Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 2, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

01:37:58

Another Trump Indictment! Trudeau Getting Divorced! We're Through the Looking Glass! Viva Frei Live

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I really just don't like politicians who rile people up unnecessarily.
	Those people are putting us all at risk.
	We got enough going on.
	Nerves are rub raw.
	I don't see the need for it.
	They are putting at risk their own kids, and they're putting at risk our kids as well.
	You know, I am all for civil debate.
	I'm all for hardened debate.
	For anybody who thinks you're looking at Doogie Howser...
	In real time, this guy is Seamus O 'Hagan.
	Seamus O 'Reagan?
	Seamus or something out of Newfoundland, Canada.
	And if you thought he was not talking about Justin Trudeau, if you thought he was talking about Justin Trudeau, he wasn't.
	This guy's a liberal.
	I'm going to test my audio in a second, but let's just finish with Seamus making us all understand just how disgusting the Liberal Party really is.
	I'm all for disagreement.
	I got no problem with any of that.
	I don't like riling people up for the sake of riling people up.
	We're going to try to convince them.
	And if they don't learn those idiots, well, then we're going to, you know, we're going to cut them off.
	Vaccination.
	Qui sont extrémistes.
	Qui croient pas dans la science, qui sont souvent misogynes, souvent racistes aussi.
	It's a small group, but it takes place.
	You know, I think it's well documented that I went through a period of depression and anxiety in my life.
	It is not easy.
	Oh, by the way, classic: I'm a victim.
	Oh, feel bad for me.
	This isn't about me, but let me make it about me and what a poor victim I am.
	Oh, I think it's well documented.
	I went through some depression and anxiety.
	And so what did I do?
	I support someone who tyrannized an entire country for three years.
	And I think it is unforgivable, frankly, to rile people up even more than they need to be right now.
	There's enough going on in the world.
	He's not talking about Justin Trudeau.
	Et là, il faut faire un choix.
	Est-ce qu'on colère?
	Est-ce qu'on colère ces gens?
	They are putting at risk their own kids and they're putting at risk our kids as well.
	Those people are putting us all at risk.
	Don't like politicians who rile people up unnecessarily.
	I really just don't.
	Alright.
	Sorry about the lighting.
	Is the audio decent?
	Forget the video.
	You're going to deal with this ugly glistening forehead because I went for a jog.
	We're down in the Keys.
	I went for a jog and it's so flipping hot and humid.
	I cannot satiate my desire to drink water.
	It's...
	Okay, so decent, you say?
	Lulu does.
	All right.
	Holy cows.
	Hold on.
	What was that?
	Bathroom or basement sound?
	Hmm.
	Bathroom or basement sound.
	We're going to have to live with it.
	I'm in the corner of a room.
	This is a wall.
	This is a wall.
	I'm next to the window lighting, so it's decent.
	Okay.
	Oh, stop.
	Oh, hold on.
	It's Stephanie.
	Everybody knows.
	We've got what to talk about tonight.
	I go away for two nights.
	I'm down here in the Keys.
	I got my three kids, my daughter's two best friends, and we've been living it up.
	Holy cows.
	Now I know what it feels like to have five kids.
	I'm the youngest of five kids.
	And mealtime becomes like cutting a pound of flesh nearest the heart.
	Holy cows.
	I grew up the youngest of five kids.
	I now understand why we very rarely went out for dinner.
	It sounds like I'm talking through a tube.
	What can I do?
	Let me just see if there's audio.
	Let me see if I can't reduce the mic background noise.
	Is that better, people?
	Let's just try this.
	I just hit a button.
	Let me know if that sounds better.
	Does that sound better?
	Diva, stop feeding the fish with the kids.
	Oh, by the way, stick around when we go over to Rumble afterwards, because the video that I'm going to use to play us out tonight...
	It's the best video in the history of humankind, if I dare say so myself.
	Not any better, so I'm going to go remove that.
	Oh, someone says yes, no change.
	All right, I got yes, I got yes.
	Okay, fine, so I'm going to leave it like this.
	Audio's not going to be good tonight.
	We're going to live with it.
	Okay, I go away for two nights.
	What happens?
	Trump's hat trick of an indictment.
	Oh, and if you listen to Mehdi Hassan, it's a detailed, thorough, thoughtful indictment.
	Well, well, what's the word?
	Detailed in its factual allegations that show what a menace to society Donald Trump is.
	And if you listen to the same hack, schlock, lying propagandists, the testimony of Devin Archer, a nothing-burger.
	Devin Archer comes up and says, oh, Joe Biden.
	When he said he never discussed his business dealings with his son, what he meant was he was never in business with his son, which is also a lie.
	Oh, but they were doing things?
	Well, he was only peddling influence.
	He wasn't actually doing anything business-wise.
	Yeah, that's what pay-to-play is called.
	All you're doing is peddling influence.
	So that happens.
	We're going to go through that indictment because it's a load of steaming scheisse to swear in German.
	Then...
	The rumors, when I tell you that I know things that I don't disclose because they're either not unsubstantiated rumor, they are as of yet unconfirmed rumor, and I'm not a reporter, I'm not a journalist that breaks stories, people talk.
	And if anybody thinks that people don't talk, I've got a bridge to sell you.
	Everybody knew that Trudeau's marriage...
	Was a sham of a marriage.
	If it was ever sincere, if it was ever a loving relationship, it has been years since it has not been that, and it has been for pure political show.
	Maintaining an image, a la House of Cards.
	Well, today, the announcement that confirms what everybody within the orbit of politics already knew, Justin and Sophie Gregoire, is her name Sophie Gregoire?
	I think it's Sophie Gregoire, are splitting up.
	Another story, trophy wife.
	Can you imagine being married to Justin Trudeau?
	I mean, you all know I have, it's a bizarre thing.
	I attribute a lot to olfactory senses.
	I imagine Justin Trudeau smells bad, and not like bad, like rotting, you know, garbage.
	Like bad is in there's some people, they will wear the same deodorant that I will wear, or they'll wear the same Fahrenheit cologne that another person I know wears, and it will smell bad on them.
	They will have an aura, they will exude nastiness in the smell that they put out to the world.
	I think Justin Trudeau smells bad, or at the very least, I would think that he smells bad.
	It's a bizarre thing.
	But can you imagine being married to that loathsome creature for 18 years?
	Some people jokingly observing, yeah, she put out her time for 18 years, and now he went from, I think his net worth of $400 million is not accurate.
	Call me whatever you want.
	I don't think those net worth things, at least as relates to Justin Trudeau, are accurate.
	But I have no doubt he's worth far more now than he was as a drama teacher.
	Maybe.
	Maybe.
	I mean, the family had a lot of money.
	They're separating.
	Whether or not this is one of the rumors, another thing that, you know, people in the milieu, one of the best-kept secrets, he's lived a rambunctious lifestyle.
	A rambunctious lifestyle that can be described as a two-way street, so to speak.
	As in, going both ways.
	Some people hypothesize.
	The funny thing is, I put out a video, I put out a picture, I tweeted out, I was like, what's up with Justin Trudeau's forehead?
	And now there's rumors that, if you have noticed, I'll see if I can pull up the picture.
	A recent picture of Justin Trudeau, where he looks like Satan himself.
	He's got a bizarre mark on his forehead.
	Rumors are that that might have...
	I don't know.
	Rumors.
	Okay.
	So that's one thing.
	And then, you know, coming out of Canada as well, Google Meta are going to block news links out of Canada.
	And I want everybody to understand just how bad that really is for Canada.
	It's a happy accident for the government, but it's very bad.
	For those who don't know, the interview that I did with PragerU dropped today.
	We shot the interview in May, I think, May, June, and they do like some serious, beautiful editing and put together a whole production.
	They dropped that interview in which I talk about whether or not Canada is a free society.
	On the same day, they didn't publish it after Trudeau broke the news.
	They published it before, but on the same day that Trudeau announces his divorce.
	But also on the same day, or at least the day after, it's announced that Google and Meta will be pulling.
	Newslinks.
	Blocking newslinks out of Canada.
	That's what we're going to start with.
	Now, for those who don't know how this works, Red Viking.
	That looks like a Denmark Kroninger, if I'm not mistaken.
	Super sticker.
	Dude, I love your beard.
	Okay, that's beautiful.
	Thank you very much.
	YouTube takes 30% of those beautiful things called Super Chats.
	If you want to support the channel, support what I do, the best way is on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Where we are simultaneously streaming right now.
	We've got 262 people watching in Locals.
	Let me give you the link here.
	Link to Locals.
	You can go to vivabarnslaw.locals.com.
	Be a member.
	Our member, it's non-paying members.
	You get access to virtually everything, but not everything because some stuff is behind the paywall for our supporters.
	But we're up to like 116,000 members in our Locals community.
	Everyone is above average there.
	And if everybody had been in that community...
	You would know how to digest Trump's third indictment, the thrice indictment.
	You can support us there.
	But we're also simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	Rumble has these things called Rumble Prats.
	Rumble ordinarily takes 20% of those, but for the rest of the year, they are taking 0%, so 100% of it goes to the creator.
	It's going to come out that he's gay.
	I said this, by the way.
	I'm going to show you my tweet.
	Thank you very much for that Rumble rant.
	So for the rest of the year, Rumble takes 0% of their Rumble rants.
	Ordinarily, they take 20%.
	It's better to support Rumble as a free speech platform, which it is.
	And I talked about that during my interview on PragerU.
	We're going to go over to Rumble after we talk about our first story, which is the news out of Canada that Google and Meta are going to be blocking news out of Canada.
	The link to Rumble is there.
	And that's it.
	What else have I forgotten?
	No medical advice.
	No election fornication advice.
	No legal advice.
	Above all else.
	And everybody who you DM me for legal advice, don't trust anybody who gives legal advice on the internet.
