All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 3, 2023 - Viva & Barnes
01:30:12
Bias Judge? Trudeau Censorship! The Sin of Schadenfreude AND MORE! Viva Frei Live!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yeah, I was one second late.
Deal with it.
What did you make of the fact that Rumble is at the take down its entire site from the Republic of France?
Because France says RT is state-funded media, and if you don't block it, Rumble, we're going to block you.
Take it down or we'll block you.
Can you imagine this?
This is a purportedly free Western society.
And set aside however you feel about RT.
I'll operate on the basis it's state-funded and it could be qualified as propaganda.
Let's operate on that basis.
It's state-funded propaganda.
What do you think the BBC is?
What do you think the NPR is?
What do you think the CBC is?
What do you think CNN is?
MSNBC?
I mean, these things are directly or indirectly state-funded propaganda.
And because we're in a war, that they then think they...
You can go censor the information so that you don't even have access to news from a certain part of the world, which, if it's state-funded propaganda, above and beyond maybe defending its own state funding, it might be critical of other regimes, other governments.
It's so patently obvious what this is.
It's an attempt to control the narrative along the lines of Orwell's 1984.
Just delete certain stuff, block certain stuff, and give the megaphone the monopoly of state-funded propaganda.
To the state-funded propaganda that they like, that they agree with.
It's preposterous.
Tell it.
The only question is going to be, is Britain the birthplace of freedom, freedom of speech, individual rights, is it going to follow suit and try to find a way to suppress, to deliberately target Rumble?
Because Rumble has taken the position that it will not demonetize one of its creators based on Anonymous.
We'll see what England does.
I can't believe the world is getting to this point, however.
Oh, we've gotten there, Viva.
And I like this guy.
I should subscribe to his channel on Rumble.
Viva Frye on Rumble.
I do like him better with the facial hair, but that will grow back.
That'll grow back.
Good afternoon, everybody.
Short notice stream.
Because I wasn't sure if I was going to get back from Miami in time, and I'll tell you why in a second.
Let me just tell you what you're looking at right there.
I did a piece for Going Underground, and I don't want to mess up anybody's name.
I know I'm going to.
Going Underground, based out of the United Arab Emirates, if I'm not mistaken, with Afshin Ratanzi.
I did this last week.
While I was in California for the RNC gong show of a debate and the piece just came out Monday and that's one of the highlights.
Hold on, what's going on here?
I want to close this down.
Stop sharing.
Where did the window go?
Whatever, I'll stop screen.
So that's one clip that I want to share.
I'm going to give everybody the clip here so you can go retweet it, share it, go give it a like or whatever it is that you do and show some love to Gwen Underground because it's an amazing thing.
That we need to rely on international media to give us the coverage that local media is supposed to give you of local government.
But when you have entered a full realm of fascism in the literal sense...
Social media, working with government, working with big corporations to control narratives and promote the consensus of a narrative.
That is fascism.
You got YouTube talking about working with the WHO, about what is authoritative information to be promoted and alternative information to be suppressed.
The WHO?
Do I need to list everything the WHO got wrong in the context of the pandemic?
Where is the local stream?
Asks.
Steve Britton.
Well, hold on one second.
I can tell you where the local stream is.
Here, I see the local stream.
Let me just see something.
I'm going to blame...
Who do I blame for this?
The dog?
I'll blame the dog.
Because I got back.
That's it.
I'm going to blame the dog.
I got back from Miami.
I had to squeeze one dog out.
That would be Pudge.
And then I had to walk the other dog who doesn't walk because he is an annoying sack of fur.
Add, save, and now we should be live on YouTube Rumble and Locals.
And Locals, sorry about that.
We'll catch up in the after party.
Great timing, Viva Fry.
I'm listening to Alex Jones talk about his penis and sex life.
All right, that's Sex Life, live on Infowars, that's Gypsy Muse.
Okay, so now we're live on YouTube.
For those of you who are new to the channel, we start on all three platforms, YouTube, Rumble, and Locals.
Because YouTube is a censorship, urine-soaked heckhole, pee-pee-soaked heckhole, we end on YouTube 15 to 30 minutes into the stream, go to Rumble and Locals exclusively.
I love Rumble, but because we have a wonderful community at vivabarneslaw.locals.com and I like to provide some exclusive content to them, I end on Rumble and we have a little after-party Q&A on Rumble.
So that's the plan today.
That's the plan pretty much every day.
After I'm done going live from 3 to 4.30, give or take, I'm going live with Roger Stone at 5 o 'clock and we're going to talk about...
Canadian censorship, although I'm going to talk about it now here and go into a little bit more detail here than we might go into on Roger Stone, the Stone Zone.
And we're going to talk about Nazis in Parliament, I guess, because even if Roger doesn't want to talk about that, we're talking about the Nazi that was in the Parliament of Canada and the government that doesn't want to politicize the fact that they gave two standing ovations to a Nazi while having called...
Oh, millions of Canadians, far-right extremists, Nazis, etc., etc., because of one dipshit with a swastika flag at the Ottawa protest.
Origins unknown, intent unknown, because he could have been an agent provocateur agent, or he could have just been somebody who thought it was going to be funny to express the fact that he thought the regime of Justin Trudeau was very similar to a Hitlerian regime.
As I should add, Forbes itself has recognized.
Everybody knows that Forbes, in one of their articles talking about the euthanasia policies in Canada, said it echoes Nazi-era memories because of the propensity to euthanize the handicapped, the mentally ill, minors who can't consent so long as you have the consent of the parents.
The homeless people support euthanizing the homeless in Canada.
It's a very progressive, tolerant, polite society.
Good afternoon.
Okay, so here, take a look at the backdrop.
I forget who got me this clock.
It won't fall off the wall now.
I have screwed it into the wall, duct taped it to the wall.
It probably will fall off, but it fell off one time too many, but it still works, and it's fantastic.
We put the clock in the back so that nobody can splice together an edit or falsify dates and times.
All right, before we get into the show.
You may have noticed a rather impromptu live stream with a title that made no sense at about 11 o 'clock this morning.
I went down to the local studio because they're preparing a product that they're going to launch sooner than later, and I can't give any more information than this.
And they wanted me to test it, and we went live to see what would happen, and I'm excited.
So, that's it.
I drove down, had lunch with the team, and then drove back while listening to the news, to the world, and we're going to talk about it.
Oh, yes, you know, standard disclaimers.
Medical advice, illegal advice, election fornification, yada, yada, yada.
Superchats, YouTube takes 30% of that.
Rumble Rants, they take 20% ordinarily, but they don't take any of it now for the rest of the year.
If you want to support the channel, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
Seven bucks a month, 70 bucks a year if you're so inclined.
Some people actually give more, others don't give anything, and you get tons of free content at vivabarneslaw.locals.com if you are merely a member, an above-average member of the community.
All right, three big stories today.
Oh, jeez.
The dog, you know, the dog has figured out how to open the door.
The three big stories today.
We're going to start with one that I want to get the message out there.
Schadenfreude.
I think it's a sin.
I don't think it's a biblical sin, although I'm sure one of the seven deadly sins has to correlate to Schadenfreude.
And if you don't know what Schadenfreude is, you should watch the movie Igor.
Hold on, let me just get up the exact...
Schadenfreude.
Schadenfreude, ja?
Not Scheisenfreude.
That's a very, very much different thing.
Don't Google that.
You'll get something very bad.
Schadenfreude.
Pleasure derived by someone from another person's misfortune.
It is in German words.
The Germans have a word for everything.
The news yesterday, that big news, yesterday or the day before, what people are calling a lefty activist journalist, a guy named Josh Kruger, 39 years old, got shot.
Seven times in his home in a place called Grays Point, Philadelphia.
And died.
This is a man whose...
The history of his Twitter feed necessarily facilitates people appealing to the concept of Schadenfreude.
In his Twitter feed, he was judgmental.
You know, seemingly taking pleasure in the misfortune of others himself.
You can see the tweets if you go look for them.
I don't need to bring them up because it's not a question of at all saying, you know, haha, karma.
And that's what bothers me about what a lot of people have been saying these days.
But a proponent of defund the police, a proponent of, you know, call social workers when there's crime, don't stigmatize crime, you know, decriminalize criminals.
Except when they're, you know, Trump.
Had a tweet where he said, you know, it is okay to rejoice in the misery of others to some extent.
Like, had some wild biblical interpretation appealing to Psalms.
And now that misfortune has befallen this person of the highest order, people are like, haha, well, you said you could promote this here, so we're going to do it now.
And that's the wrong thing.
That is staring into the abyss and the abyss staring back.
That is becoming the monster.
You are battling.
When the people who are critical of the anti-vaxxers, I forget who the cooking lady was, you know, saying that the anti-vaxxed or the unvaccinated should die.
They should be denied hospital rooms.
They should be demonized, vilified, taxed, excommunicated, et cetera, et cetera.
And then these people have misfortune in their lives and everyone's like, you know, LOLs, karma's a bitch type thing.
