Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 4, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

01:45:09

Trump GAGGED? Trudeau a Narcissist & Racist? Letitia James Corrupt? Viva Frei LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	And I'm blaming Roger Stone.
	LOLs, people.
	Brrr, brrr.
	I'm going to go ahead and get The great Robert Barnes, to my mind, literally one of the most brilliant legal minds in the United States, a man for whom I have enormous respect.
	As I do for you, I want to thank you for joining the Stone Zone today.
	Look at my face closely.
	I have promised you that I will get down to see you in Miami to do your show soon, and my word on that is good.
	I look forward to it.
	Thank you for bringing us up to date.
	Look at my left eye, people.
	Anything you see happening in Canada, please recognize that those policies, that that attitude, that that authoritarianism is headed this way.
	That's why today's discussion will feel very important.
	Eva Frye, thank you so much for joining us in the Stone Zone.
	Thank you.
	Now, for those who don't really understand what's happening there, because I guess most people don't, I had one of those tickles in my throat and I knew the show was coming to an end and I was trying to hold in a massive coughing fit and then my eyes started watering and then when I tried to say thank you, it sounded like I was crying.
	I was like, I'm sorry.
	Good afternoon.
	So there's a reason why I wanted to show that intro.
	The first of which is, let me remove it.
	I couldn't find an intro totally unrelated to the show, but I also couldn't find an intro that was sufficiently unrelated from the bulk of the show, because I don't want to get into the Trump-Leticia James.
	Holy cows, are we going to have a segment on Trump-Leticia James, the judge, the gag order, breaking it all down.
	We're going to do it.
	Before we get into the Canada stuff, because this is going to be a Canada intro.
	Then we're going to go over to Rumble and Locals.
	Before we get into any of that, I want to make sure that everything is working.
	So what I'm going to go do here, I'm going to go refresh on Rumble, where we should be.
	We are streaming.
	We're there.
	I see ourselves live.
	Going to go to locals.
	We're good on locals.
	levels.
	And to let everybody know, if it's your first time here...
	Where the heck have you been?
	Good afternoon and welcome to the show.
	Viva Frye, Montreal litigator.
	Turned YouTuber, turned Rumbler, turned federal political candidate.
	Not going to get into my history, but if you're new to the channel, the way we do things here is because we are exclusive with Rumble, the platform that actually respects free speech in the meaningful political ideological sense.
	Exclusive there, we start on YouTube, Rumble, and on our vivabarneslaw.locals.com locals community, where everyone is well above average.
	Because we use YouTube, that's right, in a Kantian sense, categorical imperatives, you're never allowed to use another human as it ends to your purposes.
	That's not the same thing with tools.
	We use YouTube as a tool, because it is a tool in both senses.
	It's a tool, and they're tools.
	We start off on YouTube, do a portion of the show there, end on YouTube, go to Rumble, do the rest of the show there, and then we have our after party at locals at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	And then I post either the entire stream the next day so YouTube gets the leftovers, the non-live and non-interactive leftovers, or I snip and clip and post it to Viva Clips.
	So I had the near coughing fit on Roger Stone last night.
	I had...
	A Celsius, which has 200 milligrams of caffeine per can.
	That's too much caffeine.
	After having had a cold brew over lunch with the team from Rumble, after having tried out exclusively, secretly, a new product that they're getting ready to launch, which is going to be revolutionary and magnificent, I had too much caffeine yesterday.
	Couldn't sleep last night.
	Sitting up there thinking about the doom and gloom of the world, was listening to Cernovich before going to bed.
	That was a bad idea.
	Not because it's Cernovich, just because of the subject matter of his live stream.
	But alas, this is the world in which we live.
	We have no choice.
	Like the heron, sitting in a pond, absolutely still, waiting for its next meal, and I'm jogging.
	As I go, I see alligators, I see turtles, I see a heron.
	And the heron's life consists of standing still, trying to get a meal so it can eat, so it can get energy, so that it can continue to stand still, so that it can eat to get energy, so it can continue to stand still to hunt.
	And I look at that heron, and I say, my goodness, imagine my life consisted of, or humans' lives, consisted of just waiting to eat.
	In some way, many people's lives do consist of just that, but the heron's life, it stands still.
	Okay, it goes and it makes babies and it finds a partner and it goes to feed them, but it stands still in anticipation of eating a frog that seems like a wasted life for a human.
	But the heron has no choice.
	We are in this world, whether we like it or not, we have to make sense of it, and in as much as possible, we have to try to change it for the good if we want to be good people.
	Part of what that means is exposing the bad for what it is.
	Part of that means exposing, shining that, as Robert Gouveia says, that big, beautiful spotlight on the corrupt, the liars, and the purveyors of disinformation, which in this day and age happens to be pretty much everyone in government, pretty much everyone in legacy media.
	And so that's what we're going to do today.
	On today's show, I still can't...
	Get over the fact that my life consists now making shows.
	It used to be car vlogs.
	Now it's an episode of show in today's stream.
	Because I sit here and I read the news and I try to understand things as well.
	We're going to try to make some sense of the historic events of yesterday.
	It's the first time in the history of America that the Speaker of the House has been yeeted, ousted, vacated.
	It's like evacuation complete.
	Speaker McCarthy, who got into the speakership after having struck an alliance, an agreement with other members of the GOP, ousted, vacated is what it's called.
	You know, you have been vacated, Mr. McCarthy.
	He's out.
	First time in American history.
	Going to try to make sense of that.
	Why?
	What does it mean?
	What was passed yesterday in terms of a spending stopgap that allows, you know, whatever, 45?
	We're going to get into that.
	We're going to get into Leticia James taking her persecution of Donald Trump to social media.
	Waging that war in social media.
	Disgracefully so.
	Corruptly so.
	While, while...
	A gag order is issued against Donald Trump.
	We're gonna get to that.
	We're going to get to...
	There was something else.
	Oh, RFK.
	I'm gonna share my insights as to RFK announcing he might run as an independent.
	And I'm gonna not break ranks.
	I'm gonna respectfully and humbly disagree with a few people whose intellect and wisdom I respect and appreciate.
	That'll be...
	Well, I don't want to say if they're actually public.
	I...
	Okay, we'll get there.
	And then we're gonna talk about what's going on in Canada.
	First, before we end on Rumble.
	Now, just before we go here, Super Chats, you all know the rules.
	YouTube takes 30%.
	If you don't like that, Rumble has these things called Rumble Rants.
	Rumble takes 20% typically, but takes nothing for the rest of the year.
	2024, they'll go back to their takes, so it's better for the creator.
	Best way to support?
	Where is it?
	Oh, the best way to support if you want to go to Viva Fry and get your...
	Put this on pause here.
	If you want to get your...
	Wanted for president, mugshot mug or your mugshot shot glass.
	VivaFry.com.
	We've got some other great merch as well.
	Politics ruins absolutely everything.
	And yes, I say that with the introspection.
	Wondering if politics has ruined me.
	Not yet.
	Retain your sense of humor and laugh instead of crying, I guess.
	Okay.
	On the subject of did not see that coming, holy crab apples.
	So we're going to start with the scandal in Canada.
	To quote Steve Martin out of The Jerk, it's going to make you puke.
	It's going to make you want to puke what's going on in Canada.
	I was on Roger Stone railing against the system in as much as the world needs to know.
	And I told Roger Stone...
	I'm going to be vocal, relentless, and borderline annoying about this.
	I'm never going to let them forget that they gave two standing ovations to a Nazi in Canadian Parliament.
	And not just the Liberals.
	The Conservatives as well.
	You idiot trolls on Twitter.
	The Conservatives did it too.
	You're either idiots and are new to my Twitter feed, or you're liars, or a little bit of both.
	I'm giving grief to the Conservatives.
	They sat there and clapped like a bunch of buffoons as well.
	Like a bunch of...
	Trained circus animals.
	They clapped as well.
	They didn't invite them, and they didn't claim that it was Russian disinformation afterwards.
	Ignorance?
	Yes.
	Indication that they have no idea or no understanding of geopolitics to be marching Canada and all of our monies into a world war?
	Yes.
	Equally as culpable as the liberals, Christopher Freeland, Justin Trudeau?
	No.
	So, there's that.
	I'm going to address this.
	I'm not your buddy guy because I can't see this and then not address this.
	I'm not your buddy guy.
	I am struggling to see anything good for the future.
	I find it hard to keep going considering my personal circumstances as well as future.
	In the most cryptic and cynical senses, what's the alternative?
	Give up?
	Give in?
	Give out?
	That's not much of an alternative.
	Without getting too cryptic, Some of you may know from my practice of law, I had two, you know, I'll say mildly traumatic experiences involving what people do in the absolute worst states of devastation to themselves.
	At one point in time, I said, you know, just wait another day because nothing needs to be done today that can't wait until tomorrow in the most panic-induced moments of crises.
	But what's the alternative?
	Give up, give in, and withdraw?
	That's not an option.
	It's not an option because what's the benefit of doing that?
	If at the end of the day, we're all going to the same place, you may as well do what you can while you're here to change for the better if we all end up in the same place anyhow.
	If we end up in the same place, ending up there in 50 years' time or in a day, I mean, what's the benefit to ending up there in a day?
	You keep fighting.
	You stay true to yourself.