	Alright.
	First story of the day.
	Oh my goodness.
	Wait for the play out video at the end of this.
	So the news of the day.
	Here we go.
	Bring it up.
	CNET.
	What does CNET stand for?
	I forget what it stands for.
	I don't know.
	Cybernet.
	Cybernet.
	Facebook now blocking news in Canada and Google may follow.
	What to do?
	What a fortuitous accident that this is for the government, and I'll explain to you why afterwards.
	In response to the Canadian Online News Act, also dubbed the Link Tax, which aims to compensate publishers, both Meta and Google are instead looking to block news entirely.
	I'm not sure I like the framing of this article here because it sounds like they're blaming Meta and Google.
	And it's also sort of framing the law as compensating publishers.
	The law, I'm going to swear tonight, I'm going to swear tonight, and I haven't even started drinking.
	I'm joking.
	I'm not joking about I haven't started drinking, but I'm not like that, but I am going to have a drink.
	It frames the law as though the law is intended to compensate publishers.
	What the law would also do?
	Inexplicably so.
	And I thought I misunderstood the law, but I DMed.
	People whose opinions I trust, but who wouldn't necessarily feel comfortable about coming on the channel.
	Politics ruins everything.
	The law, dubbed the link tax, was not just a law intended to compensate the original source if the engine churned up and provided the search result without linking directly through to the original source.
	The link tax would also require Google and Meta to compensate to negotiate A link tax, a fee, even if they've just provided the link as an intermediary search engine or platform.
	Someone posts a link on Facebook, you go to Facebook and you click on the link and it brings you to the article itself.
	They wanted to force Facebook to charge, to pay to the news outlet money, some of that sweet money.
	It makes no sense because if you're providing a bridge.
	Traffic to the original source, you're not depriving the original source of any ad revenue that it could generate from the traffic.
	Where you would be depriving the original source of traffic is if you displayed the article, substantial portions of it, on a link that was not a link to the original source.
	So the original source is not getting the traffic, they don't get the ad revenue, they don't get to generate.
	Advertising on their platform because they're being denied the traffic.
	That's not what the link tax was going to do.
	It was just going to make Google pay just for, hey, search result?
	Hey, I want to Google an article on the CBC.
	Oh, here it is.
	Click to it.
	Brings you to CBC.
	Google should pay the CBC.
	It made no sense.
	And it makes no sense.
	And even people whose opinions I trust confirmed it makes no sense.
	Meta parent company to Facebook is beginning the process of blocking news in Canada.
	The company said the blog post Tuesday.
	What was this from?
	This is from August 1st.
	This is from today.
	Google also aims to block links to Canadian journalism later this year for people in Canada in response to a new law that forces technology companies to compensate publishers for linking articles.
	Makes no sense.
	The legislation is based on incorrect premise that Meta benefits unfairly from news content shared on our platform when the reverse is true, Meta said in the blog post.
	My goodness, I find myself agreeing with Zuckerberg.
	When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to take a step back and reflect.
	I'm joking.
	They're right.
	Because they're actually facilitating discovery.
	They're not denying traffic.
	News outlets voluntarily share content on Facebook and Instagram to expand their audience and help their bottom line.
	In contrast, we know that people using our platforms don't come to us for news.
	Yes.
	With Australia passing a similar measure in 2021.
	More countries are looking toward compensatory legislation as news outlets continue to lay off journalists in record numbers.
	That's all that this is.
	It's just an indirect way to subsidize journalism and not the wrong thick type journalism, the mainstream legacy media type journalism, when the government can't do it directly any longer.
	In Canada, the government directly subsidizes CBC Radio Canada to the tune of $1.2 billion a year.
	They indirectly subsidize.
	Digital media with government ads, COVID ads.
	They directly subsidize print media with $600 million bailouts.
	They can't find ways to siphon money to these flailing entities.
	What better way now?
	Link tax to preserve Canadian content and to help journalists make Google pay these people because the government can't find any more surreptitious ways of doing it.
	Google meta argued the online platforms helped lift websites with increased traffic and revenue.
	They're right.
	Others argue the opposite.
	Critics such as the News Media Alliance.
	I'd love to know who funds that.
	I know nothing about it, but I know what bets I would make knowing nothing about it.
	They say Big Tech used work from journalistic outlets to scrape reporting and data to fill their platforms for results in content.
	It then uses the outsized power in directing traffic to abruptly change how many clicks websites get, all the while still using reporting from outlets.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	Okay.
	As we face potential standoff between lawmakers and journalists on one side and the gatekeepers of the internet on the other, here's what you might, or here's what you need to know with the Canada Online...
	The Online News Act goes into effect 2023, compels Google and Meta to compensate news outlets.
	Fine.
	Previously, newspapers relied on subscriptions, advertising, classified sections to keep their newsrooms operational.
	But with the move to the information online, subscription revenue dried up.
	Oh, maybe you're just providing shit.
	Has that occurred to you?
	People have no problem willingly supporting the platforms that do the good work.
	Oh, your subscription revenue dried up?
	Maybe it's because you no longer have a monopoly and the work that you're providing, producing, in a market of competition sucks.
	Just think about that.
	Why are people unsubscribing and not following CBC?
	And why are they not buying the National Post?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Okay, fine.
	Between 2008, 450 outlets closed.
	Does this impact people in other countries?
	Right now, Google and Facebook's restrictions will affect only Canadians later this year when the law goes into effect.
	This means that Americans wanting to read up about news in Canada should still find the news results from Canadian publications in search.
	Only shutting off Canada.
	It's amazing.
	Canada isn't the first...
	Yeah, blah, blah, blah.
	Okay.
	How to find news without Google or Facebook.
	Listen to this, people.
	For Canadians wanting to stay up to date on news later this year, here are some ways you can find the news.
	World news.
	The new law affects only Canadian publishers, so searching for news topics will...
	Okay, for non-Canadian.
	Bing!
	Okay?
	Canadian news sites and social media.
	Oh, you can go to Canadian news sites directly and consider setting a Canadian news website like the CBC Global News as your default homepage on the web.
	We're going to stop it there and we're going to end it there and then go to my insights.
	What can you do?
	Oh, well, you can go to the legacy media who's the only name that you know.
	BBC News.
	Global.
	Let me think of another one.
	Global.
	National Post.
	Toronto Star.
	Names that you know only because they've been around for 50 years.
	Are you going to set True North as your default?
	Are you going to set Viva Frye as your default?
	Are you going to set Timcast?
	Well, Timcast would be...
	Oh, look at that.
	Here's how you can figure it out.
	Here's how you can fix the problem.
	Just go set up the already government-subsidized propagandist Pravda as your default.
	That'll solve your problem.
	Oh, that's exactly what the government wants you to do in the first place.
	En surprise, as we say in French.
	Oh, here's what you can do.
	Go to the government propagandist website and make it your default.
	And by the way, you'll never find the other ones that you would never otherwise have heard of because they can't share the links on Google anymore.
	And nobody ain't going to be sharing Viva Fry stuff to Canadians on Facebook or Google.
	And that is exactly what they want.
	Let me just pull up my prescient observation.
	And people have to understand this.
	This was always intended to be the win-win for the government.
	If Google and Meta did not pull the links, they would be compelled to finance linking to search results.
	People may have forgotten about the Online Streaming Act.
	Which was intended to prioritize Canadian content in search results.
	Does everybody remember that law that already passed?
	The Online Streaming Act.
	Which was going to and will, once the CRTC draws up its own directives as to how it's going to apply the law that the government just passed, it's going to prioritize Canadian content in search results.
	Google and Meta said, okay, we'll pay the link tax.
	They would have been paying the link tax to the outlets.
	Whose search results are going to be prioritized in search engines as a result of the Online Streaming Act?
	Who's that going to be?
	CBC, Global News, Radio Canada, and other Canadian products.
	If they pull the links, what are people going to do now?
	They're not going to know to look up alternative media.
	They're just going to go straight.
	They're going to go directly to the source.
	Win-win.
	You either get Google and Meta to finance in another way.
	Global News, CBC, Radio Canada, and whatever.
	Or you get Google saying, no, we're not doing it, and now nobody can find the alternative media.
	What a happy set of coincidences.
	Even the worst case scenario of the big bad tech companies pulling out is going to have on Canadians.
	Good for the government, bad for the people.
	Okay.
	Is that it?
	I think that's all.
	Do we want to whet the appetite?
	Do we want to whet the appetite for what's going to happen on Rumble?
	Now, you know what?
	Let's do it right now.
	826 people watching on YouTube.
	How many do we have on Rumble?
	Hold on, I can't see the number.
	It's all blurry.
	Hey!
	2,647 on Rumble.
	Let's make that number 3,400 after everybody moves over.
	Here's a link to Rumble.
	And, by the way, everybody, if anybody has any constructive feedback on user interface, etc., etc., Tweet at me if you can find me on Twitter, and I'll bring it up to the big guy.
	I'm joking.
	I'm talking about Chris Pavlovsky, but Rumble is always, you know, they take these things seriously.
	You can use me not as a middleman, not as a whatever.
	I was going to say one thing.
	Oh, yes.
	And for those who say you get notifications late on Rumble, the big guy wants me to remind you the best way to avoid that.
	Download the app and turn on notifications and you'll get them in real time and not uselessly late if you want to attend the live streams.
	So let's get ready to rumble, people.
	Here's the link one more time.
	Come on over.
	Yeah, rumble much better.
	I'm biased.
	I'm actually, I'm exclusive.
	And I'm not biased because I'm exclusive.
	I'm exclusive because I love rumble.
	And I got to know them.
	They are trustworthy.
	Chris Pawlowski, like I said in my PragerU interview, is a fighter.
	And he's not bending over to these tyrannical...
	...pirants.