It's the wrong perspective.
You know, there is the old expression, sometimes someone's sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others.
You can have policy decisions about supporting soft on crime, revolving door prisons, you know, bail reform, defund the police, and look what happens.
The story is that this guy got shot seven times in his own home.
I'll pull up an article.
The other thing about, you know, not reveling in the misery of others is that there might be more to this story than it might not be.
What people might say is the random crime, the rampant crime.
It might be a lover's spat.
It might be something a little different.
There's an article.
Where was it coming out of it?
I feel like it was in The Intercept, but I know that I put it here.
I know I put it in the archive here.
The Inquirer, not The Intercept.
So crime and justice.
Local journalist Josh Kruger fatally shot Point Breeze inside his Point Breeze home.
Kruger39 previously worked for the city and wrote about business issues affecting some of Philly's most vulnerable residents for outlets, including the Inquirer.
Philadelphia journalist shot and killed inside his home in Point Breeze.
After a person with a gun entered his home and started shooting.
1.30 a.m.
They heard gunshots.
He makes his way out into the streets.
Detectives believe someone entered Kruger's home and then shot him at the base of his stairs.
The shooter then fled, he said, and Kruger ran outside seeking help from neighbors.
No arrests have been made.
The motive remains unclear.
Some people are going to say, oh, it's some of that non-existing violence that the left is saying.
It's some of that calling a social worker.
That type of violence.
It might be something totally different and by the looks and sounds of it, it might very well be.
Either the doors open or the offender knew how to get in.
We don't yet know.
About two weeks ago, Kruger wrote on Facebook that someone came into his house searching for their boyfriend.
Quote, a man I've never met once in my entire life.
End quote.
The person called themselves, quote, Lady Diablo, the she-devil of the streets.
End quote.
And threatened him.
And that's it.
So we're going to see...
What the more to that story might very well be, you know, my understanding is that Kruger had been a sort of a Second Amendment critic.
Some people are going to say...
Well, I bet he wished he had a firearm at that point in time.
And then depending on how this story turns, for those who want to politicize tragedy, some might say, well, if the person who shot him didn't have a gun, then it wouldn't have happened in the first place.
The whole point is politicizing tragedy, especially when details are unknown.
It's tricky.
It's not always fair, but reveling in the misery of others, even if they...
Their demise was the result of the policy that they supported.
In as much as people criticized the tweets of Josh Kruger and others, you know, it's okay to rejoice in the destruction of people who cause injustice.
In as much as it was, you know, blameworthy and immoral to do that, people should not do it now.
And I guess with that said also, I was driving through Miami today and going through some neighborhoods underpasses that You know, they look sketchy offhand.
You have homeless people sleeping under the overpasses.
And I say, like, okay, these areas, they look sketch.
And I get to a place where there's some people on the corner of the street.
And, you know, okay, it's the middle of the day, people outside.
And I'm like, oh, okay, well, you know, situational awareness, yada, yada, yada.
And then I notice a cop actually just walking the street, talking with neighborhood members.
I see this.
It's in Miami.
It's like this is this is a what it's supposed to be is you may have areas that are sketchy and you have a police presence there.
A. B. A police presence that interacts with the community so that there is at least some level of trust and interaction between community members and law enforcement.
I don't know what the C was going to be, but when it doesn't work and when it breaks down and when police are scared of the citizens and the citizens are scared of the police.
And nobody trusts anybody.
And police are afraid to do their jobs because they're going to get arrested, prosecuted, sent to jail if something goes sour.
When they're weaponized, politicized, and demonized, you have a breakdown of the system.
Florida is by no means perfect, but gosh darn, I mean, that's the way a system should work.
And at first I suspected there might have been more to this story, the Josh Kruger shooting, because when I read the address and it said 2300 Watkins Street, So I go to Google to see what 2300 Watkins Street looks like.
And this is what the 2300 Watkins Street looks like.
Zooming in, making sure I'm in the right spot.
This boarded up building here, right there at the corner, looks like the 2300 of the Watkins, because the next house over is 2302.
And I was thinking, there must be more to the story.
Why would the individual, why would Kruger have been in front of 2300 Watkins, a boarded up building, at 1.30 in the morning?
Someone astutely pointed out that when they...
Identify crimes or when they describe crimes on the internet, they don't give the exact address, so they describe it by the block.
So it was on this block.
We don't know what the address was, but it certainly was not the address of the boarded up building that was the first thing I saw.
And like I say, this is, you know, was in Milwaukee, was talking with a cab driver.
And he said, there's parts of town you just don't go through.
There's parts of town that cops don't go through.
And I talked to this cab driver and it was actually kind of eye-opening for me because I had never thought of it this way.
He said there are parts of town that when there are shootings, the cops don't rush to get there.
The cops don't want to show up and have an active shooter situation in these areas.
They actually wait before getting there so the shooter can go away so that they can have less chance of having a confrontation with a shooter, with the general community.
So they actually wait.
This is what the taxi driver told me.
So whether or not he's right or wrong, this was his experience.
This was his knowledge.
And it kind of makes sense.
See, the cops are not even rushing to the scenes when there's a shooter because they don't want to have a situation where they confront the shooter.
He says, you know, these cops have families.
They want to go home at night.
They're going to go risk their lives confronting a shooter so that if something happens and they end up shooting the shooter, they get dragged in front of a court for excessive force?
So that means this is it.
But the bottom line, people, schadenfreude is a sin.
Do not do it.
It's bad juju.
And in as much as people think that, you know, some people will say, like, you put that out in the universe and then look what happens.
Don't do it yourself.
And it's a tragedy.
It might be a tragedy that results from bad policy.
It might also be a tragedy that results from bad life decisions if it happens to be something of a personal spat, a personal dispute.
That's what's going on.
Now, let me see here.
Most of the good cops have quit or retired.
Now, I might not need to have 200 milligrams of caffeine in a drink.
Does anybody know, is this stuff bad for you?
I know it can't be as bad for you as Red Bull, but it says it's essential energy.
It accelerates metabolism and burns body fat.
It says it right there, and it's got a little asterisk next to it.
Which, if I look for it, if I can see it with my granny eyes.
They say there's studies.
If anybody knows if it's bad for you, let me know.
So that's that.
The town I live in has an excellent police force.
Very professional.
I mean, in Florida, you don't mess around with the cops, but the only interactions I've ever had...
First of all, I'm actually happy.
I haven't been pulled...
I got pulled over once because I let a kid out of...
Out of the car to go to school at a pull-off lane.
And I didn't know you're not allowed doing that.
So I learned.
But the Florida police, as far as I can tell, have been awesome so far.
And the idea that they're walking the beat, interacting with the community, that's how you avoid problems.
And that's how you build trust.
Everything is bad for you.
And nothing is bad for you.
So I guess that means everything.
I love it, but I can only drink half a can.
200 milligrams is a lot of caffeine.
But I like it.
Oh, so hold on a second.
2300 Block.
Yeah, so that was where I put in 2300 Watkins Avenue, thinking that that was the address.
And yeah, I learned.
But it's also interesting to see the neighborhood.
I mean, people say that's a standard street in Philadelphia.
And others are going to say that's just what big cities, big blue cities, big red cities in America are starting to look like.
Having had my experience now in Los Angeles, leaving, seeing multiple drug addicts, homeless people, scouring the garbage for food, trying to sell stuff that's worthless for money so they can get drugs, and then I see a six-foot-tall dude running through the streets barefoot, butt naked.
Yeah, that's escaping L.A. Ginger Ninja in the house.
They make a U.S. version called Fahrenheit.
No, they don't.
Well, that would be funny.
I actually wonder if that would be sort of like the market parasitism that you have with...
You had Red Bull, and then you had Blue Cow, and Blue Cow is supposed to put you to sleep, whereas Red Bull is supposed to pick you up.
And I think Blue Cow actually lost a lawsuit against Red Bull.
Okay, so it was a joke.
Okay, there you go.
All right, so what we're going to do now, we're going to go over to Rumble exclusively because...
I think the link is up there, but let me just give it to everybody one more time.
So remember, everyone who's watching this afternoon, 5 o 'clock, Roger Stone.
Oh my God, people, we're going to get into this Donald Trump judge.
It's going to blow your freaking mind.
Sounded like Adam Sandler.
They're all going to laugh at you.
I looked at my...
It blew my freaking mind.
It's going to blow your mind.
Megyn Kelly's covered it.
Everybody's talking about it.
This judge grinning ear to ear with the judicial fecal eating grin that comes along with being the judge, jury, and executioner all in one, literally.
So get your butts on over to Rumble.
Please don't leave, but I must.
I must, Jackie.
We're getting out of here, Jackie.
So come on over to Rumble.
Or go to Locals.
Hold on a second.
Let me give you the Locals thing, because some people don't like the user experience at Rumble.
They're working on it, but come to Locals.
VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com Let's do it.
That's it.
Enough with the...
We're moving.
We're moving.
Hold on.
No, I got it.