	You keep optimistic because what is the option?
	The heron doesn't just give up and fly off.
	It waits, hoping that a frog comes so it can get its next meal.
	We will wait, continuing to pursue what is good, what is true, and what is honest.
	And fingers crossed behind your back.
	But you don't give up and you don't give in because there's no benefit to that.
	And we're all going to end up in the same place at any point.
	So you may as well do everything you can in your power to be good and change things for the better while you're here.
	Moment of inspiration, I hope, over.
	And I have to tell myself this sometimes because, like, you know, sometimes you don't want to leave the house.
	You don't want to leave the house out of irrational fears, but you also just don't want to leave the house.
	Like, oh, cripe, what are we going to do?
	It's like, I'm going to end up back here, to quote Homer Simpson, but also, like, it's a scary, ugly world out there, and it seems to be filled with and run by the most decrepit cretin on the planet.
	How does that happen?
	Don't take an interest in politics.
	You end up being governed by your inferiors, to quote Plato, and if you don't take an interest in politics, it doesn't matter.
	Politics will take an interest in you.
	I think everybody is starting to realize that right now.
	You can't stay quiet on the sidelines forever because politics will take an interest in you, and it's going to go a little bit above and beyond just taking your hard-earned money for taxes so they can finance a proxy war that might lead us into World War III.
	Okay, I hope that's okay.
	We're going to get here.
	I'm going to flag this and get to it.
	Not flag.
	I'm going to star this and get back to it.
	So the news out of Canada.
	I'm not doing the overview because everybody knows that when Zelensky was doing the rounds in North America asking for billions and billions of more dollars to finance not just the war.
	And this is what I highlighted with the Going Underground interview that I did and with Roger Stone.
	Not just finance the war.
	To finance all of the Ukrainian economy.
	Administrative salaries.
	Government salaries.
	These people are living fat off the door.
	They're sucking the fat from the bone.
	Living in multi-million dollar mansions.
	Government official salaries.
	Subsidizing small businesses in Ukraine because their economy is taking a hit because of the conflict with Russia.
	That's what Canadian taxpayer dollars, US taxpayers, hundreds of billions of dollars.
	You're not just financing a war, which would be problematic enough.
	You're financing an economy.
	Where our economy is not exactly on the golden path to heaven.
	I don't know.
	That's not the word.
	To paradise.
	Financing the Ukrainian economy, Ukrainian small businesses, Ukrainian government official salaries so they can corruptly divvy up that money among themselves and go buy million-dollar mansions across the world.
	That's what we're financing.
	So while Zelensky's doing the rounds in the West to beg for more because it's in all of our best interests for as long as it takes, He goes to the House of Parliament in Canada, special invitation, where the government has also invited another guy who happens to have been a Nazi soldier for the SS back in Ukraine fighting the Soviets.
	They give him two standing ovations.
	You know the scandal.
	It becomes a scandal of international proportions.
	A, because it illustrates for the dude running around calling Canadians Nazis for not wanting to have their bodies medically experimented on.
	They invited a Nazi and gave a Nazi two standing ovations, but they don't politicize it.
	International embarrassment for Canada but moreover highlights the problem that many have been saying for quite a few years until it became memory hold that there's a Nazi problem in Ukraine and maybe people are starting to like you know get a little wise to the fact that the hundreds of billions of dollars we're sending over unquestionably to this country where what was it upwards of 30% if it was either 30 or 70% a significant portion goes unaccounted for.
	We might be financing actual Nazis in Ukraine while our government is demonizing us as being Nazis if we protest for our rights, don't want to be experimented on.
	That's the scandal.
	Justin Trudeau, being the pathological narcissist piece of human rubbish that he is, blames it all on Anthony Rutta, the house speaker.
	This guy had the sole responsibility of inviting this guy.
	He vetted him.
	None of us knew he was a Nazi.
	We were just...
	Celebrating a guy who fought our allies in World War II.
	Idiots!
	Okay.
	Anthony Rutta, as you've all known, falls on the sword, takes full responsibility, apologizes, and resigns.
	Okay.
	He resigns.
	Everyone else gets to go scot-free.
	Justin Trudeau, don't blame me.
	I didn't do it.
	Christopher Freeland, I have no understanding of Ukrainian history.
	I mean, my grandfather had Nazi ties, and I knew that they, you know, fought the Soviets, and I knew that he was an SS soldier, but I didn't know him by name.
	Washes her hands of it.
	Zelensky, who gives him a standing ovation in our parliament.
	I'm just the president of Ukraine.
	I'm Jewish.
	I can't possibly, you know, admit there's a Nazi problem.
	I can't possibly understand that the Ukrainians fought the Allies and joined the SS.
	I didn't know either.
	Nobody knew.
	Nobody knew.
	Anthony Ratta resigns.
	They appointed the new Speaker of the House.
	I think I knew him by name.
	They appoint a guy whose name is Greg Fergus.
	And by the way, credentials be damned.
	We're going to get into the credentials.
	Credentials be damned.
	You have to listen to this.
	I put out a tweet yesterday.
	I said the other day I called Justin Trudeau.
	A narcissistic piece of shit.
	And that was wrong of me.
	I'm sorry.
	He's a narcissistic, racist piece of shit.
	And I'm going to tell you why.
	I apologize for cussing.
	But I think I might have come to grips with that being one of the character foibles that I am prepared to live with as far as I go now.
	And if that's as bad as it gets, so be it.
	He's not just a narcissistic piece of shit.
	He is a narcissistic, racist piece of shit.
	Why?
	Imagine looking at someone and...
	You reduce them to their skin color.
	You reduce them to their religion.
	You reduce them to their sexual orientation, to their creed.
	When you do that, you are the ist that you accuse other.
	When you do not see a human for a human, and you say, hey, human, black.
	Human, Jew.
	Human, gay.
	You are reducing people to identity politics, and you are the racist.
	You are the anti-Semite, and you are the bigot.
	I make the joke all the time, you know, you know who never lets you forget that you're Jewish?
	Jews and anti-Semites.
	And the reason for that is one is loving and one is not loving.
	You know, when a member of your family sees you eating a ham sandwich on Yom Kippur and they say, David, you shouldn't be doing that.
	Or they see eaten unkosher or, you know, you're doing something that culturally, religiously people know, you know, you shouldn't be doing.
	And you know who else never lets you forget it?
	Regardless of how many rules you break, the people who never want to see you as anything but the Jew.
	The people who never want to see you as anything but the Black.
	So what does Trudeau...
	Justin Trudeau, for all of you who don't know, appoints...
	They don't appoint.
	It gets elected by secret ballot by Parliament.
	Canada has now elected the first Black House Speaker.
	Credentials be damned because he's got problems, as we're going to get into in a second.
	When I say that Trudeau is a racist and narcissist, I present to you...
	Exhibit 1. And I'm going to tell you what.
	It's going to make you puke.
	I don't want to oversell it.
	And it will give us the opportunity to proceed with mutual respect.
	This is after his speech.
	Proceed with mutual respect.
	Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your trust.
	I hope that I will earn it over the coming years.
	Spoiler alert.
	This guy was found guilty of a conflict of interest violation.
	Ethics breach.
	We'll get there in a second.
	Never mind.
	Forget that.
	He's black.
	Because Justin Trudeau wants you to know.
	He's black.
	In case you didn't know!
	Set an example.
	We now have a Speaker of the House of Man who was found guilty of ethics violations.
	Thank you.
	All the success.
	Let's hear what Justin Trudeau has to say.
	Oh, they're giving him a standing ovation!
	We all know what those mean now.
	Look at Pablo Rodriguez on the bottom left there.
	Okay.
	Here, they're going to get Justin Trudeau to speak.
	The Honorable Prime Minister.
	The right Honorable Prime Minister.
	The right Honorable Prime Minister.
	There, my first mistake, he says.
	We're going to go back.
	I want to vomit listening to this guy.
	Listen to this.
	You are the first black Canadian to become Speaker of this House.
	Look at his disgusting face.
	I look at you, Greg Ferguson.
	Greg Fergus, I don't see anything other than a black man.
	That's all I see when I look at you.
	Yeah, look at this.
	Oh, God.
	Can you imagine how demeaning and degrading that is?
	Like, imagine I got appointed Speaker of the House.
	I don't know if they've ever had a Jewish Speaker of the House.
	And they look at me, and they set aside law degrees, set aside Rumble Awards, set aside whatever.
	Mr. Freiheit, you are the first Jew Speaker of the House.
	How do you think that?
	I know how that would make me feel.
	Like an absolute object.
	And they go on.
	They're so proud of themselves for having done it.
	They're not proud of him.
	They're proud of themselves because of how tolerant, because of how not racist they are, that they actually elected a black man.
	The first thing they say to him, you're a black man.
	Oh, and by the way, it's the right honorable.
	And don't make that mistake again.
	I smiled, but it ain't funny.
	You call me by my title, and it's the right honorable.
	I'll go back and watch that in a second.
	Inspiring for all Canadians, especially younger generations who want to get involved in politics.
	We'll stop there.
	It should be inspiring for all Canadians, especially when you find out that he was found guilty of having violated the Conflict of Interests Act.
	Oh, but let's just go back.
	Let's just go back for one second and look at the repulsive man that is Justin Trudeau.
	He couldn't let it slide, by the way.