	So let's do that.
	I'm going to end it on YouTube.
	We're going to go over to Rumble.
	Talk the indictment.
	Go over the indictment.
	Talk Justin Trudeau and the news of the day.
	And my theorizing of the day.
	And then we're going to go over to Locals afterwards.
	Have a little Locals After Party.
	And that's it.
	Come on over to Rumble.
	Booyah.
	I see now we're down to 710 people.
	That's the way I like it.
	Okay.
	Ending in 3...
	Oh yeah.
	And you're going to see the best video.
	In the history of humankind, over on Rumble.
	Boom.
	Now, now that we're on Rumble, my wife, my wife, she picked up a bottle of Harry Bloom's gin, and it's delicious.
	I'm going to put a little snifter in here, put a little ice in it, and we are going to go over an indictment that requires, I would say, play the drinking game.
	Every time there is a First Amendment, That is criminalized in the indictment.
	Take a sip.
	Don't do that.
	You'll be unconscious after three pages.
	Okay, now, before we do that, by the way, let me just see what's going on in Rumble.
	Oh, yeah, good.
	We got two more Rumble rants here.
	Oh, and by the way, I had to turn off the air conditioning in this room, so I'm going to start sweating uncontrollably by the end of this because the air conditioning makes a little too much noise.
	Okay, what do we got?
	Oh, hold on.
	I can't read that.
	Let's drink to your good health and sound mind.
	I don't know about the sound of mine part, but I think I'm in decent shape.
	Skull Leader says, wasn't Trump already tried for some of these crimes and acquitted?
	Good question, Skull Leader.
	He wasn't tried criminally.
	He was tried impeachment, and he was acquitted by the Senate.
	And now, when the constitutional remedy has been tried, abusively in my mind, and...
	Acquitted, rightfully in my mind, what do they do?
	They get some corrupt prosecutor to do that which was not done through the only constitutional remedy that they had, in my view.
	Had he been convicted in the impeachment, the situation would have been different.
	We are now ass backwards, or as they like to say, bass backwards.
	Carriage in front of the horse, backwards.
	I didn't read the rest of this.
	Wasn't that what happened, or what the impeachment was?
	A trial.
	He was acquitted of these charges, so isn't this double jeopardy?
	The double jeopardy part...
	Look, I'm a Quebec-trained attorney, former lawyer, no experience in American law and no practice experience in criminal law.
	Would double jeopardy be said to have attached if...
	There was no risk of jail.
	I don't think risk of jail is the issue, but was there risk under the provisions of the criminal law for what the impeachment covered?
	I'm not sure that that would be the case.
	I'd say the issue about this indictment after the acquittal is that it wasn't sufficient criminality for high crimes and misdemeanors for constitutional impeachment, and yet now it's going to be sufficient for criminal conviction?
	Bullshit.
	I'm sorry.
	Bullplot.
	Grade A bullplot.
	Alright, but now, the question is this.
	What do we want to start with?
	Do we want to start with Justin Trudeau or do we want to start with the indictment?
	I think we want to start with the indictment.
	Hold on, let me go to the chat.
	Do we want to start with the indictment number one, Justin Trudeau number two?
	And let's just see what people say.
	Indictment one, Trudeau two, what do people want?
	FL Girl says, I have to reduce the AC from 81. I put the AC at 66 just for 10 minutes just to get the room sufficiently cold so that when I turn it off, you know, it'll be at least an hour before.
	Oh my goodness, this is like a 50-50 split and it looks like...
	I forget what I said now.
	Indictment 1, Trudeau 2. All right, let's start with Trudeau.
	Stop screen share.
	Let's pull up an article.
	Someone tweeted this.
	Someone DM'd me and they said, rumor is Trudeau's going to make the announcement that he's...
	Splitting up with Sophie Gregoire.
	And I was like, I'll believe it when I see it.
	I saw it.
	I believe it, although I already knew it.
	Where's the article?
	Politico.
	Here we go.
	You might not be able to find this in your search results in Canada sooner than later.
	All righty.
	First, okay.
	Physical superficial beauty is irrelevant.
	It's irrelevant because it can be destroyed by bad character and even...
	The most averages of appearances can be enhanced by good character.
	In a different universe, if Justin Trudeau were not the foul scum of the earth that he is, he might be a decent looking guy.
	And I don't know Sophie Gregoire well enough to have any good character enhance her looks or any bad character detract from them.
	But look at that happy couple.
	Remember that video when Justin Trudeau and she kissed?
	I'm going to try to pull up a video.
	Justin Trudeau separates from wife.
	Sophie.
	By the way.
	Go check out the way some other outlets are referring to this.
	Partner.
	Some are calling her his lifelong partner.
	I'm going to see if I can find those.
	We remain a close family with deep love and respect for each other, the couple announced on social media.
	Bullplot.
	She has nothing but the most disdain for Justin Trudeau, and probably because of the rumors, which everybody knows to be true, but, you know, you can only confirm them when Politico writes an article on it.
	Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Sophie Gagalow Trudeau are separating after 18 years of marriage.
	A high-profile split in Canada's most recognizable political power couple.
	Excuse me?
	Most recognizable political power couple?
	What about Viva and Marion?
	The abrupt announcement Wednesday ends what was often described as a storybook marriage.
	How about a sham of a marriage that united two rising Canadian celebrities?
	The politically ambitious son of an iconic former prime minister and a glamorous television host in Quebec.
	I never knew she was a television host.
	Instagram posts on both Trudeau and Sophie Kek.
	After many meaningful and difficult conversations, we have made the decision to separate, they said.
	The marriage in 2005, they married in 2005, had three children, Xavier, Ella Grace, and Hadrian, nine.
	Hadrian is, I say, a terrible name.
	Because in Quebec, many people might know that the Quebec French accent, in English, when they say a word like Adrian, they add an H to it.
	And so they say Hadrian when they're talking about someone who's named Adrian.
	Or about, they say about.
	It's an interesting quirk of French-Canadian language when French-Canadians speak English.
	So naming your kid Hadrian sounds like it's someone French-Canadian speaking in English saying Adrian but adding an H to it.
	Anyhow, all that's enough.
	As always, we remain a close time with deep love and respect for each other.
	And how do you show deep love and respect?
	Oh, you take to social media.
	You kiss each other on social media.
	If you're Justin Trudeau, you take to social media to say how much you love your kid.
	Tell the entire world how much you love your kid instead of just telling your kid how much you love them.
	For the well-being of our children, we ask that you respect our privacy.
	For the well-being of our children, you ask that we respect...
	For the well-being of our children, we ask that you respect and you respect our and their privacy.
	I'm not going to flip the bird to the camera because some of you might think I'm flipping the bird to you.
	I'm mentally flipping the bird to Justin Trudeau.
	I'm going to bookmark that.
	We're going to come back to that in a bit.
	The family is about to go on vacation next week, according to a separate statement sent out of the Prime Minister.
	It said the two have signed a legal separation agreement.
	They remain a close family, yada, yada, yada.
	The Trudeau children...
	We'll continue to live at Rideau College on the Rideau Hall grounds in Ottawa.
	Sophie will move to a residence elsewhere in the city.
	There shall be a frequent presence at Rideau Cottage.
	Gossip about the marriage had circulated in Ottawa for several years.
	Oh, but a storybook.
	But the discord in their personal relationship never made the headlines.
	Hmm.
	Why would the discord in their relationship have never made the headlines?
	I wonder why.
	Could it be because the Canadian media was bought and paid for?
	Possibly.
	Wednesday's announcement will distract Canada's political class.
	Wednesday's announcement will distract Canada's political class and comes just a week after Trudeau unveiled an overhaul of his cabinet in a move touted as a reset of his government's economic agenda.
	Grégoire Trudeau has been notably absent from major public events in July, including the...
	I can tell you that marriage is an easy...
	How long does this stupid article go on for?
	Oh, I'm not reading this whole thing.
	Okay, let me go see something here, if I can find this.
	Justin Trudeau, Sophie Kitts.
	Let's see if I can find this real quick.
	This is it right here, people.
	The happiest...
	Happy Canada Day, everyone.
	We love you.
	Do it.
	You need the take.
	Where is it?
	Is this a simulation?
	Kiss, you need a piss.
	Can you believe that?
	Can you believe that?
	Look at her face.
	You smell bad.
	I don't want to do this.
	Recoil.
	Recoil.
	Look at that.
	She almost whipped him with her hair.
	It was so fast.
	Okay.
	That's enough to make everybody want a wretch.
	So, that's the news.
	Now, when I said put a, let's put a little, what's the word?
	Let's bookmark that thing about, you know, give our kids and us privacy.
	I don't want to steal the thunder of the person who put out the tweet that really highlighted the hypocrisy on this.
	Nutta.
	Nota underscore Parsons.
	I don't know who this person is.
	I can only say that this is a damn insightful observation.
	At Nota underscore Parsons, Trudeau asks his privacy be respected.
	Sort of rich considering he wanted you to divulge your medical records to get on a bus.
	That's not hyperbolic.
	You will recall, show us respect for our family and our kids.
	Justin, you scumbag, scum of the earth, evil, evil man.
	When you offered to finance the provincial vaccine passport system, those people are putting us all at risk.
	When you offered to put up a billion dollars so provinces could enforce vaccine passports on children as young as 13 and my kid, but for the grace of God, who was 12 years old and didn't have to show papers to play soccer, but was on a field.
	When someone in her school was asked to leave the field, could not try out for soccer because they didn't have the bloody QR code to show that they were vaccinated like cattle to play soccer.
	Oh, you didn't care about their privacy then.
	And by the way, I'm not suggesting anybody go violate Trudeau's kids' privacy.
	Kids being caught in the crossfire of broken marriages is the absolute true tragedy of divorce in broken homes.
	But spare me your self-righteous, pompous crap.