We're...
We...
Hold on.
How do I do this?
I go here now, just all of a sudden...
Remove.
Remove.
321 Meet You on Rumble.
409 people.
Let's just see that number go down one more time before we leave.
As I take a sip.
Done.
383.
Okay.
Holy crap.
I don't know how long...
We're going to wait.
We're going to wait for the Trump story because it might take a little bit of time.
Trump is in his trial.
Has anybody?
No, no, no.
I'm getting ahead of myself.
Leticia James is literally litigating this on Twitter in real time.
The Attorney General.
At a loss for words.
But before we get into that, everybody's following what's going on in Canada?
Bill C-11, the Online Streaming Act.
Which was going to govern online content under the same rules and regulations as radio and television.
The Canada Broadcasting Act governs radio and television, has fees that you have to pay, Canadian content requirements, language requirements, you know, all sorts of stuff to protect Canadian culture.
It's called CanCon.
CanCon.
Oh, they can con.
Canadian content.
So we've talked about it at length.
I'll just give everybody the 30,000-foot overview once again.
It was originally called Bill C-10.
It died in the legislature before 2021 when they called an election.
Legislation which has not yet passed gets killed, and if you want to start it up again, you start it up in the new legislature.
They ran an election in 2021 in which I ran.
People call me a failed politician.
Anybody who does that is a moron.
I tripled the vote of the PPC in Westmount Notre Dame de Grasse, a riding that votes liberal over 50% for the last 30 years.
I got 1,500 votes.
That may not sound like a lot.
I wanted a little more.
But alas, anybody who thinks trying something outrageous and doing well but not getting the trophy makes you a loser, you're the loser.
He who dares nothing need hope for nothing.
On a similar vein.
There are trolls out there who think it's an insult to call me a failed lawyer.
First of all, it's not even like...
I know that I wasn't a failed lawyer.
I was thrice nominated for Leaders of Tomorrow, leaders de demain, as young litigators with less than 10 years' experience.
I don't even take that as an insult.
Even if I were to take that as an insult...
The idea that people think lawyers are liars, scoundrels, scum of the earth, to call me a failed lawyer is in fact a compliment, so thank you.
Now all that to say, what the hell was I talking about?
Oh yeah, in 2021, ran for office, didn't succeed.
Then I ran for the country, then I ran from the country, or I was pushed out of the country.
Because they were contemplating...
And they did, in fact, bring back Bill C-10 to regulate online content, but they called it Bill C-11 this time.
And this time they rammed it through.
They had like midnight hearings to add modifications.
They jammed this piece of legislation through the legislature.
And at first, they specifically included an exclusion.
It's going to sound a little confusing because there's like negatives and positives.
They included an exclusion into the law that said it would not govern individual social media user accounts.
They included an exclusion to protect individual social media users.
In the dead of the night, always under COVID, because that's how tyrannical governments pass tyrannical laws, like they did with the Order and Council restricting a bunch of thousands of firearms after the pandemic, In the dead of night, the lying, tyrannical liberals Remove the exclusion they included to protect individual social media users.
They remove it.
The public gets wind of the fact that the Liberal government removed the exclusion that would have protected social media users, individual social media users, and Stephen Guilbeault, criminal, because he's in fact a convicted criminal for having caused mischief for eco-rights, By scaling the CN Tower.
He comes out and when grilled on it says, "No, no, no, no, no.
We don't...
The Online Streaming Act is not intended to govern individual social media users' accounts." To which the reporter says, "Well, then why did you remove the exclusion?
We didn't need the exclusion." If anybody hasn't seen the interviews, you can go and get the reference.
He says, "We're not going to...
We don't want to target..." Individual social media users' accounts.
Then why do you remove the exclusion?
Later on, they admit, yeah, we're going to go after individual social media accounts, social media users' accounts, if they act like broadcasters.
So they passed this Online Streaming Act, Bill C-11, which is going to regulate the Internet the way the government regulates TV and radio, create requirements, language requirements, Canadian content requirements, fees, etc., etc.
They pass the law.
They say, how is this law, what's going to be the scope and breadth of this law?
Well, we don't know yet.
So Pablo Rodriguez, who's the new minister of, I think he's the new minister of heritage, Pablo Rodriguez, who had replaced Stephen Gilboa, he says, well, we don't know how this law is going to be adapted and applied.
The CRTC, the Canadian Radio Telecommunications Commission, that governs the application is going to set out the directives as to how they're going to implement this law and the scope of the law.
The CRTC just yesterday comes out with With their directives, at least one of them.
Let me get the article.
Hold on, that's not where the article is.
That's the 30,000-foot overview, for those who don't know what I'm talking about.
Now you know.
They come out with their ruling yesterday.
What are the...
And I'm pulling up...
No, I'll go with CBC first, and then I'm going to go with Michael Geist, a Canadian lawyer who's breaking this down.
Here we go.
CBC News.
Never met a piece of censorship legislation that they didn't like.
This is what they have to write.
Ah, okay.
CRTC registration for podcasts and streaming companies draws criticism.
That's the headline.
That's called the byline, whatever, the underline.
Social media users not required to register with regulator, but some services will be.
I think my understanding is...
This is not accurate either.
If a social media user has a podcast and generates more than $10 million, either in revenue, gross, or net, I forget, they will have to register.
So it's not the case that there is absolutely no social media user that will have to register if you are a social media user.
As far as my understanding goes, who's fortunate enough to have a podcast that generates over $10 million in revenue, you're going to have to register with the government.
But why wouldn't you have to register with the government?
This is the new left, the new liberals.
Shut your mouth and support the war in Ukraine.
Endless war.
Shut your mouth and take the jab.
Endless support of big pharma.
Shut your mouth and accept the censorship.
Endless support of big government.
And now they're like, yeah, of course you should have to register with the government.
Liberals.
Yeah, liberals are the new fascists.
Or maybe they were always the old fascists.
Social media is just not...
Okay, let's see what the article has to say.
The CRTC says streaming companies that earn more than 10 million annual revenues in Canada must register with the regulator by late November.
Register with the regulator.
What's that going to involve?
Let's see.
This is out of Canada.
This is the new Canada.
This is how one man and one political party...
I guess it's not one man and it's not one political party because it's a party that is propped up with Jagmeet Singh.
So it's two men and two political parties.
Although I'm not sure what the conservative support for this was.
News that online streamers and podcasters will soon be required to register with Canada's broadcasting regulator is raising confusion and concerns that heavier regulation may be coming.
No, you dumbass, CBC.
It will be coming.
I'll pull up a tweet that I issued to the senior...
Guy at CBC.
Oh, you know, they're totally going to stop at $10 million in revenue.
Of course they are.
It's never going to go to $5 million.
It's never going to go to $2 million.
It's never going to go to $1 million.
It's never going to be everybody has to register, regardless of how little you make.
It's never.
Why would it do that?
I mean, it's only about money and control.
So they only want more money and more control.
Late Friday afternoon, the Canadian radio telecommunication...
Let me just make sure we're seeing it.
We are seeing it.
Okay.
The CRTC announced that online streaming and podcasting services operating in Canada with $10 million or more in annual revenue...
Not even net.
It's annual gross revenue, I think.
We'll have to register before...
Registration involves providing the legal name of the company, its address, its telephone number, and email, and what type of service it offers.
In its decision released Friday, the CRTC called the registration a very light burden.
We are just making the list!
The burden has not yet begun!
I'm going to read the announcement in a second.
University of Ottawa...
Okay, here we go.
This is it.
I've got his blog.
Michael Geist.
Michael Geist, the Canadian Research Chair in Internet, describes the information being collected as limited, but said he suspects there is more to come from the CRTC.
Get a haircut, hippie Geist.
I'm joking, people.
The CRTC may require...
Okay, fine.
I think a lot of people look at this rule...
Okay, fine.
It's a perspective echoed by Canadian podcaster Jesse Brown, publisher of Canada Land, who told CBC News that Friday's announcement...
It's a concern to him.
What they're signaling is we are going to be regulating the space, but we're not telling you how.
Just register, people.
We want to know where you live, what your name is, all of your information, so that when we come in with regulation, we know where you live.
And why shouldn't you?
It's a privilege, right?
Freedom is a privilege.
The move is part of the implementation of the Online Streaming Act.
I've given you this overview.
It updated the Broadcasting Act to require streaming and online services such as Netflix to eventually pay into the domestic media ecosystem to support Canadian content, including Kim Music.
And you know what Canadian content it's going to help support?
The CBC, which lives off government federal funding.
It's going to help the CBC, Radio Canada, because they're going to be able to collect some of that money and just like divvy it back out.
Can't give them any more of a bailout.
What way can you do it?
Let's raise some revenues by taxing everybody else, collecting that so that we can finance the operations of Canadian Pravda.
The act doesn't define what the content should be or how much support will be required and delegates that task to the CRTC.
Yada, yada, yada.
Okay, under the Online Streaming Act, social media and online services offering podcasts will now have to register with the regulator, while social media users, including those who share podcasts over social media platforms, will not.