	So just so you know, I don't know why they are called honorable.
	I mean, I think it's just...
	Customary.
	They're called honorable.
	But I guess Justin Trudeau is one notch, the prime minister's one notch above other honorable members of parliament.
	He's the right honorable.
	And so he says, he introduces him as l 'honorable premier ministre Trudeau, the honorable prime minister Trudeau.
	And Justin Trudeau has to say...
	Le très honorable, which in French means the very honorable, but I guess that's the French version of right honorable is très honorable.
	You're right honorable.
	He has to correct him.
	The narcissist cannot not get the respect that he demands from his title in public.
	And you're going to make sure that Fergus knows his first mistake.
	It's the right honorable and don't you ever forget it.
	And then he sticks his disgusting lizard tongue out at him.
	Look at this.
	The Honorable Prime Minister.
	Excusez-moi, Monsieur Fergus.
	C 'est le très honorable.
	Oh, I missed it.
	I missed it.
	Très honorable.
	Because he's very honorable.
	He's...
	Oh, come on, come on.
	I can go on all day.
	Let me just...
	Ah, I missed it.
	Ah, forget it here.
	My first mistake.
	Why can I not get this thing?
	Here we go.
	Let's work on the pause.
	I want to pause it on the lizard.
	There we go.
	There you go.
	Let's just go ahead and screen grab that and bring it to Twitter.
	Oh, that wasn't your first mistake.
	That wasn't your first mistake.
	That's your first mistake as Speaker of the House.
	Oh, hold on one second.
	Let me just go ahead and just tweet that.
	No comment.
	I'm just going to go ahead and tweet that.
	Wonderful.
	Oh, no, no, no, no.
	Where is it?
	I know I just screen grabbed it because I just did it.
	There it is.
	There it is.
	Okay.
	It's tweeted.
	Does that not make you want to vomit?
	This is the guy now, by the way.
	In order to...
	Get past the fact that they gave a standing ovation to a Nazi that they pretend not to have known who he was, what he was, etc.
	They throw the old house speaker under the bus.
	He falls on the sword.
	And what do they do?
	Well, now not only have they made up for the Nazi standing ovation, but they get to show how virtuous and righteous they are as having elected the first black speaker of the house in Canada.
	He's not a human, everybody.
	They reduce him to identity.
	And yes, it's secret ballot.
	I don't know what the results were.
	All of parliament votes by secret ballot.
	And he got in.
	But it's the first thing he says.
	Reduce someone not to their credentials, not to their experience, not to their history, not to their individuality, to their race.
	So that you can congratulate yourself at having turned...
	You've turned the Nazi debacle into racial harmony?
	By singling out a man by race in front of Parliament.
	I mean, it's so disgusting.
	It's so disgusting.
	And by the way, I'd like to know, did...
	What's his face?
	Did Fergus give a standing ovation to the Nazi?
	I mean, I know everyone in Parliament did.
	I just don't know where Fergus stands.
	So that when I go look at the wide-angle picture of everyone in Parliament giving a standing ovation to a Nazi, I don't know where Fergus is in that crowd.
	See, the only fortunate ones are the ones who were not in Parliament on that day, so they couldn't have been there to make the mistake that everyone else there made.
	Just go refresh and see if we're still monetized on YouTube.
	Oh, we are.
	Look at that.
	All right, but we're not done with Fergus yet.
	Because, look, turn it into a racial issue.
	It's the right, Honorable Fergus.
	Don't you forget it.
	And now let me reduce you to an object of race, religion, creed, whatever.
	But let's just ignore also your history, shall we?
	Nobody knows who Fergus is.
	MP Greg Fergus.
	This is from CBC.
	So, you know, when they're going to report something unfavorable about the hand that finances them, it's probably going to be begrudgingly true.
	MP Member of Parliament Greg Fergus becomes the latest liberal caught violating ethics rules.
	This is from 10 years ago, right?
	Oh, I'm sorry, hold on.
	February 14, Valentine's Day, 2023.
	Conflict of interest and ethics commissioner Mario Dion, When you violate the rules, depending on who it is, it's either ethics training.
	It's my first day.
	I didn't know.
	Off with their heads, get out of Parliament, depending on political orientation.
	No one's above the law, but some people are more below the law than others.
	And may I remind you that Justin Trudeau has been found in violation of the Conflict of Interests Act twice.
	He had three complaints.
	The last one he got out of, and I don't know how, but it was right before Mario Dion left for health reasons.
	The first one was the Aga Khan scandal, where Justin Trudeau was taking all expenses, all expense-paid trips to the island of the Aga Khan of some philanthropist who was petitioning the federal government for tens of millions of dollars, which he got.
	Didn't disclose it.
	Didn't think, you know, like a $50,000, $60,000 jet ski.
	All-inclusive vacation to this guy's private island while he's asking the government for money that you should disclose those things.
	Ethics violation number one.
	Number two was when he fired Jody Wilson-Raybould, the first Aboriginal woman, Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
	Remember, when he appointed her, he was so proud of the fact that he appointed a woman and an Indigenous woman at that.
	Then he fired her like the underling that she is when she refused to do his bidding for him.
	Second ethics violation.
	The third ethics complaint was the WE Charity, where it became known that his mother, his brother, his wife were getting speaking fees, gifts, compensation, remuneration, other goodies from the WE Charity for speaking fees, while the WE Charity was being granted a sole-sourced no-bid contract to administer a billion dollars in student loans, for which they were getting paid like $20 million.
	And Mario Dion, the ethics commissioner, I could probably take this out of the screen for a second.
	Somehow came to the conclusion that that wasn't a violation of ethics because they were not immediate family members or something ludicrous.
	Then Mario Dion goes on leave or resigns due to health reasons.
	And you know what?
	Amazing coincidence.
	Canada has not, the federal government has not appointed a commissioner to investigate alleged ethics violations.
	So Canada has now been without an ethics commissioner to enforce the Conflict of Interest Act for over six months now.
	Just a coincidence, I'm sure.
	But lo and behold, when there was an ethics commissioner there, Mario Dion, he found that Greg Fergus violated ethics rules.
	Let's just see how.
	The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is recommending that all federal ministers and parliamentary secretaries report to his office, he's not there anymore, so nobody can do this, for training after MP Fergus became the latest high-profile liberal to violate the Conflict of Interests Act.
	Quote, "Offers to provide training and education sessions on a variety of topics have been offered to all federal parties and to regulatees, yet we continue to see a succession of mistakes that are largely attributable to not corrupt Oh, I didn't know I needed to seek consultation.
	What did Fergus do?
	He made the remarks in his ruling against Fergus, Prime Minister Trudeau's parliamentary secretary.
	Fergus was found to have violated the act by writing a letter of support for a television channel's application to the CRTC for mandatory carriage.
	Not mandatory exclusion, mandatory carriage.
	Imagine, the CRTC, remember everybody, it's independent, the CRTC.
	They don't take their...
	Guiding actions from the government that established their existence.
	They're totally independent, separate from government, except members of parliament, and there was a reason why he was wearing two hats, he had another function, are writing a letter to them to say, you'd better carry this channel on the, wherever it is, on television, radio, television.
	You better carry this channel.
	I'm not telling you what to do.
	You're totally independent.
	But I wrote you a nice letter letting you know what I think you should do.
	And why?
	Politics.
	We'll get there in a second.
	Under parliamentary rules, MPs, members of parliament, can write letters to support CRTC, the Canadian Radio Telecommunications Commission, whatever it is, to support an application.
	But parliamentary secretaries and cabinet ministers cannot.
	Why?
	Because they carry more weight and more influence.
	More power.
	More power to govern.
	Ministers and parliamentary secretaries are subject to both conflict of interest code for members of the House of Commons in their roles as parliamentarians and the Conflict of Interest Act in their role as government officials.
	This is because they wield more influence than backbench MPs.
	Okay.
	In a statement posted online, yada yada.
	Fergus thanked Dion for his report.
	Can you imagine this?
	It's like you get found to have violated the law.
	And you thank the person.
	It's not that you are forced to resign because the Conflict of Interest Act doesn't actually have any punitive sanctions by and large.
	There's some like small fines and whatever, but there's no imprisonment.
	There's no forced resignation.
	It's supposed to be a political tool that results in, you know, political backlash.
	Thank you for finding that I broke the Conflict of Interest Act.
	I vow to do better.
	And let's not politicize the fact that we all gave a standing ovation to a Nazi.
	I will redouble my efforts to be more diligent in the future to ensure my obligations under the act are fully met.
	You know what?
	For normal people, there's an expression in French.
	Nul n 'est censé ignorer la loi.
	Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
	I'm sorry.
	It's my first day.
	I'll do better.
	My goodness.
	And then Dion announces his retirement.
	I'll just read this before we end on this.
	Oh yeah, bullshit.
	You assume that they're of good faith?
	At what point do you stop assuming that they're of good faith and that they're just corrupt hacks?
	And even when they get caught, nothing happens to them.
	So what's the incentive to even not do it and risk getting caught when nothing happens to you?
	Even when you do it and get caught and get found guilty, nothing happens to you.
	It's amazing.
	After years of serving in senior positions, Dion said Fergus should have been aware of the rules or should have sought advice.
	I'm quite concerned that someone of his breadth of experience, Mr. Fergus, would fail to recognize the possibility of a contravention.