	For the respect of the privacy of our kids, you demanded that 13-year-old kids divulge their medical records so they could play soccer in a vaccine passport system that you were promoting, encouraging, and subsidizing with my tax dollars.
	You can take your requests for privacy and stick them where the sun don't shine.
	Scumbag.
	Nota underscore Parsons, good observation.
	Now...
	For a good observation of my own, if I may toot my own horn from time to time, and I'm going to do it right now.
	When I say that there's some well-known secrets, the sham of a horrible marriage, a loveless sham of a marriage, the sole purpose of maintaining it was to create a political image.
	Everyone knew it.
	Everyone knew it.
	Everyone talked about it.
	But I'm not National Enquirer, and I'm not a journalist to break stories because that's not what I'm interested in.
	I consider myself more of an analyst.
	Let me see this here.
	Where was my worthwhile observation on this?
	I did have a good one.
	No, no, no.
	There we go.
	This is it.
	Okay.
	No, no, this is not it.
	Hold on.
	I got to get my...
	My tweet on this.
	Give me a second.
	You know, a number of rumors that everybody knows.
	They're not rumors.
	They're well-kept secrets, but badly kept secrets.
	You know, like the Harvey Weinstein stuff of the world.
	Everybody knows it.
	Nobody talks about it.
	We're going to come back to that.
	Here it is.
	And I have the receipts.
	This is public information right now.
	It's a well-known secret that despite the staged and totally insincere videos of he and Sophie kissing, like she just barfed it a little bit in her mouth and she's like, she's got to swallow it back down because she's at a dinner date.
	Despite his totally grotesque social media posts, Trudeau's marriage was a sham.
	I don't know if it started off as a sham, but it certainly turned into one.
	Equally well-known rumors, above and beyond his philandering, was his Was the going both ways.
	Remember once upon a time Madonna, you know, touted that as a good thing.
	Made her cool.
	People got lost in the blackface picture to look at the left and appreciate what appears to be going on in this picture.
	This picture right here.
	Remember the blackface picture?
	Everybody's distracted by, you know, the Gene Simmons in blackface.
	Look what's going on right here.
	There's a dude on his right.
	Who appears to be trying to make contact with his tongue.
	Maybe they're just rocking out.
	Maybe they're just parting.
	Who the hell knows?
	But I don't...
	And there's nothing wrong with any of this, by the way.
	I don't come that close to anybody else's tongue except my wife's.
	Period.
	Many people...
	You're too distracted by the blackface to know what was going on.
	Look at that.
	Look at what's going on there.
	That's a man's face.
	He looks like he's wearing a Middle Eastern...
	Not a turban, but the headscarf.
	Stinking out his tongue in a...
	An apparent attempt to make contact with Justin Trudeau's blackface.
	Okay, part one.
	Yesterday, when someone criticized Jagmeet Singh for not calling Trudeau out, he immediately and totally bizarrely screamed, you're homophobic.
	I'll show you that video in a second.
	Do I think that Jagmeet Singh didn't have the heads up as to the news that was coming?
	I doubt that Jagmeet Singh, who's, you know, who's...
	Justin Trudeau's leg warmer, foot massager, back massager, I have no doubt that he knew what was coming.
	Did he possibly divulge more than he should have known by saying, someone called Jagmeet Singh out for not condemning Trudeau, and his first reaction is, that's homophobic.
	That's a bizarre reaction.
	It's possible the guy said something homophobic, and we'll play the video in a second.
	Is it possible that Justin Trudeau is going to come out as gay bi, call an election, because that's typically what happens after you shuffle your cabinet around, and then...
	Weaponize his newfound liberation.
	Will it happen?
	We will see.
	Watch.
	I'm going to play this video in a second.
	This is Rowan De Stallion.
	Driver.
	Call out the Prime Minister.
	It's not clear that that's what he said.
	We'll see what the Internet thinks.
	Singh, you're homophobic.
	Driver, you're a POS.
	And he did not acronymify it.
	That's my theory.
	And we'll see if it happens.
	It would be...
	For the amount of time Justin Trudeau has spent at pride parades, it would make sense.
	And I'm going to say this, I do not care what any grown adult does, prefers, who they love, period.
	In as much as anybody wants to do whatever they want to do, and it doesn't hurt anybody else, more power to them, and full stop.
	Someone's marriage coming to an end, I'm not going to revel in that misery.
	That's not what this is about, full stop.
	If Justin Trudeau comes out of his game, calls an election, and then condemns anybody who criticizes him as homophobic, holy crap apples would I maybe possibly believe we're actually living in a simulation.
	But let's get to the video.
	We're going to have our take three on the Laurel, Yanni, blue dress, green dress, pathetic Jew versus pathetic puke.
	Let's listen to what happens here and see what the internet thinks has been said.
	Let's listen to what happens here and see what the internet thinks has been said.
	You're inappropriate.
	Now, what did he say here?
	Rowan, in this video, hold on.
	How do I back it up?
	I want to see this.
	The question is, I think he might have said, call out the Prime Minister inaudible.
	I think he might have said, suck up all of the Prime Minister's bodily fluids.
	That's what I think he might have said.
	Did he say, so call out the Prime Minister's son?
	I don't think so he said.
	So call the Prime Ministers inaudible or suck up all the Prime Ministers.
	I am getting a man that almost can't hear because of the...
	Your homophobia is great in your...
	What?
	I mean, it's not funny.
	But it's funny.
	These politicians...
	I might not resort to that type of name-calling.
	I'll let them know in a calm voice that they are the scum of the earth.
	Hypocrites.
	Evil tyrants.
	That's fine.
	Would I call them a piece of...
	I'd certainly think it.
	I wouldn't say it because I think there's more eloquent ways, although some people say calling them psychopaths and liars is counterproductive as well.
	Tough noogies.
	But the fact that these politicians, they cannot walk the streets without getting called out because they are, in fact, the scum of the earth.
	Justin Trudeau is a stain on Canada and will go down as the most destructive force Canada has ever seen.
	Jagmeet Singh?
	A very close second.
	Because the only reason Trudeau is in power right now is because of Jagmeet Singh propping up that corrupt tyrant of a dictator leader.
	By the way, what does the chat think he said?
	Someone said that's why he called him homophobic, LOL.
	Did he say suck up the prime minister's...
	I want to see what the chat says here.
	I'm in the chat and rumble.
	Turto?
	Turto is in a...
	Who knows in a gay relationship with Dogmeet Singh calling it?
	That's from Robier Burble.
	I don't think so.
	Hmm.
	Nor do I think we'll ever see it.
	Go to hell, Dogmeet Singh.
	What did he say?
	Okay, so what does the chat think he says in Lovell?
	All right, and I think that might be it for what is relevant of the news of the day out of Canada.
	It's turned into a joke.
	Canada's turned into a joke.
	But it's not funny.
	Jack Smith is a political hitman who deserves to be disbarred and sent to prison for life.
	Set the precedent that abuse of this authority can mean the rest of your life in prison.
	That's I'm Not Your Buddy Guy.
	That's not going to happen.
	And also, I mean, disbarment I can certainly get behind.
	But look, this guy, Jack Smith is not going to get disbarred for doing his job.
	When Kevin Clinesmith didn't get disbarred for falsifying evidence that he submitted to a secret FISA court to spy on Donald Trump.
	So don't hold your breath for any political blowback directly against the individual.
	But my goodness, there is and will continue to be political blowback because they can cross the Rubicon all they want.
	Right now, they're pooping in the water.
	Anybody who doesn't know the cross the Rubicon, what it means?
	Well, we all know what it means as an expression.
	It's when...
	I learned this on the way up to Canada when I listened to a 62-part miniseries on the fall of Rome.
	It's when Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon River, which was the river that he was never supposed to cross.
	Was it for the purposes of expansion?
	I think it was for the purposes of expansion.
	And there was this holy river that you were never supposed to cross because you would meet a fate, whatever.
	It's like, you couldn't do it.
	Julius Caesar, in his pursuit of expansion, crossed the Rubicon, hence the expression, crossing the Rubicon.
	Okay, good.
	I think we've covered that.
	Okay.
	Jack Smith.
	You know it's a bad indictment.
	Someone will accuse me of saying, okay, you agree with Jonathan Turley when he agrees with you, and you don't agree with Jonathan Turley when he doesn't agree with you.
	I respect Jonathan Turley's opinion.
	I know some of the hacks out there will say, Jonathan Turley is a total...
	He's a nincompoop.
	He's not a legal scholar.
	He's useless because they're idiots who still hold the grudge from when he actually rightly defended Donald Trump in the first impeachment.
	Jonathan Turley is, as far as I'm concerned, a good, sound legal mind.
	You have to take what he says seriously, even if you disagree with it, because I disagree with his assessment of the second indictment on the Mar-a-Lago documents.
	I disagree with it, but I will listen to it because I believe that I will learn from it.
	This is Jonathan Turley's assessment of the third indictment.
	And by the way, it's not going to be the last.
	They're going to indict Trump in Georgia.
	But they're going to try to indict Trump on insurrection charges so that they can then say he can't run for president or we're going to pull him from the ballot.
	There is no end that this witch hunt is not going to go.
	They've crossed the Rubicon and they took their time to take a hot steaming dump in the Rubicon on their way through it.
	They would rather rain over the ashes of a burning civilization than play by the rules.
	How do you peacefully, how do you properly and effectively fight back against that?
	Some people will say you've got to be just as vicious as them.
	I do not adhere to that belief.
	And it's not a question of being holier than thou.
	They want you to do that.
	And so if you know that they want you to do something and then you go ahead and do it anyhow, you've got to ask yourself, are you doing something strategically or are you just playing into their hands because they control the levers of power at this point in time?
	That being said, Jonathan Turley, Shapiro Chair of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, criminal defense attorney, columnist, and legal analyst.