I believe there's ambiguity.
If someone is lucky enough to have their own podcast, I guess they're going to have to go through Podbean, Stitcher, or whatever.
So maybe it's only those.
They're going to have to register.
Oh, by the way, who do you have on your platform that generates a lot of money?
Joe Rogan?
Jordan Peterson?
CRTC said it does not expect podcasters who...
Oh, listen to this.
The CRTC said it does not expect podcasters who host their content on their own websites or who make it available on subscription platforms would be required to register because their annual revenues in most likelihood would be below the proposed exemption threshold of $10 million.
May I translate that for everyone out there who might be naive, dense, or a member of the government?
That means they have to.
If you are an individual podcaster and you host your own podcast and you're lucky enough to make over $10 million a year in revenue, you have to register.
We don't expect podcasters who host their own things.
In other words, if you don't make over $10 million, you don't have to.
But if you do, you do.
Individual podcasters, if they generate enough revenue, will have to.
You think that number's going to stay $10 million?
Hells to the bells, no.
In about...
Two years, it will be at a million dollars.
And at some point, it's just going to be anyone offering a podcast.
Why?
They're going to have revenue.
If you have revenue, you're going to have to register.
What do you think?
This is a freebie?
However, a large company, Spotify, yada, yada, yada.
Uncertainty for pod...
It's not uncertain.
If the podcaster makes more than 10 million, they've got to do it.
And if that number comes down, those making 5 million will have to do it.
Those making one million will have to do it.
Those nearly operating podcasts will have to do it.
How else are we supposed to protect the world from misinformation and disinformation?
Got to know who's got a podcast in Canada.
What they're saying.
Is it wrong?
Think.
All right, here we go.
That's it.
I think this is it.
Well, it's created a short-term...
What?
It's created in the short-term as poison for an innovative industry, which is uncertainty, Brown said.
Nobody knows how this is going to play out.
Nobody knows what our obligations are going to be.
Nobody knows if we're going to benefit from it.
Okay, fine.
Censorship claims not accurate.
As for various claims on social media that the CRTC's move is a form of censorship or an attack on free speech, Geist says emphatically that is not true.
I don't think that registration is the same as a censorship regime.
No, it's the precursor to it.
Geist.
By the way, I don't trust what CBC is framing as Geist's position, so I'm not actually going to be that hard on Geist because the CBC are liars.
However, he added...
He isn't without concern.
Oh, but I thought they just said, Geist said emphatically that it's not true, although he isn't without concern.
Do you see how they're flicking liars?
Geist says it's emphatically not true in one paragraph, and the very next paragraph, although he isn't without concern.
That's the exact opposite of emphatically that it's not true.
The idea that you potentially would have to register with the Canadian government or with its agency, the CRTC, in order to engage in expression because you meet a certain threshold for revenue is, I think, a real incursion into expression.
Does everybody understand when I call...
Oh!
Yeah, this is the guy that I gave the hard time to on Twitter.
Does everyone understand you have two absolutely mutually incompatible and diametrically opposed statements being made here?
Geist says that it's absolutely emphatically not true that it's censorship, although he thinks it's a real incursion into expression.
It's amazing.
Do we want to look at the...
Nah, I don't think we want to.
Oh, is it?
Do we see this here?
Oh my goodness.
It's like you watch it in real time.
And you can't believe the degree to which they are absolutely dishonest.
Let me just find the tweet that I actually sent.
It was to that guy yesterday, and I thought I might have been a little harsh, as I seemingly have the tendency of being on Twitter these days, but I've lost my patience filter.
Okay, let's only pull up his tweet and then my tweet.
So here, let's go like this, go home, and go share screen.
That guy's name was Ayin Afsari or something along those lines.
This is it right here.
Okay, so he put out a tweet.
Yeah, yeah, that's it.
Anis Heydari.
This is...
Oh, hold on, sorry.
That's his bio.
Who the heck?
If I may be so judgmental, like I don't always take the best pictures, senior business reporter and that's the picture that he chooses for his bio?
I mean, I thought the guy had a good sense of humor and then he's got barf in his banner and I thought that was like a reference to Spaceballs.
Here's his tweet.
In reference to...
Glenn Greenwald.
We're going to do like the tweet rabbit hole here.
Glenn Greenwald posts this tweet.
The Canadian government armed with one of the two...
Hold on a second.
That's not what it says at all.
Glenn Greenwald.
At G. Greenwald.
On Twitter.
The Canadian government, armed with one of the world's most repressive online censorship schemes, announces that all, quote, online streaming services that offer podcasts must formally register with the government to permit regulatory control.
So maybe it's not all online streaming services that offer podcasts if they don't have $10 million in annual revenue.
So, tsk, tsk, Glenn, shame on you.
What's the CBC going to do to correct you?
Let's see.
Anis R. Heydari, who just wrote that article that we just read.
At Radio Anis.
That's not a good name.
Excuse me.
Radio Anis.
Anis actually in French is black licorice, so maybe it's not.
Alright, whatever.
The tweet is misleading.
Only services that, quote, earn 10 million or more in annual revenues must formally register.
That is very few companies offering podcasts in Canada.
And at this point, there is nothing requiring content control or changes.
Wow.
At this point.
At this point, it's a temporary income tax to finance the activities of World War I. To which I wrote.
And maybe I was just a little mean.
Too flipping bad.
These people want to be polite in their deceit.
Oh, at this point there's nothing in there.
The CBC reporter says at this point there's nothing in there that says this is going to go further.
As if the past is not prologue to the future.
Looky, looky, a CBC propagandist coming to the defense of the government that not only finances it, but also enacts legislation to protect it.
My theory about Bill C-11 is that it is indirect subsidies to prop up failing legacy media.
They suck on radio, they suck on television, and they're getting their asses whooped on the free world of the internet because they suck.
And instead of increasing the quality of their stuff, instead of increasing their honesty, transparency, and reporting, They gotta penalize everybody who succeeds on their own merit.
And yes, I do include myself in that crowd.
Although this doesn't penalize me because I have temporarily fled that communist heckle that Canada has become under Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh.
You are technically correct, Radio Anus.
Does that somehow legitimize this absurd law?
Joe Rogan has to register, or would it only be Spotify?
Okay, and do you think for one second the threshold will remain $10 million?
If so, you are naive beyond description, or more likely, a CBC propagandist running cover for the hand that feeds it.
Let's see where the threshold is in 5 to 10 years, if this law stands.
The conservatives said back when it was C-10, let's fight this law if we get into power.
And I was like, hey, dumbasses, how about you just fight this law now before it gets passed?
Too late.
It's passed now.
Bill C-11.
From $10 million to $5 million to $1 million to everyone.
The law is about money, control, and propping up flailing media like the CBC.
At the end of the day, your funding will literally be derived, at least in part, from monies the CRTC collects with this law.
Mic drop, bada bing, bada boom.
That's what's coming out of Canada.
You know what I haven't done in a long time, and I realize I should probably have done it?
Rumble.
Are we still live on Rumble?
We're still live on Rumble.
Let me pull up Michael Geist's article.
Blog.
And I don't mean that in a degrading way whatsoever.
It's michaelgeist.ca.
So everybody should give him a good follow because he's a smart guy.
Okay, let me just see here.
How long is this?
I don't want to read this whole thing.
Oh, this is long.
Forget it.
It's too long.
I'll give everybody the link and you can go look at it.
Where do I put the link?
Here?
Okay, that's the link to Michael Geist's blog.
Now, what I'm going to do, did I miss any Rumble Rants?
Because I had it open in a separate window.
Okay, I can close that one.
And I'm going to open it here and just see if I missed anything.
I haven't.
Good.
And in Locals, let's see what's going on in Locals.
Oh, there's a lot of...
Chat in locals here.
Ah, Bill Brown.
If anybody doesn't...
Bill Brown posts some interesting photos.
Nothing edgy.
Bill Brown, member of our community, has got a farm and he grows things on it.
And he's got a massive, massive hog named Templeton.
So...
And now I just saw this comment.
Radmila Melanjic says, You don't need caffeine if you have a uni-tranquilizer.
I made the joke to someone yesterday that...
You know, like with kids with ADD or hyperactivity disorder, they give them Ritalin, but if you give a normal person Ritalin, it'll make them hyperactive.
That's what I think caffeinated beverages do for me.
Okay.
Now, let me just see what I've got going on here.
Before we segue into the next topic, we're going to get into the Trump.
Going underground, did I play this one?
Did I play this one?
Which one was this?
I want to play one of them.
What did you make of the fact that Rumble has had to take down its tires?
We played that one.
That's what we started the show with.
There was another great highlight from that interview.
If I do say so myself...
Here we go.
This is my operating theory of the war in Ukraine, people.
When you gamble with other people's money, you take chances that you would never take if you were gambling with your own money.
And when you're fighting wars, proxy wars with other people's children...
Well, you're prepared to make sacrifices that you wouldn't necessarily make with your own children.