	Well, he's now Speaker of the House.
	He's had a troubled relationship with the Conflict of Interest Act since coming to office.
	He was found...
	Yeah, we did that already.
	Okay.
	During the SNC-Lavalin scandal...
	Okay, fine.
	Oh, hold on.
	Actually, I want to see this here.
	During the SNC-Lavalin scandal, Dion's office found that Trudeau broke the act by pressuring then-minister Jody Wilson-Raybould to enter into a deferred prosecution agreement.
	In 2018, Trudeau accepted two pairs of leather covered sunglasses made by fellow Earthlings Eyewear, based in rural Prince Edward Island, which retailed for about $300 and $500 each.
	He was fined $100 for failing to report the gift.
	While Trudeau was cleared of any conflict, of interest during the WE charity probe, Dion concluded former finance minister Bill Morneau did breach the act for failing to recuse himself from cabinet deliberations about the Stummer Student Programme grants.
	2021, Liberal MP Yasmin Ratanzi was found to have violated the act for employing her foster sister in her constituency office for years.
	More recently, International Trade Minister Mary Ng was forced to apologize after Dion ruled she had placed herself in a conflict of interest by awarding communications contracts to public relations agency Pomp and Circumstance.
	Okay.
	After issuing the report, Dion announced, I have been honored to...
	Oh yeah, then he announced he's retiring.
	Okay.
	So that's it.
	That's it.
	The man whose judgment is so poor he doesn't know the rules after years in government, conflict of interest, found guilty.
	He's now Speaker of the House.
	But set aside experience, lack of experience, or confirmed ethics violations.
	Trudeau wants to make everybody understand he's black.
	All right.
	I feel better.
	I don't.
	Let me bring this one up.
	How about Canada allowing a Nazi to continue living, to continue to live in Canada?
	From what I understand, speaking of Jaroslav Junka, they had looked into his past and they don't deport, extradite in the absence of evidence of actual, specific individual crimes against humanity, which I don't think they found any after having investigated Junka.
	But I also, you know...
	I'm not sure that everybody would agree with me on this.
	A 98-year-old man is beyond prosecution.
	I don't think you're serving justice by prosecuting a 98-year-old war criminal for war crimes that were committed 80 years ago, not for war crimes that he might have committed last year.
	But anyways, I accept that some people will agree to disagree with me on that position.
	YouTube hack, while paused, press that to forward one frame.
	I'm going to check that out.
	I didn't know what the heck that was.
	Ethics and fire alarms can be confusing, says Mr. Buttons.
	Oh, yeah.
	It's his first day.
	All right.
	We're going to end on YouTube now.
	Let me just see if there's any Hrumble rants.
	There are not that I should read now.
	I'm going to close that.
	So what we're going to do now, let me give you all the link to the Hrumbles.
	We'll take the party over there.
	How many are we on YouTube?
	426.
	We are destroying YouTube on Rumble.
	Come on over.
	To Rumble now, if you are so inclined.
	And that is it.
	Just make sure here I'm not missing anything.
	Okay, we're done.
	Ending on YouTube, come over to Rumble, and then after that we're going to head on over to Locals on Rumble.
	Gates, not Gates, we're going to talk about McCarthy, we're going to talk about RFK, and we're going to talk about Trump and Leticia James.
	Oh my god.
	Spoiler alert.
	The Statue of Limitations.
	They're going to replace the Statue of Liberty with the Statue of Limitations.
	And yes, it might have just been a flub that she said.
	I'm going to pick on it and I'm going to make fun of it because it's damn funny.
	To be continued on Rumble.
	Ending on YouTube.
	Three, two, one.
	Booyah!
	The Statue of Limitations.
	Okay, before we get into that, I'm going to share what I think about RFK Jr. announcing that he might be running as an independent.
	The announcement should be coming Monday.
	A lot of people are panicking because they think it's going to be bad for Trump because, according to some articles, RFK admits it's going to be bad for Trump.
	According to some of his staffers, they say this is totally going to F Trump.
	Let's just pontificate that theory for one second.
	Everybody knows...
	Polls are pretty much not worthless, but pretty close.
	Everybody knows that with certain things which are very discretionary in nature, and you can steelman both arguments.
	How might it hurt Trump?
	How might it hurt Biden?
	How might it be net equal or net loss equal?
	When you're dealing with a situation where it's subjective as a matter of opinion, matter of analysis, You can come to whatever conclusion you want.
	There will be strong arguments for how it might hurt Trump, although I think there are stronger arguments for how it will hurt Biden more.
	But there's an argument to be made.
	When someone like RFK Jr. comes out and says, this is going to hurt Trump, so don't blame me, Democrats.
	I look at that more like an insurance against a backlash or the pretext to do it.
	Knowing in his heart of hearts that he doesn't actually believe or he doesn't actually think, despite the strong arguments that might exist, that it will hurt Trump more than Biden.
	It's not a secret that maybe RFK Jr doesn't have the most love for a political party that arguably had a role in assassinating his father and uncle.
	It's not a secret that he might have some animosity for the political party and machine.
	That has had a role in censoring him, demonizing him, yeeting him from platforms, turning him into public enemy number one.
	It's not a hidden secret that he might have some animosity for a political party that screws everyone that is not part of the system.
	Bernie Sanders, who then bent over and licked the boot that was crushing his neck.
	Good for him.
	That's the last time I ever supported the idea of a Bernie.
	You have to look at this and say, okay, he might not like Trump, although I tend to think he might like him more than he says.
	Does he want to do something that's going to go help the party that has demonized him, assassinated or had a hand in assassinating family members, screwed people in the process of democracy and delegates and whatnot, and had a hand in basically destroying his life and his reputation?
	If you think that, that he would deliberately do something that would help them.
	You're entitled to that opinion, and I would say that that is a very naive and maybe untenable position.
	But if you were going to do something that you know would hurt the party, that has demonized you, defamed you, screwed the citizens out of their choices, you know, what is it called?
	Tainted the whole process.
	And, you know, maybe you've had a hand in assassinating your father and your uncle.
	If you wanted to screw them, but you wanted to make it look like you're not screwing them, what would you do?
	You'd rely on the perfectly tenable argument, the polls, the stats, whatever, that this is actually not going to hurt them.
	It's going to hurt their enemy, Trump.
	And that's your insurance.
	Well, I'm not doing it to hurt you guys.
	I think it's going to hurt Trump.
	That's why I'm doing it.
	And if you believe it...
	To each their own, I would have a very fun time arguing that with anybody.
	But let me bring up the article from Mediaite.
	This is going to Trump.
	RFK Jr. campaign insider says independent will run will help Biden.
	That's a very convenient excuse to do it and then try to be loved by your party.
	The other thing is this.
	Let me just bring that up for one second.
	When you know that there's going to be a report that says X and not X, like I always go back to Bush.
	We have intelligence that says there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
	It doesn't matter if Bush believes it or doesn't believe it.
	He's got the expert report that says it.
	He could actually not believe it in his heart of hearts.
	But it doesn't matter because he's not saying what he believes.
	He's saying what the experts have provided in a report.
	And it can be total bullshit as a pretext to do what you want to do, and you don't even have to believe it so long as you've got the authorities to say that what you might not believe is the case so that you can at least hang your hat on that and go ahead and do what you want to do, but you might not have believed in doing without that expert saying, go ahead and do it because you have the reason.
	That's what corruption is.
	It's not George Bush going to...
	CIA intelligence with a briefcase of cash and saying, look, I need a report that says that they're WMD so I can go, as a pretext, go invade Iraq.
	That's not how it works.
	They don't even have to say it.
	They don't even have to give the wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
	They know what their respective interests are in the long run.
	We want a pretext.
	We want an excuse.
	So let's go fudge the numbers.
	Let's go exaggerate the risks.
	Let's prepare a report so that it's experts, not individuals, saying it.
	So that the individuals who want to do it anyhow can now say, well, I'm hanging my hat on the expert reports.
	No different than what's going on here, in my humble opinion.
	And I do not mind if people disagree with me.
	Let's see here.
	When Mediaite reported on Friday that Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a long-shot candidate challenging Biden for the 2020 election, is planning to run as an independent, a debate erupted.
	Will the defection prove more damaging to the Republican frontrunner, former President Trump, than to his incumbent?
	Since launching his campaign, Kennedy has been eagerly promoted by pro-Trump voices, Okay, so we've got Fox News saying, Jesse waters Kennedy's independent run will devastate Biden's shot
	Well, now, if Jesse Watters thinks it not, I think I like Jesse Watters, but let me see who else says what.
	Despite the simplicity of the argument that a Democrat running as an independent will hurt Biden, Kennedy is no ordinary Democrat.
	His views on issues like COVID in Ukraine.
	What are his views on Ukraine?
	His son went and fought for Ukraine, and he's proud of it.
	Even if he says, you know, no more foreign conflicts, he can't be fighting in foreign conflicts and have peace at home.
	That seems like kind of a hedged bet of a position.
	They align neatly with the current Republican Party.
	That fact has led Trump supporters in the media to fret that he could pose a greater risk to the former president than Biden.
	As a campaign insider put it to mediaite, MAGA folks are upset over this news.
	Charlie Kirk argued in his podcast.