	I'm still stuck on the last story.
	Legal analyst.
	Now I'm sweating.
	Geez Louise, if I didn't want to sweat before I wanted to.
	Now it's too late.
	I like Jonathan Turin.
	Special counsel Jack Smith just issued the first criminal indictment of an alleged disinformation.
	Sorry, I'm still thinking of what I'm reading the words I'm not understanding.
	Special Counsel Jack Smith just issued the first criminal indictment of alleged disinformation, in my view.
	If you take a red pen to all of the material presumptively protected by the First Amendment, freedom of speech, you know, that minorly important thing, you can reduce much of the indictment to a haiku.
	A haiku, 575 syllables.
	Does everybody know this?
	I proposed to my wife.
	I proposed to marry him with the haiku.
	Yeah, I remember it.
	I love you so much.
	You are the girl of my dreams.
	Will you marry me?
	That was the haiku with which I proposed to my wife.
	So the joke being here.
	Scratch the presumptively.
	First Amendment protected portions of the indictment.
	You're left with a haiku, which is a grand total of 17 syllables.
	My wife's haiku that night, it was crazy.
	We were playing, we were doing a haiku competition.
	I knew that I was going to propose to my wife that night.
	I had the ring in a drawer in my bedroom.
	Do I tell this funny story?
	No.
	I'm going to save this funny story about what I did to the ring the night before I proposed, because it's crazy.
	I'll save that for locals afterwards.
	So that was my...
	And no one knew what was going to happen.
	Marion's father didn't know.
	My father didn't know.
	And you could tell by the look on his face.
	And I say, I love you so much.
	You are the girl of my dreams.
	Will you marry me?
	And I pull out a ring and pop the question.
	Marion's haiku that night.
	The pineapple cries when we cut it with the knife.
	Why are we so mean?
	Why do I remember this?
	I'll be a 95-year-old man.
	Totally far-cocked, as we say in Yiddish, and I'm still going to remember those two haikus.
	Okay, so that's Jonathan Turley's assessment of Jack Smith's indictment.
	And for those of you out there, by the way, who say, because you will see this spin from the blue checkmark propagandists.
	Jack Smith didn't indict anybody.
	Joe Biden didn't indict anybody.
	His Department of Justice didn't indict anybody.
	It was a jury of Donald Trump's peers that indicted him.
	Bullshit.
	You flipping liars.
	A jury of his peers in the District of Columbia?
	Anybody who says it's a jury of his peers in a district that voted 95% for Hillary Clinton, you're not dealing with dumb people.
	You're dealing with liars, dishonest liars.
	The old expression, you can indict a ham sandwich, does not exist, not for a reason.
	You can indict a ham sandwich.
	Pay no attention to what's going on behind the scenes right now.
	I noticed that my beverage has been evaporating.
	You can indict a ham sandwich.
	It's an expression pretty much as old as time for good reason.
	A jury of his peers in Washington, D.C., where...
	What's that guy's name?
	The guy who just got acquitted.
	Suspin.
	The dude's name was Suspin.
	I didn't know what that means, but sus apparently means suspect.
	And man is, man, that's sus.
	Sussman gets acquitted.
	What was it for lying to investigators?
	I forget what his charges were.
	But he was dead to rights on an evidentiary basis.
	John Sussman, or whatever, Mark Sussman?
	Sussman was the one who said, I did not communicate that dossier to the FBI for and on behalf of my client, Hillary Clinton.
	When he billed Hillary Clinton and the DNC for the meeting with the FBI in which he gave them the dossier, I might be mistaking some minor facts here, but he basically said, I wasn't representing any client when I met with the FBI to give them certain information, but I went back and billed Hillary Clinton and the DNC for that very meeting, acquitted.
	And every January 6th defendant gets convicted and sentenced to hard time.
	Oh yeah, a jury of his peers.
	Liars, propagandists, enemy of the people.
	So yeah.
	By the way, it's not Joe Biden's DOJ that's doing this.
	It's Jack Smith's not a hired political goon.
	No, no, it's justice.
	Okay.
	The indictment.
	We're not going to go through the whole thing.
	It's a cool 45 pages.
	Mehdi Hassan puts out a tweet and says, it's a surprisingly easy read.
	It's only 45 pages of pure rubbish.
	Take a red pen to it.
	Scratch out the stuff that's presumptively First Amendment rights.
	Then go ahead and just for the sake of it, scratch out the stuff that is the fruits of a poison tree in terms of evidence that comes from violating and breaching solicitor-client privilege.
	You know what you're left with then?
	Not even enough to wipe your butt with after a dinner at Taco Bell.
	I just made that up.
	Write that one down.
	That's funny.
	Okay.
	Grand jury charges at all times material for this indictment.
	Listen to this, by the way.
	They tell you what they're doing by telling you what they're not doing.
	Remember when Justin Trudeau came out and invoked the Emergencies Act?
	Here's what we're not doing.
	We're not suspending your constitutional rights.
	You just can't protest and you're not going to have bank accounts and you can't meet and gather.
	We're not doing that.
	We're not calling in the military.
	We're just calling in a highly militarized police force with snipers on roofs, bulletproof vests, armored vehicles, drones in the sky.
	When they tell you what they're not doing, they're telling you what they are doing.
	Defendant Donald Trump, 40th president of the United States, and a candidate for re-election in 2020.
	He's also the leading frontrunner for the re-election in 2024.
	The defendant lost the 2024.
	Can you...
	Why is this a relevant allegation to the indictment?
	No, no.
	What it is, this is a politically motivated partisan essay.
	That's what this is.
	Despite having lost, the defendant was determined to remain in power.
	Confession through projection.
	So for more than two months following Election Day on November 3, 2020, defendants spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he actually won.
	Hey, spoiler alert, a lot of people still believe that.
	Drink to that.
	These claims were false.
	Oh, thanks, thanks.
	I'm sorry, are you using the indictments to re-fortify the 2020 election?
	Yes, you are.
	And the defendant knew that they were false.
	He knew that they were false, despite he and about 73 million other people still believing it's true.
	Because whether or not you believe it was fraudulent via Dominion voting machines, which I do not believe, call me whatever names you want, it was fraudulent in that it was fortified exactly the way the Time Magazine article described it.
	Fortified is a euphemism for falsified.
	Fortified is the euphemism for fraudulent.
	And by the way, everybody knows it.
	It's just that the people who benefited from the fortified election liked the result.
	But the defendant repeated and widely disseminated them anyway to make knowingly false claims appear legitimate, create an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger, and erode public faith in the administration of the election.
	By the way, even if you believe that this is what he did, can we just read that again?
	He made...
	He repeated and widely disseminated his views that he believed the election was stolen.
	He spoke.
	He shared his opinion.
	He exercised his First Amendment rights and now he's going to be prosecuted for this.
	Oh.
	To create an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger and erode public faith in the administration of the election?
	You know what else erodes public faith in the administration of the election?
	Or what else?
	What is it?
	Creates an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger.
	Finding out that the three-year, three-and-a-half-year political witch hunt for Russia collusion was bullshit.
	Finding out that FBI attorneys falsified evidence and submitted it to a FISA court to spy on Russia.
	Finding out that the FBI was politically motivated and abused of the process to tarnish a presidency?
	To divide a country?
	To repeat a lie over and over and over again?
	That's not what did it.
	Donald Trump is the one who eroded trust in the public administration.
	Listen to this.
	Pathological.
	The defendant had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about election and to even claim falsely.
	Don't forget, it's false.
	Methinks the deep state doth protest it too much.
	That there had been outcome determinants of Fraud during the election and that he's free to do it.
	And trust me, trust us, we're not prosecuting him for having said that because he's free to do it, even falsely.
	He was also entitled to formally challenge the results of the election through lawful and appropriate means, such as by seeking recounts or audits of the popular vote in states or filing lawsuits, challenging ballots, yada yada yada.
	He did this, his efforts to change the outcome were unsuccessful.
	We're not prosecuting him for that, but we're prosecuting him.
	Just for that.
	Shortly after election day, the defendant also pursued unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election.
	How?
	How?
	We have to ask that question and they're going to tell us right now, right?
	Right now they're saying he's not just exercising his free speech, as they said here.
	He's not just exercising his right that every American has to speak publicly about the election and to even claim false if there had been outcome determined abroad.
	He's allowed to do that.
	Oh, by the way, you got kicked off YouTube for doing that.
	You got deplatformed for doing that.
	He's allowed to do that.
	But yet, after the election, he pursued unlawful means.
	Let's see how.
	He perpetrated three criminal conspiracies.
	A conspiracy to defraud the United States by using dishonesty, fraud, and deceit to impair, obstruct, and defeat the lawful federal government function.
	By which the results of the presidential election are collected, counted, and certified by the federal government in violation.
	How did he do that?
	With the legal theory of having an alternate slate of electors because you believe that the electors that were appointed were appointed through a fraudulent or fortified election.
	But they're not prosecuting the free speech people.
	He's free to say it.
	He's free to say, even wrongly, that it was a fraudulent.
	His criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States, I can't highlight, I wish I could, the A. A conspiracy to, you have to read this five times to truly understand how batshit crazy it is.
	A conspiracy to defraud the United States by using dishonesty.
	I thought he was allowed to say that.
	fraud, and deceit, deceit, to impair, obstruct, and defeat the lawful federal government function by which the results of the presidential election are collected, counted, And the way they did that was with the alternate state of electors.
	And if anybody had been a member of our community on vivabarneslaw.locals.com and had heard Robert Barnes explain what is referred to colloquially as the Pence card, it's been done before!
	JFK did it!
	Against, now I'm going to forget who, in Hawaii, it's been done before.
	Now it's being criminalized.
