...
One.
Done.
Okay.
Let's see if anything we said in the intro of this video got demonetized on YouTube.
We're still good.
Good.
Keep activating.
Position one.
Stay there.
Oh, speaking of position, by the way, you might notice there's the old expression when life gives you a blank wall.
Turn it into...
The Highland of Scotland.
I took this photograph.
I took that photograph in the Highlands of Scotland.
I think it was as we were about to enter the Isle of Talisker.
I was with my now-deceased father-in-law, my Nikon D300, and I had just gotten into HDR photography, which is when you take five photographs at various exposure levels, underexposed, massively underexposed, slightly underexposed.
Perfect exposure, slightly overexposed, massively overexposed, and you merge all five of those images together so that you get, basically, perfect exposure at every depth.
So the clouds come out, the mountains come out, the colors of the trees come out.
The files are massive.
The process takes a long time.
It makes it look a little bit like 300-esque.
What was that other movie?
Oh, the one with Elijah Wood.
Sin City.
It makes it look a little artificial, and if you don't do the HDR perfectly, it doesn't look totally natural, but that was the road that led to Talisker, the Isle of Talisker.
It's where I had haggis for the first time.
Delicious.
And Scotland is among the most beautiful places on God's green earth.
What else?
Oh yeah, and then I found some...
I shouldn't say I. My wife found some very natural, very beautiful fake plants in some storage rooms.
So look at this.
I've got a studio.
And I got a little, one of those lights that, you know, like a lamp that I put in the background to get a little more lighting.
So, booyakasha!
Enjoy the new studio.
I think this is going to be it for the summer.
Let's get started.
Hold on before we get started.
There are no Rumble Rants to read.
Fine.
Share the link.
Hold on.
Oh, let me just go put this up on Twitter right now so that we are nearing...
Hold on, let me do this.
People are nearing 5,000 live and just about to talk.
For some reason, now my computer is not working.
Have I just screwed up everything?
I'm just about to talk.
Pierre...
Aliyev, Justin Trudeau.
Madness.
5,000 live on Rumble.
Sorry about this.
This tag Rumble.
I'll just do the file properly.
Okay.
If you guys don't know what's going on, holy sweet, merciful crab apples are you going to know right now.
I'm going to play the video.
And I was actually surprised.
I'm going to play the video, then I'm going to explain everything.
Because there's a chronology, there's a level of development to all of this.
It was initially posted, at least the video, was posted by Pleb, the reporter.
Okay, here we go.
I got the video.
Not now.
This is truck driver Pleb, who...
I don't know.
It comes from Counter Signal.
So I guess it was published in Counter Signal.
Truck Driver Pleb shared the video, and he says, holy shit, I'm swearing because he swore, okay?
I'm just quoting him.
Holy shit, Pierre Poilievre actually went there.
For those of you who are not into Canadian politics, Pierre Poilievre is the leader of the Conservative Party.
Why do I keep forgetting if they've had their elections for the leadership?
No, he's the leader of the Conservative Party.
He replaced...
Pierre Coiliev.
He replaced Aaron O'Toole.
Jeez, I'm going to see now if they've actually done it.
Whatever.
He's the leader of the Conservative Party.
He was the one who grilled Justin Trudeau during the WEF scandals about, you know, Justin Trudeau's mother, wife, brother getting payments or gifts or some sort of remuneration compensation from...
Not the WEF, sorry.
The WE Charity.
Freudian slip.
The WE Charity scandal where Justin's mother was getting...
Paid gigs from the WE charity.
Apparently his wife was getting trips or whatever.
Pierre Poilievre was grilling him boy howdy about how much money his family's gotten from the WE charity.
And he was in opposition.
Okay, good.
This occurred yesterday on the Hill.
Justin Trudeau, for those of you who don't know, is the Prime Minister of Canada.
The worst human in the history of our great country.
This is what happened yesterday.
Today there's a bit of an edit, and I'll explain it afterwards.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was a high school teacher before getting into politics.
I'm having a little trouble remembering what exactly the job that the leader of the opposition had before getting into politics.
Everyone's laughing.
Hey, the moral of the story, by the way, sling shit, Justin Trudeau, and expect the person at whom you slung shit to sling it right back at you.
Justin Trudeau says, yes, I was a teacher before getting into politics, and I'm having trouble remembering what you did, Mr. Poiliev.
I don't know what he means by that, because I don't know what Pierre did before politics either.
All of these career politicians, you know.
Look at Lamedi on the bottom left.
Oh, he's so happy.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was a high school teacher before getting into politics.
High school teacher.
Oh, sick burn.
Stick burn, Trudeau.
Yes, and he left right in the middle of the semester, and I'm having trouble remembering why.
Oh, look at everyone.
I'm going to play this again.
I'm going to explain exactly what's going on.
Look at everyone in the backdrop.
Yes, and you left mid-semester.
Yes, and he laughed right in the middle of the semester, and I'm having trouble remembering why.
Look at everyone in the back room.
Okay, hold on.
The blonde woman nodding her head.
The brunette right above her with the glasses.
The woman to his right.
Everyone knows what he is suggesting to everybody.
It's like a...
Okay.
This guy right here looks...
▲
Export Selection