	An independent run is so damaging for Trump that it must be the result of a media plot to encourage Kennedy to defect from the Democrat Party.
	See, I respect Charlie Kirk, but I respectfully disagree with what he's saying here.
	I respect Jack Posobiec, but I respectfully disagree with him here.
	But then again, they know more than me.
	At least they have more insider, you know, experience.
	RFK can't win, but he can deny Trump the White House and hand it to the Dems, Posobiec wrote on X. Well, that's more of like a, it's a possibility.
	He'll operate like Ross Perot.
	There might be some material differences between him and Ross Perot.
	Ross Perot, from what I understand, was coming from the Republican side.
	RFK is coming from the Democrat side, so there's a material difference in that comparison already, unless I'm mistaken.
	Where he's picking up the anti-establishment vote, people who may have considered Trump, but if they're given an alternative, they'll go for RFK.
	Can you imagine anybody who's thinking of voting for Trump?
	That if Trump is on the ticket, and RFK is on the ticket, That they're going to say I'm going to go vote for RFK?
	That is where I say it doesn't make any sense, that argument.
	People who are seriously thinking about voting for Trump, if he's on the ticket, are going to say, I'm thinking of Trump, but RFK is on the ticket, so maybe I'll go vote.
	Nobody.
	Nobody.
	Where it might be more of an issue, if Trump is not on the ticket, you're damn right, everyone who voted for Trump, or would have voted for Trump, might not eagerly vote for DeSantis, they might vote for RFK.
	That I can understand if Trump is not on the ticket.
	But if Trump is on the ballot, anybody whose right mind is, well, it's either Trump or RFK, and they're both available, you're not going with RFK, Jr., period.
	So I disagree here.
	The polling so far offers some insight in the state.
	Surveys show Republicans have a far more favorable view of Kennedy than Democrats.
	The latest polling from Quinnipiac.
	Found Kennedy scoring 49% approval and 19% disapproval among Republicans.
	Among Democrats, he fared far worse.
	14% approval and 57% disapproval.
	Oh, that's interesting.
	14% approval from Democrats.
	What happens if they vote independent if RFK runs?
	The people who are voting for Trump are not voting for RFK.
	All right.
	Put simply, Democrats don't like Kennedy.
	Republicans do.
	I don't trust those polls for a second either.
	As data guru.
	Oh, they referred to Nate Silver as a data guru.
	Okay.
	Noted on Twitter, the available numbers indicate a Kennedy third-party run is trouble for Trump.
	I'm right.
	I'm right.
	That's the end of it.
	I'm going by Nate Silver says it's damaging for Trump.
	I am vindicated.
	It will be beneficial for Trump if Trump is on the ticket and damaging for the Democrats.
	That's it.
	That's how you know I'm right.
	Not being remotely sarcastic when I say this.
	Is good news for...
	Oh, damn it.
	Hold on one second.
	The available numbers indicate a candidate.
	Not being remotely sarcastic when I say this is good news for Biden.
	Okay, fine.
	Thought I misunderstood it.
	No, it's not.
	Okay.
	Anyways, that's how you know you're wrong, actually.
	So that's all I have to say.
	That's all I have to say about that.
	If Nate Silver says it's going to be bad for Trump, it's going to be good for Trump.
	Oh, that's funny.
	Okay.
	Let me give you all that link to the article if you want to go ahead and read Mediaite and rot a little bit of your brains out.
	All right.
	So that's my prediction.
	That's my assessment.
	If Trump is on...
	And it's not...
	Actually, now that I'm putting it together, it's not because of what Barnes has already said.
	That Trump...
	Kennedy potentially running as an independent is insurance to keep Trump on...
	Let me see if I made that mistake there.
	Kennedy running as an independent is insurance to keep Trump on the ballot because if Kennedy runs as an independent and they remove Trump from the ballot, then things can change.
	Now, hold on one second.
	With all the Trumpers vote for Kennedy, I still think Kennedy doesn't have a chance, even if that happens.
	But we'll have to think about that a little more while I...
	Contemplate my naval while fishing.
	Okay, that's all on JFK.
	There was one crumble rant, which I'll get, and then we're going to go into McCarthy and then Trump.
	Did I bring this in here?
	Oh yeah, I did.
	Okay, here it is.
	I think that Kennedy running as an independent will be so damaging to Democrats that RFK should avoid air travel and convertibles for the foreseeable future.
	Yeah, and I hate these jokes because I don't like putting that juju out in the universe.
	Have we heard anything about that armed marshal that showed up to a Kennedy event and said he was there to protect Kennedy?
	That story seems to have died off a little bit.
	It's an amazing thing.
	Yeah.
	No, no, no.
	I don't like thinking those thoughts.
	But, you know, we've crossed not just one or two or three.
	We've crossed so many Rubicons.
	I don't know what the next Rubicon that the machine will cross will be in order to ensure that, you know.
	Trump stays off the ballot and that RFK doesn't damage the Democrat Party.
	Bernie bent over like a wet noodle.
	Shockingly.
	Surprisingly so to me.
	I know Hillary Clinton just screwed me, tweaked the debates.
	She had her team leaking questions.
	They fucked me hard.
	But everyone, don't be stubborn.
	Just vote for her.
	I'd like to ask you one more time to vote for the woman that screwed me.
	Yes, sorry.
	I don't think RFK is going to do that.
	Okay, so now what do we do here?
	We'll do the quick one with McCarthy because like I tell you all, and this goes back to the car vlog.
	If I were going to do a car vlog today, it would be this.
	So I'm going to snip and clip this and maybe edit and throw in some cute memes and it'll be the car vlog from my office.
	I'm trying to make sense of what just happened yesterday in America.
	Speaker McCarthy, for the first time in American history, was vacated as his position from Speaker of the House.
	It is the second shortest tenure, tenure of Speaker of the House in the history of America.
	The shortest one before that, 1869 or 1867.
	1869 or 1867.
	And the Speaker, I forget his name now.
	Did I bring it up here?
	Yeah, here we go.
	Was Speaker for one day.
	1869, March 3rd.
	On this day in 1869, when was this?
	This is an article from 2017.
	The House of Representatives elect Representative Theodore Pomeroy as its 30th Speaker.
	Pomeroy served for only one day, the final one of the 40th Congress.
	He set the record for the shortest time a Speaker has ever served, and he will obviously...
	For obvious reasons, hold on to that forever because I don't think you can serve less than one day.
	But it wasn't like he was vacated.
	It wasn't like he was ousted.
	It wasn't like he was assassinated or resigned in shame.
	He was there for the last day of the congressional session.
	Now, no one will ever break that record.
	But McCarthy has set a new record as being the first, in my knowledge and research, to have ever been removed from Speaker of the House.
	In an initiative put forward by Matt Gaetz, etc., etc.
	Now, the first question I had that I was asking everyone was, why?
	I mean, he's a Republican.
	I know people had issues with him when he was being appointed or when he was running for a speaker.
	And I know that they had to strike a deal.
	They had to convince some of the holdouts.
	And I don't remember who they were exactly.
	They had to convince some of the holdout Republicans to vote for McCarthy.
	And in order to do so...
	You know, certain promises were made.
	So my first question in all of this was, why did they do it?
	They're voting on the spending bill, trying to avoid a government shutdown, and apparently some deal was reached, and that deal apparently broke some promises.
	So that's the 30,000-foot overview.
	The first question I had was, did they vote in a spending bill?
	Did they avoid a shutdown forever, or was it a stopgap, whatever they call that, temporary?
	A version of a shutdown.
	And it is the latter.
	It's a 45-day stopgap where they agreed to fund some government.
	They agreed to fund the federal government for the next 45 days.
	But apparently, so this is not a funding bill that's good for good.
	It's just a stopgap for the next 45 days.
	So they have time to negotiate a deal.
	First thing they're going to have to do, I presume, is elect another Speaker of the House.
	From what I understand, Representative Jim Jordan has announced that he's running.
	Barnes, for anybody who didn't watch the Barnes brief last night, thinks that Byron Donald's is the hands-down best choice.
	We'll see if it happens.
	But they've got to elect a new speaker.
	They've got 45 days, but it's a stopgap funding.
	Okay, fine.
	So not permanent solution, just for the next 45 days, we'll see where it goes.
	The question I had is, what were the promises?
	Like, why did they do this?
	So I'm on with Roger Stone yesterday.
	He alludes to it that McCarthy, in striking this deal, Violated certain promises as relates to no longer passing omnibus deals.
	They pass these bills, these funding bills, and they're not item by item or specific issues of funding.
	They're what they call these massive omnibus bills.
	They slap in so much shit.
	It's not that you can't understand what's going on in there.
	You don't know what's in there.
	And it's an impossible way to govern by design.
	It's a feature, not a bug.
	Slap all this shit together and you can slide things in that no one will know exist until such time as you know that they exist after they've been passed.
	It's sort of like the Pelosi.
	You've got to pass the bill to know what's in it because it's 1,700 pages and you've got 48 hours to read it and vote on it.
	So apparently McCarthy violated that rule.
	He broke some other promises as it relates to promising or trying to find a way to continue to fund Ukraine, it seems now.
	Blame it on Trudeau.
	Blame it on Canada.
	That's even some Republicans.
	No longer want to fund this endless war.
	Congress stopgap funding bill leaves out additional aid for Ukraine.