	The alternate slate of electors don't go in there and say, we are the ones that were appointed by these people, slip us through and appoint us.
	They come in and say, we are the alternate slate of electors because we believe the electors that have been appointed were appointed by fraud or fortification.
	So there is no fraud because they're not coming in to say under...
	Fraudulent means or deceitful means, hey, slip us in as though we're the ones that got appointed.
	They're coming in as an alternates to say, we don't think that slate of electors is legitimate.
	Appoint us instead.
	That was the Pence card.
	It's been done before.
	There's a constitutional basis for it.
	And right now you have the deep state, Jack Smith.
	Oh, and a jury of Trump's peers criminalizing, exercising constitutional remedy that had been used in the past.
	Oh, but this one's different than when JFK did it because...
	Okay, B, a conspiracy that corruptly obstructed and impeded the January 6th congressional proceedings at which the collected results of the presidential election are counted in service.
	Remember how obstructed they were?
	They were counted and finalized the same day, I think like six hours later.
	A conspiracy against the right to vote and to have one's vote counted in violation of 18 years.
	Holy shit.
	Each of the conspiracies was built on the...
	Each of these conspiracies, which built on the widespread mistrust the defendant was creating through pervasive and destabilizing lies about election...
	Remember, he's allowed to say it, everybody.
	He's not being indicted for that, but he's being indicted for that.
	Targeted a bedrock function of the United States federal government, the nation's process of collecting, counting, and certifying the election results.
	All right, so let me get this.
	Now, what I want to do, because we're not going to go through this whole thing because it's a load of crap.
	Let's just deal with...
	So set aside the First Amendment stuff.
	Let's just get to the solicitor-client privilege stuff.
	Defendant enlisted co-conspirators to assist him in his criminal effort.
	This is...
	Partisan crackery.
	Nothing partisan about this.
	Criminal efforts to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election and retain power.
	Among these were...
	Co-conspirator 1, an attorney who was willing to spread knowingly false claims and pursue strategies that the defendant's 2020 re-election campaign attorneys would not.
	Co-conspirator 1, an attorney who was willing to spread knowingly false claims and pursue strategies that the defendant's 2020 re-election campaign attorneys would not.
	Do people understand what's going on here?
	Now pursuing legal strategies that might get dismissed, that might not be retained by an arguably corrupt judicial system.
	An attorney, on behalf of a client, pursuing legal strategies.
	Criminal.
	They're criminalizing the First Amendment.
	They're criminalizing solicitor-client privilege.
	They're criminalizing pursuing legal remedies that had been pursued under other circumstances in the past.
	Koch has feared, too, an attorney who devised and attempted to implement a strategy to leverage the vice president's ceremonial role in overseeing the certification proceeding to obstruct the certification of the presidential election.
	Another attorney who devised a legal strategy to try to convince Pence to pull the Pence card.
	We believe there was fraud in appointing those electors.
	I am therefore acknowledging, recognizing, and appointing another slate of electors.
	Not electors who say we were the duly appointed ones under the election.
	The ones who are saying we are the ones who ought to be appointed because we believe there was fraud in the process that led to those electors being appointed.
	That was the Pence card.
	And there's a constitutional basis for it.
	Any of our above-average crowded locals would have already known that.
	Hold on.
	Oh, yeah.
	That was my elbows.
	That's my back.
	Okay, co-conspirator three.
	Oh, an attorney whose unfounded claims of election fraud the defendant privately acknowledged to others sounded crazy.
	Nonetheless, the defendant embraced and publicly amplified an attorney's disinformation.
	Co-conspirator four, a Justice Department official who worked on civil matters and who with the defendant attempted to use the Justice Department to open sham election crime investigations and influence state legislatures with knowingly false claims of election fraud.
	Conspirator 5, an attorney who assisted in devising and attempting to implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential election.
	Do you see how they frame this?
	You propose your alternate slate of electors because you say the process was fraudulent tainted, and we believe these should be appointed as the actual slate of electors.
	Not fraudulent, because it's transparent, and it's something that there's a legal argument Pence could have done, the Pence card.
	Co-conspirator 6, a political consultant who helped implement the plan, yada yada yada.
	Okay.
	Manner and means.
	The defendant's conspiracy to impair, obstruct, and defeat the federal government function through dishonesty, fraud, and deceit included the following manner and means.
	Defendant and co-conspirators used knowingly false claims of election fraud to get state legislators and election officials to subvert the legitimate election results and change electoral votes.
	for the defendant's opponent, Joseph R. Biden, to elect her votes for the defendant.
	That is, on the pretext of baseless fraud claims, the defendant pushed officials in certain states to ignore the popular vote, disenfranchised millions of voters, dismissed legitimate electors, and ultimately caused the ascertainment of and voting by illegitimate electors in favor of the defendant.
	Propose an alternate slate of electors to come in and challenge.
	The slate of electors that they believe and would argue openly, transparently, were the fruits of a fortified election.
	The defendant and co-conspirators organized fraudulent slates, not alternate, by the way, because they were called alternate electors or alternate slate of electors for a little while.
	Now it's fraudulent.
	Slates of electors in seven targeted states attempting to mimic the procedures that the legitimate electors were supposed to follow under the Constitution and other federal laws and statutes.
	Where this could have been fraud is if they signed papers and purported to be the original slate of electors who were appointed.
	That's not what the process was.
	That's not what the legal argument was.
	But that's how it's being portrayed here.
	Oh, look at that.
	You got your ham sandwich indicted by a grand jury in D.C. of Trump's peers, who are 95%, statistically speaking, Hillary Clinton lovers, followers.
	This included causing the fraudulent electors to meet on the day appointed by federal law on which legitimate electors were to gather and cast fraudulent votes for the legitimate electors.
	Some fraudulent electors were tricked into participating based on the understanding that their votes would be used only if the defendant succeeded in outcome-determinative lawsuits within their state, which the defendant never did.
	The defendant ended up standing, moot, latches, get rid of it.
	How many lawsuits went to a hearing on the merits?
	None?
	I think it's none.
	I might be wrong.
	Pretty sure it's none.
	We've seen that, you know, an audit by recounting the votes.
	Oh yeah, that's good.
	Did they do signature matches?
	I might be wrong, but I don't think they did signature matches.
	In fact, come here.
	Go on, boy.
	Get up here.
	In fact, I'm pretty sure that when they attempted to show in the 2022 Arizona elections, When they attempted to show the signature matches not quite signature matching, they then attempted to say that Carrie Lake broke the law by comparing signatures and showing that they never actually matched.
	Do you want to say hi?
	Let me kiss your face.
	Okay, get out of here.
	Oh!
	Where was I?
	Okay, then...
	This included causing fraudulent electives to meet on the day, yadda yadda yadda.
	And signed certificates falsely representing that they were legitimate electors.
	The defendant and co-conspirators then caused these fraudulent electors to transmit their false certificates to the vice president and other government officials to be counted at the certification on January 6th.
	Defendants and co-conspirators attempted to use the power and authority of the Justice Department.
	To conduct sham election crime investigations and send a letter to the targeted states that falsely claimed that the Justice Department had identified significant concerns that may have impacted the election outcome.
	That sought to advance the defendant's fraudulent elector plan by using the Justice Department's authority to falsely present the fraud...
	Just listen to these qualifiers.
	False.
	Fraud.
	Don't play that as a drinking game.
	Fraudulent electors as valid alternative.
	Do you understand they're contradicting themselves in terms right now?
	They were the fraudulent electors, but they were presenting themselves as the valid alternative to the legitimate electors?
	So they come up there and they say, we are the valid alternative to the electors that have been appointed.
	They're not fraudulently presenting anything.
	They are openly saying, we are the valid alternative to those electors who we argue We're the result of a fortified election.
	There's no fraud here, even on the face of the allegations of this bullcrap indictment.
	It's preposterous.
	Set aside the First Amendment issues.
	Set aside the solicitor-client privileges, the violation of which this entire indictment is based.
	Listen to this.
	I need to go back to the beginning of the sentence.
	That sought to advance the defendant's fraudulent electors.
	They're fraudulent, yet they come up there and openly say we are the alternatives to them.
	That sought to advance the defendant's fraudulent elector plan by using the Justice Department's authority to falsely present the fraudulent electors as a valid alternative to the legitimate electors.
	And that urged on behalf of the Justice Department, the targeted states and legislators to convene to create the opportunity to choose the fraudulent electors over the legitimate electors.
	They were not saying they were the original legitimate electors.
	They were saying we are the alternate.
	We should be recognized because the original, the ones right there, who have the paper in their hands, are the results of fortified elections.
	I hope this makes sense to everybody.
	Unless I'm misunderstanding something, which is possible.
	The defendant of the co-conspirators attempted to enlist the vice president to use his ceremonial role at the January 6th.
	They're saying ceremonial role as if to suggest the vice president doesn't have the actual constitutional authority or legal authority to recognize the alternate slate of electors.
	Go to vivabarneslaw.locals.com to listen to Robert Barnes on this.
	I won't even attempt to missummarize Barnes' magnificent assessment of this.
	His ceremonial role at the January 6th certification proceedings to fraudulently alter the election results.
	First, using knowingly false claims of elector fraud, the defendant and co-conspirators attempted to convince the vice president to use the defendant's fraudulent electors, reject legitimate electoral votes, or send legitimate electoral votes to state legislatures.
	For review, rather than counting them.
	When that failed on the morning of January 6th, the defendant and co-conspirators repeated knowingly false claims.
	This isn't about, you know, making, he's allowed to say it.
	We're not prosecuting for his First Amendment rights.
	Except we are.
	Repeated knowingly false claims of election fraud to gather support, to gather supporters, falsely told them that the Vice President had the authority to and might alter the election results.