This war should have been over a year ago.
Oh, you can't negotiate with Hitler.
If you think that negotiating with Putin is Chamberlain negotiating with Hitler, coming back with the piece of paper piece in our time, you're an idiot, and there's no other word for it.
I can tell you why it's an idiotic comparison, but you have no brain in your head to understand it, but I'll do it anyhow.
Whether or not Hitler had aspirations of global dominance...
Which he seemingly did.
It's quite clear that Russia, which can barely win this war over a sliver of Ukraine in a year, even if it were to conquer all of Ukraine, could even occupy all of Ukraine, let alone the world.
And so you can falsify a regional conflict into straw man, one man's quest for global dominance.
As Konstantin Kissen said when he came on my channel, the Soviets, I forget the word that he used, but their quest to regain the former Soviet Union.
You could paint it as that, and some people might say that's a little confession through projection, and what's actually going on here is NATO's aspiration to expand into Ukraine, and my goodness, it'll certainly be able, they'll be easy, they'll be more able to go in there and appropriate Ukraine after they've decimated their fighting-aged men, and now they're talking about conscripting their women.
But this is another clip from Going Underground, and I'll give everybody the link to the actual stream right after.
Here, have a look at this one.
How easy will it be for Canadian authorities to explain how they lost this billion-dollar Ukraine war?
I mean, they managed to explain.
There was Operation Mobila.
That was Canada's operation in Libya.
We can see what's happened to what was Africa's richest per capita country.
Operation Impact was their actions in Syria.
I don't suppose the mainstream media in Canada talk about Canadian actions in Libya and Syria much today.
How will they be able to explain away the billions being sent to Ukraine after this conflict ends in catastrophe?
Well, it's already in catastrophe.
And there have been hundreds of thousands of innocent Ukrainians, I would say Ukrainian soldiers that have been sent to the slaughter, thousands of Ukrainian civilians that have been casualties in this.
It's a regional conflict.
And they've depicted it as good versus evil.
And now Justin Trudeau has really just shown to the world, maybe it's a little more complicated than that.
How are they going to justify it?
History will not look well upon this.
Is my assessment.
Because however you feel about this, who's right and who's wrong, you have the West funding a proxy war with the blood of Ukrainian soldiers and the blood of Ukrainian citizens.
And people say, like, oh, we can't negotiate with Putin because he's literally Hitler.
Irony there.
So it's the West fighting this proxy war for and on behalf of their NATO aspirations.
And they're prepared to do it to the last Ukrainian fighting aged male and the last Ukrainian civilian.
Subscribe to that, man.
Viva Frye on Rumble.
Okay, so that was the interview.
You have the interview.
Going Underground has got a Rumble channel.
So if you are so inclined, show some love.
It's right there.
Okay, now let's get into the fun stuff of the day.
Trump is having his trial.
It's a trial.
Okay.
When you want your 15 minutes of fame, you'd better make sure you know what's in your past.
It's a funny thing, like, I don't know, people think they're going to find some compromising tweets or whatever video of me on the internet.
Before I got into the law and the analysis and the political side of things, the embarrassing things you might find of me are me waxing my leg with a drone or me, you know, eating rambles, cooking, you know, back in the day.
But not everybody, also not everybody has the fear of the camera.
Like, not everybody has this little wheel spinning around in their head that if I'm being recorded, you know, how do I want to be acting?
The judge in Trump's case clearly wants his 15 minutes of fame.
He's so bloody happy to have it.
And in case you had any doubts, everybody's heard about the smirk heard around the world right now.
Let me just get...
Where is it?
This is the note.
Oh, no, I won.
It was...
Oh, did I pull up the window?
Megyn Kelly had a good piece about it, but it was just to get the video of this judge.
They've allowed cameras into the courtroom, and I have no problem with that.
Some people have the tendency of noticing that when you allow the camera into the courtroom, it kind of changes the way people behave.
And anybody who had watched the Alex Jones trial would have known that.
That judge in Texas, oh, she knew damn well the cameras were on.
And she knew damn well the cameras were on her, and she was yucking it up for the camera, and she loved it.
She loved the camera because it was like she was the star.
She was the celebrity of this trial.
She was in charge.
She would reprimand people knowing that she was on camera.
She would berate people knowing she was on camera.
And she would try to make herself look like the hero in her own story.
This judge clearly knows the cameras are on and I guess allowed them into the courtroom in the New York State case.
And you have to see the smirk heard around the world.
The fix is in here.
Stop it.
Stop it.
In as bad as it is, wait until you see some of the video that has been unearthed.
Of the judge giving a speech to some group of journalists eight years ago.
We'll get there.
But let us look at the smirk heard around the world.
The fix is in here.
Oh, 100%.
That judge, when he realizes that the cameras are on him in the warm-up part of the morning, looked like the senior at his high school yearbook phone.
Oh, hi!
Oh, hi!
I didn't see you there!
Oh, I'm a star of the show.
I mean, he's enjoying it.
The fix is in here.
I just want to turn Megan's volume down here.
Not because I don't like it, but I want to have my own commentary.
The camera goes to him.
Hold on.
How many cameras are in this courtroom, first of all?
I think there's only one.
Let's just see here.
There's a cameraman and there's a cameraman photographer right there.
Man, that's funny.
That is definitely a Canon lens.
Looks like maybe a 200.
Stabilizing.
It's amazing.
In Canadian courts, or at least in Quebec, you're not allowed taking pictures in the courtroom.
They have their section outside where you have your media spot.
But apparently the cameras are allowed in.
Now apparently Leticia James was also staring at Trump and making something of an interesting face here.
Where was it?
Okay, it's too blurry to see here.
Look at the judge.
This is the judge!
This is the judge who's already decided on a motion to dismiss and wait until you hear him eight years ago describe the tools he has to override jury verdicts or avoid them altogether and to impose his own biases, which he recognizes that he has, but, you know, we'll get there.
Look at his face.
Camera's on.
Judge is just sitting there doing my work.
Oh, hey, cameraman.
Didn't see you there.
Oh, hi.
Let me take my glasses off.
Here you go.
I'm a star.
Oh, sorry.
I'm the hero.
Didn't see you there.
Oh.
Oh, my goodness.
I want to actually just see what everyone thinks about that judge.
Give him the evil eye, Don, says Honor 234.
Russia is not trying to take all of Ukraine, says TZ Burton.
We're on another topic now.
That judge.
Wants to be the center of attention, knows he's the center of attention, and knows all of the tools he has to yield the results that he wants.
Seditious judge.
I don't know that seditious is the right word.
His name is Judge Angoron Speech.
I'm going to get everybody the 18-minute video.
You know what?
Forget it.
In our locals community.
I shared the 17, 18-minute speech that Judge Engron, or it might have been 26 minutes, that Judge Engron gave to a group of journalists, or journalist students.
And I said, community, enjoy it.
Let's delve into this and find what beautiful clips there are that one could, in theory, not hold against the judge, but just use to understand the judge's conduct.
And my goodness, did our community, which is above average, pinpoint Everything of note.
And then I listened to it while I was driving, and I decided to clip some of the highlights myself.
Listen, listen.
I'll pull up some of the highlights.
They're not in chronological order that I know of.
But let me see which one is this one.
Let me see what, what, what?
Here we go, here we go.
Oh, this is it.
This is...
It's funny.
When you have no idea how popular you're going to get, and you have, you know, like the Justine Sacco tweet.
Off to her tweet that made her infamous.
When you're tweeting to 135 followers on Twitter...
You could never anticipate how that tweet is going to be held against you if you get famous later on or if someone decides to make you famous in the moment.
You know, like a lot of these celebrities who, you know, they tweet some really wild shit out like 10 years ago.
Then they get famous and like, oh, didn't you tweet about supporting pedophilia back in 2010?
It's like, yeah, but that was when I was only had 150 followers.
This guy is in some journalist, you know, he's in New York or New Jersey, I forget which, talking to a classroom of journalists.
Ten years ago, eight years ago, has no idea he's going to be the center of attention in the most pivotal case, which I think is an abuse of justice in the history of America.
He has no idea when he says this.
It's going to blow your freaking mind.
Now, I'm going to say something controversial.
Even though I'm being taped, juries get it wrong a lot.
That's my own opinion.
I do only civil trials.
Personal injury cases, contract...
Juries get it wrong.
But I've had situations where, like, "Oh, my heaven's sake, how could they have thought that?" Well, I have a tool that I can deal with.
It's called judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
I can say there is no possible way that a reasonable jury would have reached that conclusion.
And I've done that twice.
And once I got reversed, and once I got affirmed...
So I'm 50 /50.
That's not bad, considering it's sort of controversial to overturn a jury.
We love juries, you know?
They decide the facts.
Like I said, judges don't want to do that.
Juries, that's you.
Some of you actually have been on juries.
And so, by the way, I love being a judge.
If you want to go to law school, you can find someone who knows how to reach me.
It's a wonderful job.
I had one last thing to say about tools.