	This is from Yahoo News.
	You know it's got to be good.
	On Saturday evening, Congress approved a short-term stopgap bill that effectively averted a government shutdown, but did so at the expense of additional funding for Ukraine.
	Yahoo News Finance senior columnist Rick Newman argues that the 5% of the defense budget spent by the U.S. for the aid of Ukraine holds greater benefits for the U.S. in terms of geopolitical relations compared to foregoing it.
	Yeah, right.
	Okay, fine.
	So that's the stopgap.
	Newman explains why the aid for Ukraine should be considered money well spent.
	Tell that to the people of Lahaina.
	Tell that to the homeless drug addicts that I saw in L.A. Tell that to the guy running down the street butt naked.
	Tweaked out of his ass.
	Don't worry, you guys stay on the streets.
	Lahaina, you guys camp out.
	I know we could build every one of your houses for five, six billion.
	We could build back everything better, actually better, for the money that we've lost in Ukraine.
	But shut up, sit down.
	This is better for you than a home is.
	All right, so that was the stopgap.
	That wasn't what I wanted to bring up.
	Let's see where the article is, which explains, Why?
	Here we go.
	Why McCarthy?
	What promises did McCarthy break that resulted in him being ousted, vacated for the first time in American history?
	Broken promises.
	Broken promises were a top reason given by the handful of hardline conservatives for their votes that booted Representative Kevin McCarthy from his role as Speaker.
	Some also said McCarthy, Californian Republican, didn't know how to treat his colleagues.
	Eight GOP lawmakers voted with House Democrats.
	Oh, it's an amazing thing.
	All the House Democrats had to vote to remove him.
	There was some theory as to whether or not he would run again and try to get re-elected and coalesce with more people.
	Who knows?
	But why would the Democrats vote him out if he's good for them?
	Only way, as Barnes noted, the only way for them to potentially have any chance at taking back power.
	They voted with Democrats, Rep Gates, Matt Gates, Eli Crane, Tim Burchett, Nancy Mace, Anthony Biggs, who else?
	Ken Buck, Bob Good, Matt Rosendale.
	For Burchett, the reason for ousting Mr. McCarthy, whom the lawmaker said he considered a friend, was personal.
	He said that McCarthy mocked him over the phone for praying about what would be the right decision.
	Very personal.
	Not of broader import.
	Next one.
	That sealed the deal.
	Crane and Good said they wanted to oust McCarthy because he had broken promises to his return the appropriations process to regular order, which is Capitol Hill jargon for passing the 12 annual spending bills one by one rather than in a colossal omnibus package, which has become routine.
	I was listening to Dan Bongino trying to make my brain bigger, trying to understand some of this American politics nuanced, detailed stuff, which is new to me.
	But apparently, they've been doing this for decades.
	And they don't go bill by bill.
	They slap it all together so nobody can ever know truly what's in it, where the wasteful spending goes, where the opportunistic last-minute insertions go.
	It's ungovernable by design.
	Other lawmakers, Rosendale said it was a laundry list of problems, said in a statement that McCarthy was not strong enough, yada, yada, yada.
	Okay, fine.
	Let me see here.
	Here we go.
	That was it.
	Mr. Mace, like his peers, said that McCarthy did not hold up his word on advancing spending bills promptly, but he also had issue with the Speaker's broken promises to do more to help women in the country, like working toward providing greater access to birth control.
	If you make promises, you should keep it.
	If you make a promise, you should keep it.
	And if you promise women you're going to help them, then you damn well better do it, Ms. Mace said.
	So as a fiscal conservative, I'm angry.
	As a woman, I'm deeply frustrated.
	And apparently, although the rumors are being denied, Apparently, he was going around the backs of Republicans to try to find a way to find a solution to continue funding the efforts in Ukraine, which pissed off a lot of Republicans, although there is debate as to whether or not that's true.
	But I personally believe that it is true.
	So that's it.
	First time in American history.
	Ousted.
	We'll see who.
	I don't know.
	I don't know if as we've been live, if they've appointed a new speaker.
	Let's see.
	I don't know how it works.
	I think it's going to be a longer haul than just that.
	But that's the latest.
	So that's the sense that it makes to me.
	They have not passed a budget.
	It's a stopgap, 45 days.
	At issue is continued funding to Ukraine.
	They've got to appoint a House Speaker.
	And the reason for which McCarthy, who was not trying again to run again for the House Speaker, is because he broke his promises on passing bills properly so that people can keep track of what's in the bills instead of these omnibus.
	Do they call them like pork thingies or whatever?
	So that's it.
	That might be like a mid-tier level explanation.
	You'll get a more detailed, nuanced explanation from Barnes, from Bongino, and you'll get a rubbish, oversimplified, propagandist explanation from MSNBC.
	Speaking of MSNBC...
	Oh my goodness!
	We're going through this!
	Boy howdy.
	Okay.
	So allegedly Trump was gagged by the judge yesterday.
	Judge Angoron.
	Angoron.
	Sorry, hold on a second.
	What the heck?
	There we go.
	Judge Angoron, who we did a thorough breakdown of his overt, arguably corrupt biases, modus operandi to get to the conclusions that he wants to get to.
	We broke down the video of him.
	Giving a speech to some journalists talking about the tools that he has to overturn jury verdicts.
	Judgment notwithstanding of verdict.
	If he doesn't like it, he's done it twice.
	He's only been overturned once.
	That's not bad for using something that's very controversial of a means of usurping, bypassing, overriding jury verdicts.
	He's quite clearly found another tool to...
	Bypass the risk of a jury verdict that he doesn't like altogether.
	That's called the summary judgment.
	Summary motions.
	Hey, I can just say what the facts are and avoid a jury verdict.
	We don't need to submit the facts to a jury for adjudication.
	I've decided them.
	And now we just go and, you know, have a trial on guilt a la Alex Jones.
	We're going to get there.
	So we did a thorough breakdown of Judge Engeron's You know, he said the quiet part out loud eight years before he knew that he was going to be having that spotlight shone on him.
	And he issued a gag order against Trump yesterday.
	Now, so questions.
	I hear the news.
	Try to make sense of it.
	Issued a gag order.
	Was it a written gag order?
	I couldn't find a written gag order.
	And apparently it was merely, I say merely, I don't think it changed as much in terms of judicial force.
	He issued a verbal gag order in court, restricting what Trump can and cannot say online, and ordered Trump to take down a truth social post.
	And then I say, okay, well, first of all, there's no written order that I know of yet.
	I presume at some point they're going to transcribe the order into something that they're going to register on the docket so that they can have clarity in terms of enforceability.
	I said, what was the extent of the gag order?
	The extent of the gag order does not seem to be overly extensive.
	Well, let's just pull up.
	Let me see here.
	No, not this.
	Not this.
	Come on.
	I have the video.
	Oh, here we go.
	Judge hammers Trump.
	Here we go.
	This is it.
	Okay.
	Well, we're going to break down this entire clip because this clip is just a masterpiece of how fake news propaganda works, but here.
	It only took two days.
	Look at her face.
	Look at her face.
	She's so happy.
	This is MSNBC.
	Look at her face.
	It only took a day.
	I mean, it's got to be his fault.
	It can't just be a judge looking for a pretext.
	Wait until you hear the basis upon which they gagged, the reason for which they gagged Trump.
	here.
	It all happened after Trump went on Truth Social and posted the name, photograph and Instagram account of the judge's principal law clerk.
	The post attacked the clerk for being in a photograph with the Senate Majority Leader, Democrat Chuck Schumer.
	Then Trump went to the cameras outside the courthouse and continued his investigation.
	His invective.
	His invective.
	And we have to expose her as that.
	You see what's going on.
	It's a rigged deal.
	And frankly, you saw what was just put out about Schumer and the principal clerk.
	That is disgraceful.
	Understand this.
	Now that Angeron himself is under the spotlight of things that he said eight years ago, which can clearly indicate a massive, massive problem for an activist judge.
	Recall, I'm not going to pull up everything that I did yesterday.
	Recall that he said at one point in that speech to the journalists, am I following the law or am I making the law?
	Who knows?
	And then goes on to say, I'm supposed to follow the law.
	I'm paraphrasing.
	I have my body.
	I have my body.
	I'm a human.
	I can't take out my human emotions from this.
	And I have tools.
	A judge who is unironically.
	Unsarcastically asking whether or not through his conduct he's following the law as he's supposed to as a judge or making the law which would make him an unlawful activist on the bench, a legislator from the bench, which is not what he's allowed to do.
	I'm a stupid Canadian.
	I still know the three branches of government: executive, legislative, judicial.
	Executive enforces the law.
	Legislative legislates the law.
	And judicial interprets the law.
	When you have the judicial legislating, you've got activists on the bench and you've got the judicial exceeding its scope of authority for its branch of government.
	And you've got a judge eight years ago proudly saying, am I following the law or am I making the law?
	I can't get my emotions out of it, but I have tools.
	Now you have the principal clerk, the top clerk.
	In their public social media accounts, posting their political partisan biases, presumably.
	Can you imagine?
	Trump was...
	Sorry, hold on.
	We didn't get to the actual gag order.
	Hold on a second.
	The gag order made him take down the Truth Post and forecloses him or prevents him from speaking negatively?
	Hold on.