	By recognizing the ultimate slate of electors who would come and present themselves as such, no fraud, no deceit, quite open and transparent, and directed them to the Capitol to obstruct the certification procedure.
	Did Trump send anyone to Capitol to obstruct anything?
	Wait, I'm going to show you the highlight where they literally turned peace into violence.
	literate and directed into the capital to obstruct the certification proceedings and exert pressure on the vice president to take the fraudulent actions he previously refused.
	After it became public on the afternoon of January 6th, the vice president would not fraudulently alter the election results, a large and angry crowd, including many individuals whom the defendant had deceived into believing the vice president could and might change the election results, violently attacked.
	As violence ensued?
	You mean like...
	Shooting Ashley Babbitt point-blank in the neck?
	Getting away with it?
	You mean, like, beating Roseanne Boylan to death, apparently?
	Trampled or beaten?
	You mean that violence?
	Oh, no, no, I'm sorry.
	You mean, like, pepper-spraying protesters?
	No, no, you mean, like, the Ray Epps busting down?
	No, you don't mean that violence.
	The other violence, including many individuals who had deceived, violently attacked the Capitol and halted the proceedings.
	As violence ensued, the defendant and co-conspirators exploited the disruption by redoubling efforts to levy false claims.
	But this is not about attacking First Amendment rights people and convinced members of Congress to further delay the certification based on those claims.
	That's all I can stomach, actually.
	I'm gonna just show the highlight.
	I'm gonna pull out a few of the highlights afterwards.
	Hold on.
	That's it.
	You can go through it.
	You know what the allegations are.
	I just want to pull out my screen grabs of the highlights, which I think, as far as I'm concerned, are the only things worth retaining from this steaming pile of legalese diarrhea.
	Oh, I'm starting to shreds here, people.
	Is it here?
	Yeah, this is it.
	Okay.
	This is in response to Mehdi Hassan's tweet.
	Let's start at the base.
	Mehdi Hassan, I urge all of you to read Jack Smith's indictment.
	It is a meticulous, rigorous, and accessible book.
	Only 45 pages long and damning, in my view, damning.
	And then you can go read it.
	I love seeing within the psychotic echo chamber.
	Oh, I can't see it here.
	How do I see the comments?
	All right, I'm going to go back.
	So, if I may read my assessment of Mehdi Hassan and his crowd, the only people dumb enough, ignorant enough, and or dishonest enough to be convinced by that trash and diabet are Mehdi Hassan and his followers.
	It's pure partisan spin that does nothing less than criminalize the Constitution and literally, and I mean literally, not Rachel Maddow literally, literally, literally, argue that peace is war.
	Democrats have turned America into a banana republic.
	They and they alone have desecrated the Constitution and their henchmen are all too happy to play along, not realizing that the monster they have to do is not.
	Okay.
	First screen grab.
	What part are we in here?
	Can we read this?
	We can.
	Okay.
	The defendant's attempts to enlist the vice president to fraudulently alter election results at the January 6th proceedings.
	On December...
	Why did I highlight this?
	January 6th congressional certification...
	No?
	Hold on.
	There we go.
	As the January 6th congressional certification proceedings approached and other efforts to impair, obstruct, and defeat the federal government function failed, the defendant sought to enlist the vice president to use his ceremonial role at the certification to fraudulently alter On December 19th, after cultivating widespread anger and resentment with his knowingly false claims of election fraud...
	Defendant urged his supporters to travel to Washington, yada, yada, yada.
	On December 23rd, the defendant retweeted a memo titled, quote, Operation Pence Card, which falsely asserted that Vice President could, among other things, unilaterally disqualify legitimate electors from six targeted states.
	I'm going to pull up the article when JFK attempted something very similar in Hawaii.
	There's a constitutional legal argument for presenting an alternate slate of electors if you genuinely, sincerely, and potentially accurately believe that the election might have been fortified.
	And then they outline the plan.
	It's a legal theory, by the way.
	Just so everybody understands this, by the way.
	This is a legal theory.
	Nothing less...
	I don't say nothing anymore.
	It's a legal theory.
	That we can present an alternate slate of electors if we believe the election was tainted.
	Let me just make sure I'm getting the right order here.
	All right, then we got here.
	Look at this.
	This is classic.
	The same day, defendants encouraged the force to travel to Washington on January 6th and set the false expectation that the vice president might have the authority to use the ceremony rule to yada yada yada.
	Following tweets, at 11.06 a.m., the vice president has the power to reject fraudulently chosen electors.
	That was within 40 minutes of the defendant's earlier reminder, see you in D.C. There's a legal theory, and a justifiable, tenable one, that this is in fact a legitimate, plausible, legal remedy.
	And even if it's not, a court dismisses the action.
	You don't get indicted on having proposed the action.
	Unless, of course, you're Jack Smith indicting Donald Trump with a jury of his peers in D.C. The legal theory is the Pence card.
	I invite everybody to go to vivavarneslaw.locals.com to hear Robert Barnes' analysis explanation of it because it's fantastic.
	Look at this.
	Let's go here.
	Look at this.
	Paragraph 104.
	Next, beginning at 1156, the defendant made multiple knownly false statements integral to his criminal plans to defeat the federal government functions.
	This is not about First Amendment, guys.
	But it's about First Amendment.
	Obstruct certification, interfere, yadda yadda.
	Defendant repeated false claims of election fraud.
	Gave false hope.
	That the vice president might change the election outcome and directed the crowd in front of him to go to the Capitol as a means to obstruct the certification and pressure the vice president to fraudulently obstruct.
	Can you see the language being used here?
	Trump never sent anybody to D.C., to the Capitol.
	To obstruct the certification.
	It was a protest, a constitutional right, and he told them to go peacefully fight for their country.
	But they call it this.
	They call it fraudulent obstruction.
	Obstruct the certification process.
	Defendant falsely claimed that based on fraud, the vice president could alter the outcome of the election results, stating, I hope Mike is going to do the right thing.
	I hope so.
	Because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election.
	All he has to do, all this is, this is from the number one or certainly one of the top constitutional lawyers in our country.
	He has the absolute right to do it.
	We're supposed to protect our country, support our country, support our constitution to protect our constitution.
	States want to re-vote.
	The states got defrauded.
	They were given false information.
	They voted on it.
	Oh, the false information like the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop?
	Is that fraud?
	Or is that fortification?
	Above all else, is it false?
	States want to revote.
	The states got defrauded.
	They were given false information.
	The Hunter Biden laptop bears the hallmarks of Russian disinformation.
	Is that false information?
	It is.
	Is this statement false?
	It's not.
	They voted on it.
	Now they want to recertify.
	They want it back.
	All the vice president has to do is send it back to the states to recertify and we become...
	We become president, and you are the happiest people.
	What's the other part here that I have?
	This is...
	Peace is war, people.
	Paragraph 114.
	Defended repeatedly refused to approve a message directing rioters to leave the Capitol.
	That's a lie.
	That is a God-forsaken lie.
	I think he said, go home.
	And I think there's even a video of the QAnon shaman, Jacob Angeli.
	I think it's him saying, Go home.
	We've been told to leave.
	The defendant repeatedly refused to approve a message directing rioters to leave the Capitol, as urged by his most senior advisors, including the White House Counsel.
	Deputy White House Counsel, yadda yadda yadda.
	Instead, the defendant issued two tweets that did not ask rioters to leave the Capitol, but instead falsely suggested that the crowd at the Capitol was being peaceful.
	Can you believe this?
	This is the indictment.
	Oh, but a jury of his peers?
	Said okay, so it's gotta be good.
	The power lies in the accusation, and apparently the conviction lies in the indictment.
	He issued tweets that did not ask rioters to leave the Capitol.
	I'm pretty sure he put out a video.
	Unless I'm mistaken.
	I'm gonna double-check that.
	But instead, falsely suggested that the crowd at the Capitol is being peaceful.
	Please support our Capitol and law enforcement.
	They are truly on our side.
	Stay peaceful.
	Where in there does it say that...
	He suggested they were being peaceful.
	He was telling them to be peaceful.
	I can't get over the amount of shit that this is.
	At 3.13, I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful.
	No violence.
	Remember, we are the party of law and order.
	Respect the law and are great men and women in blue.
	Thank you.
	This was described as being tweets that falsely suggested the crowd was being peaceful.
	No, these are tweets telling the crowd to be peaceful.
	Hold on a second.
	What we must do, actually, is go to Twitter.
	I can't do this.
	Hold on.
	Okay, I'm going to close this down.
	Oh, my God.
	I mean, it's actually stunning and shocking and repulsive.
	Trump.
	I'm going to go to Trump's Twitter feed, Twitter handle.
	How do I do this if I go like this?
	Donald Trump.
	Not Donald Trump, Jr.
	I'll figure this out sooner than later, people.
	I'm not good with computers.
	Donald Trump, right here.
	I think this was the third tweet?
	I'm pretty sure this was the third tweet that he had before his social media was taken down, conveniently.
	I'm sure that wasn't an accident.
	Hold on, let me bring this up here.
	Right here.
	It's absolutely atrocious.
	Here.
	Let's watch this together.
	Date, January 7th.
	I would like to begin by addressing the heinous attack on the United States Capitol.
	Like all Americans, I am outraged by the violence, lawlessness, and mayhem.
	I immediately deployed the National Guard and federal law enforcement to secure the building And expel the intruders.
	America is and must always be a nation of law and order.
	The demonstrators who infiltrated the Capitol have defiled the seat of American democracy.
	To those who engaged in the acts of violence and destruction, you do not represent our country.
	And to those who broke the law, you will pay.
	To the Justin Harts out there who say, how could Trump have said something so stupid?
	This was said the day after the events.
	I don't think people would say that anymore.
	To those who broke the law and smashed windows and directed violence, I'd say you sound like FBI.
	You sound like agitators, agents provocateurs.