Yeah, let's hear about the tools.
A lot of what I do involve...
Did I tell you that my pet peeve is hearing people's mouths?
I mean, it was 26 minutes or however long this interview was.
It was painful.
I don't like ASMR.
I find it spooky and I find accidental ASMR disgusting.
And if I do it, someone please tell me.
If the mic is so...
Fine-tuned that you can hear me...
Let me know.
But it drives me nuts.
But that's my own weakness.
These summary judgment motions I mentioned...
Tools.
Summary judgment motions.
What other tools do you have?
Am I following the law or am I making law?
Okay.
I'm following law.
I'm an impartial referee.
But...
But it's hard to factor out my own emotions.
I'm biased.
I have tools.
And I have tools.
Somebody can say, well, Your Honor, you have to throw out this case.
Understand what he's saying here.
I have tools to allow me to implement my bias.
Someone's going to come to you and say, I want to raise this argument.
Yeah, but I want to confirm my bias and I want to get to my decision that I have based on my own.
But, so what am I going to do?
Oh, you can't make that argument.
It's one of my tools.
Because it's just like another case.
Well, is it just like another case?
What if the defendant was wearing a red sweater instead of a blue sweater?
Well, that's an extreme example.
That wouldn't distinguish most cases.
Not that it wouldn't distinguish any case.
It wouldn't distinguish most cases if the defendant was wearing a red sweater versus a blue sweater.
I could imagine in a gang case, if it's the Bloods versus the Crips, yeah, the color of your sweater might determine the case.
But even in this idiotic straw man of example...
He's not even willing to admit that the color of the sweater is totally irrelevant.
In most cases, it wouldn't allow me to distinguish.
But if the red sweater is Republican and the blue sweater is a Democrat, well then you're, boy howdy, can I use the tools that I have at my disposal to get to my foregone conclusion based on my own internal biases.
But there are other facts that do.
Maybe the education of somebody who supposedly entered into a contract would decide whether the contract was binding.
Can you believe he said this?
A tool that I'll call a tool called estoppel.
Estoppel, here's a tool.
Somebody makes an argument and I say, you can't make that argument.
You made a different argument three months ago.
If it's Michael Sussman.
Oh, okay, you can make that argument.
That's fine.
Oh, is it Steve Bannon?
Well, you can't make that argument.
You said something else somewhere a long time ago, but not even necessarily in this particular case.
Listen to this.
Three months ago in this case or even in another case.
I wish you all luck.
I'll stand here or around.
So I've said way too much, and I'm going to shut my big yap now, but it is too late.
Thank you for questions, and again, thanks to the administration for having me.
Done.
Can you believe what he just said?
Hold on, I'm going to take the window out.
I'm not going to close it just yet.
I want to see what the chat says here.
Someone said, wow, Pyle, how true.
And I want to see what Pyle said in the chat, but I don't know who Pyle is.
Pyle!
Can you believe what the judge said?
I'm going to bring it back for a second, and we're just going to flesh through the essential part of this.
It's at the beginning and at the end.
Now, I'm going to say something controversial.
It's controversial.
Juries get it wrong a lot.
That's my own opinion.
I do.
Juries get it wrong a lot.
Your constitutional right to a trial of a jury of your peers.
This guy says the Constitution gets it wrong a lot.
You're going to get a lot of dumb jury members.
How could you have come to that conclusion?
But don't worry!
I've got a tool.
Now, I know of, what is it called?
Judgment notwithstanding a verdict.
Janov.
And there are times where...
I'm not going to be totally biased, lacking self-reflection.
It was used in the case of Michael Flynn's business partner.
I'm not going to remember his last name right now.
I know it ends in I-A-N.
The judgment, notwithstanding a verdict, was used in that case where the jury found Michael Flynn's business partner guilty of Favre violations, a bunch of crap, where the judge said, look...
The jury got it wrong.
They don't even understand the laws that they found this guy guilty of.
And I'm setting it aside.
It's controversial.
It's an actual tool.
I don't deny it.
And there are certain circumstances where one can reasonably understand how it's been used.
This guy's done it twice.
I don't know if that's a lot or a little for a judge.
I don't know what would be the record.
But the idea that he says, he comes into it with his bias that juries get it wrong.
A lot.
First of all, even if that were true, that's how the system was set up.
Not so that a judge can come in and say, I don't like the Constitution.
This constitutional right to a trial, a jury of your peers?
Yeah, juries get it wrong a lot, and so I'm going to figure out how to circumvent that when I don't agree with the jury.
Only civil trials.
Personal injury cases, contract disputes.
Or presidential fraud cases.
I've had situations where like, oh my...
Those stupid people.
Heaven's sake.
Guy can't say, oh my God.
How could they have thought that?
Well, I have a tool that I can deal with that.
It's called judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
I can say...
There is no possible way that a reasonable jury would have reached that conclusion.
We've heard this part.
There are times for it.
The way he says it is almost an admission that he understands that it's a way of bastardizing and circumventing the process.
There's times when it's done.
Understood.
Hold on.
When does he talk about the bias?
I want to get to the bias.
Am I following the law or am I making the law?
Am I following the law or am I making the law?
Can you imagine?
This guy is an admitted judicial activist.
I'm so honest about reflecting on my MO.
Am I following the law or am I being a judge or am I being a legislator from the bench?
Hmm.
One is my job, the other one is not.
Okay.
I'm following law.
I'm an impartial...
But sometimes I want to get my way.
But it's hard to factor out my own emotions.
And I have tools.
Somebody can say, well...
It's hard to factor out my own emotion.
And I have tools that allow me to come to the verdict of my emotions.
Nothing short of what he's saying right there.
But wait!
There's more.
This was a long, long speech.
And he said a lot.
Let me see here.
What's the next highlight that I have here?
Which one is this?
Here, let's see here.
Hold on, hold on.
Same judge.
Do you have any opinion on judges' absolute immunity even when it comes to something that's adverse to the law?
Do you have any opinion on the judge's absolute community, even when he's adverse to the actual law?
Even when he's adverse to the actual law.
Well, we've all made incorrect decisions.
Absolute immunity for judges.
What's your opinion, Mr. Judge, who sometimes has your own opinion and bias, but you have tools to enact that, to circumvent the system, to bastardize the system, to bypass the system, to get to the results that you want.
If you're caught, you know, hypothetically ever, you abuse of the system and you make the wrong decision.
Do you believe in absolute immunity?
You bet your sweet ass he does.
I can't remember any, but it must have been a few.
I'm very biased about that because I am a judge, but yeah, I think we should have absolute immunity.
Yeah, of course, of course.
For anything we do.
We're just doing a job.
We're just doing a job.
Just doing my job.
The question you ask seems to be if we make a wrong decision.
Alright, we're all human.
I've made, I think, 5,000 decisions from the last count.
Written decisions, not to mention at a trial where you snap, snap, snap decisions.
Yeah, we should have absolute immunity.
What if we defame somebody?
That's how it usually comes up.
You know, you call somebody a murderer or a heroin addict, that sort of thing, a pedophile.
And if it's done in court, yeah, I think we should have absolute immunity.
There are other places, other fora, forums, in which this can play out, such as newspapers, editorials, letters.
I don't even know what he means by that.
Please don't sue me.
It'll get dismissed.
Thank you.
Gotta run.
Thanks again and good luck.
Let me get the hell out of you.
Oh.
Holy crab apples.
He should be removed from the bench, says, uh, says Deanne, Dione, 71, 1984.
Today says, it's his job to be a political activist instead of a judge.
Any fool can be a judge, apparently.
Hold on, I think I've got one more coming from this judge.
Let me see here.
That was Megyn Kelly.
Hold on, let me close this one down.
I think we got to this one.
The fix is in.
Yeah, we saw that one already.
Let me pull up the next one here.
Oh, yeah.
Here we go.
What is this?
What is this?
Another highlight.
And I think we're going to be done after this with this.
I had one last thing to say about tools.
A lot of what I do involves motions.
These summary judgment motions I mentioned.
All right.
Am I following the law or am I making law?
All right.
That's the judge.
In the case that's currently pending.
In which this judge said, I've got a tool for those pesky jury verdicts that I just, you know, how could they have come to that decision?
It's called the judgment notwithstanding of verdict.
Okay.
Janov.
Well, it seems in this case, this judge has discovered another tool that allows him to even bypass the possibility of a jury getting it wrong in the first place.
And that's called a summary judgment.
I mean, he mentioned it there.
Deal with lots of motions, summary judgment, etc., etc.
And in this particular case now, he's found one tool that allows him to bypass the risk of having to use another tool to bypass a jury verdict that he might not agree with.
Hypothetically, a jury comes in and says...
Yeah, no, Trump's Mar-a-Lago is not worth $18 million, and anybody who thinks that, how could the stupid jury have done that?
Well, if I do a J-Nav, a judgment notwithstanding a verdict, and overturn this jury verdict, that'll be a bridge too far.
That'll be the third time in my career I've used it.