	Now, Judge Engeron did not take any of this lightly.
	Of course he did.
	Calling the attacks unacceptable and inappropriate.
	The attacks?
	Seems like exposure to me.
	Unacceptable and inappropriate?
	I could see how an activist judge with tools can find the exposure of the political bias of his courtroom, of his judicial office, to be problematic.
	I can for sure understand why this irked the judge.
	Is anything inappropriate about it?
	Oh, it's intimidation to post someone's name and their social media account.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	I thought that's why they had a social media account, which was to converse with the public.
	Oh, but they want to converse with the public, just not that much of the public.
	He ordered Trump to remove the post, and according to NBC News, the judge told the court to consider this a gag order on all parties with respect to posting or publicly speaking about any member of my staff.
	Oh!
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	So now Trump can't point out clear political activism from the very same judge, office of the judge, that is now not prosecuting him, but adjudicating on his case?
	How convenient is that?
	The judge said that violations of this order would lead to swift, meaningful sanctions.
	Now we're going to go through the rest of this video, I think, unless it's too boring.
	It's a necessity.
	It can lead to swift, meaningful sanctions.
	In the video, as we're going to see, they talk about jail time.
	They talk about fines.
	What they don't talk about is what we saw in Alex Jones.
	Sanctions!
	Remember that Alex Jones did not have a trial on his guilt or innocence.
	It was a default verdict on his guilt.
	The only mock sham kangaroo court trial that we saw was on the damages.
	To be awarded based upon the finding of guilt by default verdict.
	It's an amazing thing.
	We're going to watch this video.
	They talk about the sanction of going to jail.
	They talk about the sanction of hefty fines.
	They acutely do not mention the sanction of foreclosed from pleading.
	Default verdict.
	Which they're basically at now because last week they got the summary judgment from Leticia James from this judge.
	There is no tribal issue of fact that needs to be submitted to a jury.
	I have determined that.
	Mar-a-Lago's worth $18 million.
	That's a fact.
	It's an uncontested fact, except it's contested.
	So now we just go to, I don't know what.
	What's left of Trump's defenses?
	So understand that.
	There will be swift and serious sanctions.
	We're going to end up with another Alex Jones kangaroo court where the guilt is already determined and the trial is only going to be on the sanctions.
	How many years does Trump go to jail for?
	From this Judge Engram.
	But do not highlight the fact that my chief clerk, my principal clerk, is a partisan political activist, potentially.
	Don't highlight the fact that I boasted about how I had tools to be an activist judge from the bench.
	That's inappropriate.
	And you cannot mention any members of my staff publicly.
	So nobody can do their due diligence.
	Or at least other people can.
	Just Trump can't.
	Listen to this.
	Oh, great to see you, too.
	Oh, hold on.
	Legally speaking, happened you heard.
	First of all, meaningful sanctions.
	What does that practically mean?
	Well, it could mean, in an ordinary thing, if there's a gag order imposed and it's violated, it means putting someone in jail.
	Can you understand this?
	If there's a gag order imposed, they are restricting his speech.
	His speech consists of identifying, not even identifying, putting on blast?
	I mean, amplifying?
	Already public figures.
	The person's got a social media account.
	Oh, but I don't want you to show it to everybody.
	I just want to show certain things to the world.
	They've gagged speech.
	And now this hack of an analyst is going to rationalize in his mind, well, we've already violated First Amendment rights.
	Let's talk about, let's legitimize locking someone up for violating a gag order that violates their First Amendment rights.
	Now, a gag order, Alex, is really hard to get in a case.
	It's so hard to get!
	He just issues one willy-nilly verbally.
	So hard to get.
	I don't think I've ever seen in any of my thousand plus cases.
	Really?
	It's amazing, eh?
	People know, like, they use common sense.
	And, you know, it's kind of like failing kindergarten.
	To get a gag order imposed, you've got to kind of try.
	Oh, yeah.
	To get a gag order, you've got to, you know, identify a member of the clerk and their social media account.
	It's like failing kindergarten.
	I bet managed to work at it and do it and succeed.
	But it took a lot of work on his part.
	And now I think the judge is basically saying, you attack a member of my staff, and there will be serious sanctions.
	The attack, by the way, was identifying and publicizing their social media accounts, even up to jail.
	Well, and yet, as hard as it is to get the gag order, I think it's the broad expectation that Trump is inevitably going to violate it in some fashion, or...
	Slander some other person involved in this case, whether it's the prosecution or the judge himself.
	Understand what's happening right now.
	This is called persuasion.
	This is called laying the justification for others.
	I'm looking at Jack Smith, Judge Dair Chutney.
	What she's doing right now is persuading the general public to have already accepted the idea that it will happen, so that when it does happen, it's not an egregious violation of fundamental rights.
	It was expected, and he was warned, and he did it nonetheless.
	Oh, it's expected he's going to slander somebody else.
	Can you imagine?
	He can't go out on social media and talk about his case, but as we're going to go see, oh, he can do it.
	He just can't criticize anybody.
	He can talk about his case.
	He just can't intimidate witnesses.
	What the hell does that mean?
	But Leticia James is getting up there talking about witness testimony.
	We'll get there in a second.
	Listen to this.
	Persuasion.
	They're laying the groundwork so that idiots who actually watch MSNBC for their news are going to...
	Come to grips in advance with the idea that the injustice is not an injustice because they've been persuaded to think it's not because their experts are telling them all he has to do is shut his mouth and sit in the corner and take the punishment.
	Yeah.
	So would your expectation be that this is going to be kind of, you know, a laddering up, a punitive ladder up in terms of the judge issuing more gag orders until at some point he is forced to do something more drastic?
	Yes, exactly.
	So basically, like if we're going to ask, is Trump going to violate the gag order?
	Almost certainly yes.
	Of course, of course.
	Because they will fabricate.
	The violation of the gag order.
	Any tweet, they will twist into a violation of the gag order.
	Is he going to?
	Of course he's going to, because whatever he does, we're going to turn into a violation of the gag order, because that's where it's going.
	This is persuading the general population to not think it's an outrage, and it's just giving the green light, the political permission slip, to Chutney, to Jack Smith, to who's the one in Georgia?
	I forgot her name now.
	Fannie Willis.
	I don't know who's the judge there.
	Forget who the judge.
	It's just, here's the political permission slip, the green light to all of the authorities who are going to execute this, pun intended.
	And this is the persuasion to the general public.
	When it happens, because it will happen, it's not an egregious violation of fundamental rights.
	It's justice.
	It's justice in a Bolshevik revolution.
	More likely that he'll violate the gag order than almost anything, like then George Santos being the next speaker.
	I mean, we're talking, you know, a significant probability he's going to violate the gag order.
	And then the question is, will the judge at that point take the really heavy medicine of putting a former president in jail?
	Or will there be some sort of warning and monetary fine first?
	Or how about foreclose from pleading?
	You didn't mention that, legal analyst.
	Wait until you see when that happens.
	But just understand now.
	What they're also doing right here, persuasion, if Trump gets locked up, it's the judge has been forced to do it.
	It's not the judge just acting totally like an activist from the bench.
	It's Trump's fault.
	He forced the judge's hand.
	...the latter, but it does really depend on exactly how Trump violates it.
	Well, and isn't Trump's sort of goal, his existential goal to stress test institutions?
	Can you listen to this?
	Is his goal to stress test the institutions that are violating every tenant, of fundamental justice to prosecute and persecute Trump.
	They flip it around and he's the victimizer.
	This is DARVO.
	Trump is the aggressor.
	Trump is the victimizer, not the victim.
	As they weaponize every aspect of government, every aspect of the justice system to persecute this one individual, they paint him as being the one who's he's acting to provoke it.
	You know, part of this is he feeds off of this controversy.
	He gains strength from disruption.
	And I mean, honestly, can you say as a lawyer that we as a country could really face the possibility of a former president, criminal defendant, being put in jail?
	That just seems as necessary as that may ultimately be.
	As necessary as that may ultimately be.
	I can't watch the rest of this.
	It's really hard to fathom.
	Your diagnosis of the problem seems exactly right to me.
	Trump is a kind of Voldemort-like figure who gets his strength by basically attacking institutions.
	And he does it here.
	He's doing it in Washington, D.C. I can't listen to it.
	I'm sorry.
	I was going to play the rest of that.
	I can't listen to that.
	He gets his strength by attacking institutions.
	Says the guy who is basically defending the institutions that are attacking Trump.
	Oh, my gosh.
	Oh, my gosh.
	And I watch that.
	Because I do the dirty work for all of you.
	I have to get through an MSNBC propagandist.
	I mean, those are the legal analysts.
	One thing they did not mention throughout that entire nine minute and whatever seconds of absolute verbal diarrhea, they never talked about the foreclose from pleading, foreclose from defending, elimination of certain defenses.
	Remember, the judge talked some of the tools that he has.
	Estoppel.
	I can tell someone you can't make that argument.
	You made another argument different to that one earlier or in another file.
	So now you can't raise that argument.
	Mark my words.
	They will sanction Trump and the sanction is going to be foreclosed from pleadings or restrictions on defense if they haven't already done it to some extent.
	And then you're going to say, oh, he's guilty.
	Now let's just go to the Alex Jones trial on the damages.
	How long do you go to jail for, Trump?