	I'd like to know who you are.
	This didn't age well only because it became abundantly clear the degree to which agents provocateurs, informants, agitators of the FBI were in the crowd.
	We now know it.
	It didn't age well.
	This was the day after.
	We have just been through an intense election and emotions are high.
	But now tempers must be cooled and calm restored.
	We must get on with the business of America.
	My campaign vigorously pursued every legal avenue to contest the election results.
	My only goal was to ensure the integrity of the vote.
	I continue to strongly believe that we must reform our election laws to verify the identity and eligibility of all voters and to ensure faith and confidence in all future elections.
	Now Congress has certified the results.
	A new administration will be inaugurated on January 20th.
	My focus now turns to ensuring a smooth, orderly and seamless transition of power.
	This moment calls for healing and reconciliation.
	2020 has been a challenging time for our people.
	A menacing pandemic has upended the lives of our citizens, isolated millions in their homes, damaged our economy.
	I'm not saying people made that happen so they could weaponize it to make sure Trump didn't get reelected, but I believe it.
	Defeating this pandemic and rebuilding the greatest economy on earth will require all of us working together.
	It will require a renewed emphasis on the civic values of patriotism, faith, charity, community, and family.
	We must revitalize the sacred bonds of love and loyalty that bind us together as one national family.
	To the citizens of our country, serving as your president has been the honor of my lifetime.
	And to all of my wonderful supporters, I know you are disappointed, but I also want you to know that our incredible journey is only just beginning.
	Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America.
	Hope he's right about it just beginning.
	That goes to show you, by the way, you can't apologize to people who are insincere.
	Apologizing to bad faith actors is merely extending an olive branch with which they will flog you.
	Oh my goodness.
	Okay, I think what we're going to do now is take the party over to Rumble.
	Not Rumble.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com But hold on.
	I have this in the backdrop for some reason.
	Not now.
	Oh, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
	That's the video to play us out, which we're going to do.
	What do I do right now, by the way, because we've got a lot of tips, questions, and et cetera to go over in our Locals exclusive.
	Come to Locals.
	Come to Locals.
	Boomshakalaka right here.
	Oh, I'm starting to sweat so much.
	That's the video that I'm going to use to play, so that's not what I wanted to show you right now.
	I had one more video, and I think we're done after that.
	Donald Trump?
	Okay, no, that's what I just played.
	The only people dumb enough to believe that.
	We already did this the most video.
	Okay, so we're done.
	Let me see if I didn't miss anything in the Rumble chat before we do this.
	We're going to go over to Logos.
	VivaBarnesLaw.Logos.com.
	My wife has been out for dinner with five kids, two of whom are not ours.
	Things go well today.
	We're not going to have one.
	They're on the way back.
	So we're going to have a party on Locals afterwards.
	We're going to talk some stuff, and I'm going to share the anecdote of what I did to the wedding ring, the engagement ring that I hid in a drawer.
	Not Freudian, just crazy.
	But let me see here if I'm going to go to the chat in Rumble.
	And just take a few questions here.
	The vid was incredible.
	That fish had almost her entire...
	Okay, we're going to get there in a second.
	That was from Dana36grams, or 36G.
	Honor234 says, never saw this.
	Yeah, you never saw it.
	I'm presuming you're talking about the Donald Trump video, because they deplatformed him.
	When was it?
	The day of?
	He made a speech the day of, which called for peace.
	That's what I thought we were going to actually pull up.
	There's a reason why they deplatformed it.
	It wasn't for the calls for violence.
	It was for the calls for peace.
	My good God, they knew exactly what they were doing.
	DJMacD10 says, glad to catch you live this time, Viva.
	Thank you for being here.
	That's on Rumble.
	A1Pearson said, A1Pure1Song says, if they wanted to prove Trump wrong, they would have audited the election.
	However, the government isn't that efficient, and people would catch on when they are still trying to take years to audit.
	That's what I wanted to do to end this.
	Hold.
	Right on, right now.
	Time.
	Fortified elections.
	We are repeating this one more time.
	The secret history of the shadow campaign that saved the 2020 election.
	I'm going to give this to everybody in our Rumble community, and I presume you've read this, and if you have not read this yet, and this comes as News to you?
	I'm going to insult you and entice you to go read it.
	Shame on you if you don't know what this article is.
	Now, I'm going to go to my go-to in this article because there's only one part of this article that needs to be read.
	It's the part that uses the word cabal.
	If you have not read this article before, I judge you.
	I'm joking, but you have the link now.
	Read it.
	Share it.
	When they use the word fraud, they mean the word fortified.
	The whole article here is called the secret history of the shadow campaign behind the scenes that saved the 2020 election, that saved it by giving it to Biden.
	Who was it?
	By the way, use the word cabal, expect to get accused of anti-Semitism, unless you're Time magazine.
	That's why the participants of this secret shadow regime Want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream, almost like a conspiracy theory.
	A well-funded cabal of powerful people ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, propaganda, change the rules and laws, bullshit, steer media coverage and control the flow of information, censorship.
	They were not rigging the election.
	Yes, they were.
	They were fortifying it, fraudulent.
	And they believe the public needs to understand the system's fragility in order to ensure that democracy in America endures, even if it means that a powerful group of cabal people ranging across industries will work together to propagandize, change the laws, and censor.
	To ensure that the person they want to get elected gets elected.
	You have to be naive, dumb, or dishonest to not understand what happened in 2020.
	And by the way, not to get too blackpilled, they let people die, they wanted people to die, and I dare say they actually facilitated people's death so they could weaponize it and use it against Donald Trump.
	To get him ousted from office.
	They literally killed people so that they could get Donald Trump ousted from office and Joe Biden elected.
	And not killed in the proactive sense of injecting anything into their arms.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	Maybe.
	They let people die, and then they weaponized their deaths when they did die.
	So that they could then say, oh my goodness, the economy's terrible.
	Donald Trump's responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths.
	My God, what a convenient accident.
	Evil.
	I'm not a religious man, although, funny story, we get to Robbie's Marina the other day.
	Somebody gives us a, somebody, oh, I want to know what to hold on.
	Give him a shout out that he might, that he'd probably be happy with it.
	Oh, I don't think I'm gonna be able to find it in time.
	Let me see if I can.
	We meet a guy and he gives us a book.
	And there it is.
	Okay, let me just see if I can zoom in on this.
	Higher Calling Wildlife.
	Dude, we met.
	We met at Robbie's Marina.
	Higher Calling Wildlife.
	They give underprivileged, impoverished children access to experienced nature.
	He gave me a cross.
	It's ironic because I'm Jewish.
	He gave me a cross.
	Did I take a picture of it?
	I think I did.
	Higher Calling.
	Higher Calling Wild Bite.
	Look it up.
	Check it out.
	It's beautiful.
	I forget why I got on that tangent.
	Either way.
	Sorry, I may have just black-pilled myself for a second there.
	All right, we're going to end this with a white pill.
	That white pill involves a giant tarpon engulfing my daughter's arm up to the elbow by accident, but my goodness, glorious.
	Come on over to Locals.
	We're going to continue this party and talk about looking out the window because I see people walking around.
	We're going to go over to Locals, take some tips, carry on the party, and have some fun.
	Come on over right now.
	Here we go.
	Boom.
	Done.
	Let's play this video out.
	Let's play this stream out with the best video you're going to see all year.
	Most amazing video you will see.
	We're going to maximize this.
	There will be no commentary.
	And I will just...
	Oh, shoot.
	What did I just do?
	Sorry, I lost my screen.
	Okay, good.
	It's right there.
	There will be no commentary.
	We're going to play this, and then we're going to go over to Locals and have the after party there.
	Thank you all for being here.
	Tomorrow I'm going to be on the road back home, so I should be in the studio with the good mic later tomorrow.
	Friday.
	Oh!
	Something good might be happening Friday.
	Stay tuned.
	Okay, regardless, we're ending with this.
	Slow motion.
	And for everybody who doesn't know, this is Robbie's Marina.
	You pay money for a bucket of dead fish that you hand-feed to tarpon.
	If you go all the way with the tarpon, they can get your hand.
	Look at that.
	Oh, yeah.
	They can get your whole hand, depending on how vigorously you hold on to the minnow.
	Once you release the minnow, The tarpon eat it and move on.
	They're not interested in your disgusting, bony, or muscular hand.
	They want the fish.
	Watch this.
	See you on vivabarneslaw.locals.com in 30 seconds.
	I'm going to take myself out of the screen so you can enjoy this without my punim.
	Enjoy.
	Peace.
	Okay.
	Ready when you are.
	Got to get lower.
	Get lower.
	Lie on your stomach and get it closer to the water.
	It's coming.
	Oh my gosh, that's big.
	What?
	Yeah, lower down and further up from the dock.
	There you go.
	There you go.
	Don't worry, the shark's not going to jump out.
	I'm gonna get the light.
	Maybe it will.
	No, but you send hills and look.
	You okay?
	I think I got that on camera.
	Are you hurt?
	No.
	That is a money shot.
	Holy cow.
	Let me see.
	Are you bleeding?
	Yeah.
	Where?
	Holy...
	I got it in slow motion.
	You want to see it?
	Yeah, I want to see it.
	Just before we end this, it was a nurse shark.
	Look at...
	The shark was a nurse shark.
	They have no teeth.
	Thank you all for being here.
	And now we shall end on Rumble and come on over to locals.
	How do I do this?
	I've got to go to live streaming.
	And then I've got to end it.
	End live streaming.
	See you all on locals in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. Peace out.
	Booyakasha.
	Oh my goodness, people.
	All right.
	Are we on?
	We're on?
	Poor kid.
	Dude, there's no poor kid.
	That memory will last a lifetime.
	Uh...
	All right.
	We are now live exclusively on Viva.
	All right.

▲