I don't want to be two for three.
I don't want them overturning that.
Janov.
So let me just avoid the possibility at all of having a jury verdict come out and find Trump not civil, but not liable, not guilty of fraud, not liable for fraud.
Let me just avoid that altogether.
Let's have Leticia James, who campaigned...
Off persecuting Trump.
Going back to 2018, 2019, I will become the Attorney General and I will go after Trump.
Imagine an Attorney General campaigning off a promise to prosecute a citizen or a company.
I mean, I guess there's certain circumstances where someone might like it.
I'll go after Big Tobacco.
I'll go after Big Pharma.
I'll go after Donald Trump in New York.
Well, that'll get you elected.
So you get Leticia James, a partisan political activist hack.
As an attorney general who campaigns off persecuting Trump, this is in 2019 after, you know, Trump, well, he's president.
I will prosecute a former president.
Elect me.
Gets elected.
Prosecutes the most outlandish fraud case imaginable.
No victim, no complainant other than the state on the basis that Trump overvalued his assets for the purposes of procuring loans for business activities.
And then comes across a judge who says, okay, wink, wink, nudge, nudge, we're in it together.
Here are the charges.
This is a civil case for fraud.
No victims except for the state of New York, which was defrauded somehow because the bank lent money based on Trump's evaluation of his assets as if the bank didn't also do evaluation of assets on a man and a company whose assets they were lending against and also a man who's had some bankruptcies in his history.
Yeah, the bank just said, oh, you say it's worth a half a billion?
We'll take you at your word.
Here's the money.
Okay.
Leticia James prosecutes.
This judge says, okay, I'll take, I have the case.
Make a motion to dismiss.
I've got tools.
I've got, by the way, that speech wasn't necessarily only an admission, but was the floor plan?
What's the word I'm looking for?
The plan of action.
For anybody else who says, oh, he's got tools to bypass a jury verdict.
He's also got tools to bypass a jury.
A motion for summary judgment.
Leticia James comes in and says, here's a motion for summary judgment.
We have no tribal issues of fact.
So there are no facts to even submit to a jury.
Judge, we're in agreement on these facts.
Allegedly, one of them was that the property was worth $18 million.
This judge said is an undisputed fact for the purposes of a motion, a summary motion.
And then the judge says, okay, I grant your summary motion.
Fraud.
We don't even need to go to a jury anymore.
Wow.
Amazing.
And then you get Leticia James who's taken this trial to Twitter.
Like, she campaigned off persecuting Trump, prosecuting Trump.
Now she's litigating this on Twitter in real time while Trump is in court with this activist judge who admits his own bias and admits that he has the tools to make the object of his own bias come to fruition.
This is justice.
This is the biggest, most outrageous political persecution in my lifetime.
It may not be about locking someone up for a framed murder, but they're not far off.
How can property that makes more than $18 million a year only be worth $18 million?
Oh, well, if you ask the judge, it's because there are...
What's the word?
You know, like conditions attached to the property.
It has to remain a country club.
It has to be a heritage property.
That actually devalues it.
Oh, there is no making sense of it because there is no sense to be made of it.
But that's the judge.
The judge wanted his 10 minutes of fame.
The judge wanted to smile for the cameras.
The world is now watching.
And the world now knows what a...
Hack activist of a judge is presiding over this trial, granting absurd and obscene motions to a corrupt, biased, partisan activist hack of an attorney general.
And what can you do?
They went to court.
And Otto Warmbier in North Korea also went to court and was found guilty.
I think that's it for...
I think that's it for the Trump.
I don't know what the latest of the day is here, but...
Alrighty, hold on one second.
Let me just see something here.
We're going to get into...
One last thing before we go over to...
TheVivaBarnesLaw.locals.com Let me see in our...
Okay, good.
My goodness.
Let's just go to the chat.
In Rumble and see what's going on there.
100% Viva.
Oh, Mamacita.
By the way, everyone can snip and clip that last part because the storm is coming.
If people don't wake up, they're going to be caught in the basement during a flood.
Nick says, now it's a president residence.
I'm sure that does not increase a property value.
Oh, are you going to touch on Speaker McCucky?
I'm not going to, because I don't understand.
Okay, who did that come from?
Speaker McCucky, that came from Hootoo.
I know what's going on.
Matt Gaetz has made a motion to vacate McCarthy as Speaker because of McCarthy allegedly in...
I don't know if it's a stopgap bill that they passed, but in order to avoid the government shutdown...
McCarthy allegedly violated some of the terms of the agreement that he had with Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, back in the day when McCarthy was vying for the speakership.
And apparently, in avoiding or averting the government shutdown, as if that would have been a bad thing, McCarthy violated some of the agreement terms that he had with the other GOP members who were holding out their vote to allow him to become speaker.
And now Matt Gaetz pissed off that McCarthy reneged on the terms of that agreement that made him Speaker.
Matt Gaetz made a motion to vacate to remove McCarthy from Speaker.
And I think now it's either McCarthy or other members of the GOP have made a motion to expel Matt Gaetz.
This is some wicked infighting, but it's also fun and exciting.
Lake Wanderer says, McCucky works better anyway, Viva.
So that's as much as I understand.
I don't know the specific terms of what, which specific terms of the agreement McCarthy broke.
So I'm going to look into it, have a better discussion with Barnes on Sunday, and we're definitely going to talk about it on Sunday.
C. Herni 98, or that's probably Cherny 98, says, McCarthy went behind Republicans' back and made a side deal with Democrats to send more money to Ukraine.
That's what I understood as well, because the The crux of the shutdown, as far as I understood it, was not another cent for Ukraine from the GOP.
But again, so that's it.
I need to make sure I understand it before I can take a position on it.
It's irresponsible of me.
Yuck, yuck, nudge, nudge.
McCarthy made a secret deal with Biden over Ukraine funding.
Yes, but I need to know the terms of that secret deal and what it violated.
And also, was it a stopgap?
Imagine when Trump gets into office, he sends $100 billion to Russia.
That would be funny, but not funny.
Uniparty versus freedom, says 1984 today.
No question about it.
What was I going to say?
Did everybody see the interview yesterday with Dan Hartman and Omar Sheik?
It was amazing.
Barnes would want Viva to know the details anyway.
That came from Luke Wanderer.
Let's see here.
McCucky allegedly stopped a Hunter subpoena.
WT...
What the fudge?
Oh, and Albino Viper 420 says, yes, it is a stopgap.
Good, so they got 45 days?
Can you imagine?
Now that I'm...
Can you imagine?
We saw the street view of that 2300 block in Philly.
There are worse places on Earth, but that did not look like...
That did not look like, say, a wealthy nation.
Didn't look terrible, but by all accounts, it's not the best place on earth.
Neither is Philly.
I go to LA, and it's hell on earth.
This is America.
And sending hundreds of billions of...
They could have rebuilt Lahaina.
And instead of rebuilding Lahaina, they're not even talking about Lahaina.
Has there been any discussion about Lahaina in the last little while?
Instead of...
Funding the border protection in America, they're funding the border protection in Ukraine by sending people to their slaughter instead of sitting down and discussing, negotiating.
That's a four-letter word now, negotiating.
Instead of law and order in America, ensuring that you have competent police, what do you have?
Shipping hundreds of billions of dollars to fund political proxy wars with other people's children.
If they call it a genocide and they call it wholesale slaughter, they are financing it, they are fomenting it, they are exacerbating it, and to a very, very large degree, they might even be more culpable for it.
I talked about it, I think, I don't know what day it is anymore.
I don't even know what day it is or what month it is because it's October and it's beautiful here.
I only know what season it is based on the changing of the seasons and even then sometimes I get mixed between fall and spring because they sort of follow an inverse pattern.
It's always summer in Florida.
I don't know what freaking month it is.
It was yesterday the day before that New Mexico traffic stop and you have a cop trained who does his job well.
It was an RFK, actually.
Total tangent is just I'm thinking out loud.
RFK did an interview, and I forget where it was, where he talked about the symptoms of having a country that is involved in foreign conflict.
You cannot have peace at home if you don't have peace abroad.
And that is to say you cannot have peace at home if you are involved in conflict abroad.
And the reasons are spiritual, financial, economic, social.
You're promoting conflict abroad.
It is necessarily going to result in conflict at home.
You are siphoning off billions of dollars that are intended for the welfare and benefit of your own citizens to finance war.
You're going to neglect your own citizens.
They're going to fall into drugs.
They're going to fall into crime.
They're going to fall into poverty and all that that entails.
You cannot be involved in international conflict without that having repercussions back at home.
And we're seeing it.
Mspys00 says, that is also the reason the fire alarm got pulled.
It didn't get pulled.
Jamal Bowman pulled it.
So I'm tongue-in-cheek.
They needed to buy more time to get the backroom deal done.
The Uniparty made the deal.
That was from Mspys00.
An ex-skater.
Oh, ex-skater.
I get it.
The Uniparty made the deal.
Fuck the Uniparty.
I can swear.
It's my show.
They are laundering our money back to themselves.
That is from ex-skater.
No question.
Speaking of corrupt trials and laundering money back to themselves, hold on, I just inhaled some saliva.
Excuse me.
Oh my goodness.
The Lincoln Project!
The guy, what's his name?
Schmidt?
What's the guy's name?
Schmidt blocked me.
Schmidt for brains blocked me.
He can tell Vinny on Patrick Bet David to...
How fucking dare you?
But I call him a piece of shit and I get blocked.
Sorry.
I've been swearing a lot lately, but...
I'm done.
I think I'm done.
Look at this.
You want to talk about...
There's a word for this type of fallacy.
Oh, because I found a room in a house that looks prima facie, like it's dirty, the house must be worthless.
Or the house must not be worth a value that some would ascribe to it.
The Lincoln Project.
Does this property look like it's worth $1.8 billion?
Well, considering that you just showed me a bloody bathroom...
I don't think I'm in a position to assess the value of the property, but if I had to...
Well, let me just sleuth a little bit here, Lincoln Project.
Let me take this out for one second.
I had a friend.
I still have the friend.
He'll know I'm talking about him.
They had a house.
It was magnificent, glorious.
And it had a chandelier like that.
And I don't think most people understand how much those chandeliers cost.
Like a cheap one will be like $5,000 or $6,000.
A moderately expensive one will be $15,000 to $20,000.
And then they can really get wild.
Wild!
And you try to clean those things?
Sweet, merciful goodness.
Good luck.
But let's just...
We're all reasonably smart people here.
We can go look.
Oh, look.
They've got a tension shower rod in the bathroom.
Oh, they've got boxes.
Let's just play a little sleuth.
So we go down to the floor.
The floor looks like marble onyx.
It looks like some decent stone.
Very nice stone.
That's nice.
The sink is also matching marble with some very beautiful wood ornaments, whatever you call that.
Nice brass handles.
It's got a nice mirror with those antique-style frames.
You've got your matching wall chandelier.
And then you go up to your chandelier on the roof.
On the ceiling.
And look, you can go Google it.
I went and Googled just some images of chandeliers that look remotely like this one.
They could go $5,000, $15,000, $130,000.
These people are idiots.
The Lincoln Project, I know I shouldn't pay attention to them, but they're idiots.
Does this property look like it's worth one point?
Can you show us an aerial of the property?
Can you show us how many acres it has?
Can you show us some comparables?
Can you show us some revenue, you raging jackasses?
The Lincoln Project.
What does that even mean, actually?
I don't want to say what I'm thinking out loud, but why would they name it the Lincoln Project, given what happened to Abraham Lincoln?
Seems like they have admiration for Lincoln.
So all that to say the Lincoln Project are idiots.
What's his name?
Steve Schmidt.
Let me just make sure.
Is that it?
Steve...
I think it's Steve Schmidt.
S. Schmidt.
Steve Schmidt.
Yes, I'm blocked.
And that's him.
Steve Schmidt is an idiot.
He was given a bullhorn.
He was on Patrick Bet David.
And he confirmed the degree to which he's an idiot.
I think we might actually just have to play us out with that so that we can end with something mildly funny.
Let me see here.
Let's go ahead and do that.
Before we head on over to...
Locals?
Oh, jeez, Louise, I got to get ready for Roger Stone.
Okay.
Got to get my hair nice.
I got my hair.
Okay, hold on.
When did I clip that?
You know what?
Now that I'm here and I forgot about this.
Leticia James litigating this case in public, but you want to know what a liar looks like?
And I did not make this body language assessment without analyzing what I think is Leticia James' baseline.
Leticia James.
Taken to media.
Listen to what she said yesterday.
Look at those eyes.
Blink, blink, blink, blink.
Blink, blink.
Blink, blink.
Last week we proved that in our motion for summary judgment.
One of the many tools that we have to bypass a jury.
It's simple.
Sing it.
Tell me.
Think you may have.
Do you appreciate, by the way, no matter how much money not you have, you might think you have.
Because her whole argument is that Trump didn't have as much money as he thought he did.
No matter how much money.
Duty.
And today in court, we will prove our case.
And we have just the judge to do it.
Today we will prove our case.
And we have just the judge to do it.
But the blinking of the eyes is a liar.
Last week we proved it in our summary motion.
You didn't prove shit.
And that's why you didn't want to go in front of a jury because had you gone to a jury with those facts, no jury.
Even in New York, I suspect, would have done that.
So you bypassed the jury, you found your judge, and let me just...
Claims.
My message is simple.
Oh, it's simple.
No matter how powerful you are, no matter how much money you think you may have...
You think you may have, we can take it.
That's my message.
No matter how much money you think you may have, we can and we will take it.
It takes a corrupt attorney general...
Corrupt partisan hack of a judge who has all the tools in his book, as detailed inadvertently eight years ago, and they will screw you, much like the FBI has six ways from Sundays to get back at you.
My goodness, a corrupt politicized judicial system has the ability to ruin anyone.
Show me the man, I'll show you the crime, and we will turn this country.
The beacon of light on the hill.
The experiment it was, America.
With admiration of the free world, we will turn it into a gosh darn banana republic that would make Putin green with envy.
That would make North Korea green with envy.
And my goodness, they're doing it in real time.
All right, now we're going to end with something.
No, I'm not going to play the whole thing, but just some.
Steve Schmidt for Brains, who blocked me on Twitter.
On Patrick Bet David.
An empty barrel makes the most noise.
Tis better to...
Remain silent and be thought of as a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.
We will play with this, play us out with this.
I'll give everybody the link to come on over to Locals.
We're going to have 15 minutes of an exclusive afterparty there.
Then I'm going to get ready, powder up for Roger Stone.
Then I'm going to go for a jog after Roger Stone to get that 200 milligrams of caffeine out of my body.
And that's it.
So let's play out with this.
I'm going to give everybody the link to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
I'll be live tomorrow.
Thank you all for being here if you're not coming over.
Always great to see you.
Thank you for the therapy.
Thank you for the venting and the outlet.
And I hope we've made a little more sense of this absolutely insane world in which we are currently living.
In which world?
Who?
What?
When?
Where?
And why?
Viva Frye!
Where you can get your merch, vivafry.com.
Okay, here we go.
Enjoy this.
See you in locals in about two minutes.
Twisting it.
What I said was...
What I said was...
January 6th was a more severe attack on the United States.
Oh, yeah.
September 11th...
September 11th...
Had more casualties.
Had more casualties.
But January 6th...
Well, that's a greater attack.
That's a difference.
I'm an idiot.
How do you measure worse?
There's got to be data.
You said you were data guy.
Data says one event, we lost nearly 3,000 people.
One event, we lost one.
We lost more casualties.
Of course 3,000 is going to be worse than one.
Because I guess I'm counting the 600,000 that died in the American Civil War.
What the fudge are you talking about?
And I'm counting the 405,000 that died in the Second World War.
And I'm counting the 50,000 that died in the Korean War.
And I'm counting the 58,000 that died in the Vietnam War.
And I'm counting the acts of sacrifice that go back to 1776 that were desecrated on that day, incited by a single man who assaulted the Constitution of the United States.
We were attacked by a foreign enemy on September 11th of 2001.
The casualties were horrendous, as they were on December 7th of 1941.
But the attack on January 6th was more severe also than the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Well, some would call it attack, but from the...
Only if you are the biggest idiot on the face of the planet with a moral compass that is rusted and thoroughly broken.
Holy hell.
Steve Schmidt, thank you.
Thank you for speaking out and removing all doubts.
The link to that tweet is there.
And now we're going to end on Rumble.
Go over to Locals.
You have the link.
Thank you all.
And see you tomorrow.
And I'll see you on...
Oh, hold on.
Let me give you the link for Roger Stone before we end so that everybody who wants to come on over there where I'm going to rail into Justin Trudeau.
That sounds gross.
Where I'm going to...
Sorry.
Rail against Justin Trudeau.
Well, I'm going to rail against Justin Trudeau.
Loud.
Loud and clear.
And I'm not going to let anybody forget about the fact that our parliament just gave two standing ovations to an actual Nazi soldier because they're idiots, they're hypocrites, they're liars, they're morons, and they don't have the slightest lick of an understanding of the history, which makes them incapable of understanding the present and absolutely impossible for them to predict the future.
This is the Roger Stone link right here.
Link to Stone.
If I could do it without a typo, that would be great.
Link to Stone.
And now I'm ending on Rumble.
Thank you all for being here.
See you tomorrow, peeps.
Booyah, but come on over to VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
Peace.
Locals!
Holy crab apples, I'm sweating.
Oh my goodness.
How goes the battle, everybody?
I'm just going to see what the chat has to say.
Clipped.
Where in comments, leftists or liars?
I'm gonna rail into Justin Trudeau.
God.
Excuse me while I throw open my mouth a little bit.
The moron needs to be...
Oh, the moron needs to be silenced.
▲
Export Selection