	Okay, so we're not stopping this.
	So the gag order is not a written order that I know of yet.
	It consists of the judge saying, you can't post information about my staff on social media.
	Nobody can, so it's not just targeting Trump.
	But it's just targeting Trump because who else on the other side would have any vested interest in exposing the conflict of interest or the political bias, the political motivation of the members of the judges' staff?
	Who else?
	Sure as hell wouldn't be them.
	It's not like in the Roger Stone case, they were rushing out to expose the jury foreperson and her political bias.
	So that's the extent of the gag order for now.
	Verbal, willy-nilly, they're so hard to get, he just issues one like that on the spot.
	Consider this a gag order.
	Consider that I have just violated your First Amendment rights.
	Okay.
	Meanwhile, while Trump is gagged, Fannie Willis, not Fannie Willis, Leticia James is not.
	Listen to this and listen to this.
	This will play all the way through.
	Is this the one that, the long one?
	Yeah.
	Listen to this.
	Oh, look.
	For all the jokes of me having technical difficulties and I'm a one-person show to some extent for the daily streams.
	That's fine.
	My mic doesn't work sometimes.
	You hear crackling.
	Okay, that's fine.
	I'm a one-person-raging-against-the-dying-of-the-light guy.
	That's fine.
	This is Leticia James, who A, is posting this video.
	It looks like it's a ransom video.
	It looks like she's being held hostage.
	It sounds like it's recorded off an iPhone that's leaning against something and clicking.
	Hi, yo, what's this?
	This is a test of the National Wireless Emergency Alert System.
	The purpose is to maintain and improve alert and warning capabilities at the federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial levels.
	Well, that just gave me a small heart attack.
	It looks like she's reading a ransom statement.
	I don't know where she's looking because she seems to be reading a pre-drafted statement.
	And the audio sounds like it's shot off a crappy iPhone that's leaning against the wall and clicking.
	But let's just go to the substance of what she says.
	Remember, by the way, Trump is gagged.
	There's certain things.
	Trump has restrictions on what he can say.
	Leticia James is taking this persecution to Twitter.
	I don't know if YouTube is feeding me her crap now because I've engaged with it, but she's doing several times a day updates.
	Does she do this with every defendant?
	Or only the ones that she campaigned off of initiating?
	Let's just listen to this.
	Statue of limitations.
	Today was the second day of our trial against Donald Trump and the Trump Organization.
	The judge first confirmed that Mr. Trump incorrectly interpreted his comments related to the statute of limitations as we mentioned yesterday.
	The statute of limitations.
	And our case continues.
	We resume questioning of our first witness, a former partner at Mazars, a firm that compiled Mr. Trump's financial statements for years.
	Mazars compiled the financial information that Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization provided and swore was true.
	The defendants cannot blame their repeated and persistent fraud on their accounting firm.
	Their repeated and persisted fraud.
	Remember, prosecutors are not, by the rules of justice, prosecutors are not there to pursue convictions.
	They're there to pursue justice.
	People seem to forget that.
	Doesn't matter.
	It's foregone conclusion that it's fraud, but let's just let it finish.
	Who is she talking to?
	It's like she's got an audience of 50,000 people.
	She's probably sitting in some dingy room.
	Stick a flag in the back and it's going to look official.
	And I'm going to talk to somebody who's holding an iPhone recording me from the bottom.
	As the judge ruled last week, we have proven that Mr. Trump and the other defendants committed fraud.
	As the judge ruled last week, we have proven that he committed fraud.
	They've Alex Jonestom.
	How did they prove it?
	Summary motion.
	Uncontested facts, according to the judge.
	It's an uncontested fact that you committed fraud.
	You overvalued your properties.
	Mar-a-Lago's worth $18 million, even though an empty lot, 2.3 acres, is selling for a hundred and some odd million, and you've got 23 acres, however many on beachfront.
	They proved it.
	They proved it already.
	He committed fraud.
	She already proved it.
	How?
	There was no trial in front of a jury.
	The judge has got tools to get around that.
	Summary judgment.
	I'm confident in the case we are presenting.
	And I know that justice will prevail.
	Listen to what she says here.
	This is a late motif.
	I'm going to clip this with what she said yesterday.
	No matter how much money one may think they have.
	Because Trump might think he has a lot of money, but he doesn't.
	She wants you to know that.
	No matter how many assets.
	They think they might have because we're going to go cancel their business certificates and then apparently threaten liquidation.
	Auction.
	Sell your shit.
	Welcome to Russia.
	Oh, but Russia bad.
	America good.
	Everyone.
	Everyone.
	Everyone is equal under the law.
	Bullshit.
	And if anybody...
	The only people who say that...
	Are the ones who know the degree to which it's an absolute outrageous lie.
	The only people who say that are the ones who are lying about it.
	And mark my words and go check it out.
	See who says it.
	Everyone's equal under the law.
	Who says it?
	Nancy Pelosi?
	Maxine Waters?
	Adam Schiff?
	Leticia James?
	Oh, God.
	Pudge is doing something in her bed and I see it now.
	Oh, but I had to put this together because this is some funny stuff here.
	Bring it back.
	Here.
	I had to do it.
	The judge first confirmed that Mr. Trump incorrectly interpreted his comments related to the statute of limitations, as we mentioned yesterday.
	I made that.
	I'll give that to everybody.
	If you're so inclined, you can go to the Statue of Limitations.
	Yep.
	I mean, after all, when you're reading it, shoot it again.
	Make the video again.
	It was a minute and ten seconds.
	If you refer to the statute of limitations as the statute of limitations, just do it again.
	Not that hard.
	Unless it's just a joke from beginning to end, which it is.
	No one's above the law.
	Oh my goodness.
	So we got that.
	We got that.
	Hold on.
	Was there...
	Oh, let's just...
	But by the way, so Leticia James will take to Twitter every day of the week because when she's summarizing the witness testimony accurately or inaccurately, that's fine.
	If Trump says anything about witness testimony, that person's a liar.
	That person's trying to frame me.
	That's witness intimidation.
	He guaranteed, if he were to say that, that's what'll happen.
	But Leticia James, she can say whatever the hell she wants about the witness testimony.
	This trial is a total witch item, and I should be entitled to a jury like everybody else is entitled to a jury.
	I have no rights to have a jury.
	It's ridiculous.
	Thank you very much.
	All right, so that...
	This trial is a total witch on it, and I should be entitled to a jury like everybody else is entitled to a jury.
	I have no rights to have a jury.
	It's ridiculous.
	Thank you very much.
	Now...
	All right, so that...
	Yeah, all right, so...
	This trial is a total...
	I've got to tell you something.
	We've just listened to so much horse crap.
	So much absolute SHIT.
	That Pudge pooped in her sleep.
	So I moved her bed to the corner so she doesn't continue sleeping in her poop.
	She's paralyzed in the back leg.
	So as she has good dreams, I guess, poop comes out.
	Or either that or she's heard MSNBC legal analysis and that's what she thought of it.
	Trump right there, there's another thing going on right now where they're saying Trump is not being denied a jury trial.
	Apparently he didn't check a box for a jury trial.
	And so that's what he's saying.
	He's saying, I have no right to a jury trial.
	And the steel man retort is that apparently his lawyers forgot to check a box requesting a jury trial.
	Okay, so we're going to go here.
	Trump jury trial checkbox.
	Yahoo News.
	Oh, you're not looking at it because I don't have it shared with the screen.
	Well, that sucks.
	Hold on one second.
	Here, add to stage.
	Now, I know I'm going to Snopes.
	And I'm going to tell you, I'm prepared to accept their conclusion here.
	Did Trump's lawyers forget to check a box requesting a trial jury?
	On October 2nd, 2023, former President Donald Trump appeared in person to witness the proceedings in a case brought by the New York City Attorney Leticia James against his business empire.
	James accused Trump's businesses and business associates of persistent and repeated business fraud.
	The case, notably, is a bench trial in which a single judge, Arthur F. Engeron, the one we dissected yesterday with his eight-year-old speech, Not only controls the proceedings, but ultimately rules on the facts of the case as well.
	In a makeshift press conference held during a break on the first day of the proceedings, Trump says, I think it's very unfair I don't have a jury.
	Legal experts and pundits immediately questioned the claim on the basis that, generally speaking, anyone in New York State is given a right to a trial by jury as opposed to a bench trial.
	And then we just saw that, okay.
	In response to Trump's complaint, Angeron later stated that, in fact, nobody asked for a jury trial.
	The Messenger and other outlets initially argued that neglecting to file a simple form with a checkbox was the reason for Trump's lack of a jury trial.
	Okay.
	Let me just see one thing here.
	Okay.
	Hold on.
	What was I saying?
	Amen.
	Earlier this year, Leticia James filed a form with a checkmark next to the field trial without a jury.
	Trump's legal team didn't file a corresponding form, and the president may have regretted his lawyer's inaction ever since.
	This is Leticia James, had requested a bench trial in a form filed publicly in June 2023 that notified defendants of their readiness for trial.
	Almost anyone can demand a trial within 15 days of such a notification.
	As a result of the imagery of a checkmark on the court issued notice of the seemingly clear right for anyone to demand a jury trial, a talking point emerged to the effect that Trump's lawyers forgetting to check the box was the source.
	reason for a lack of jury.
	In an interview with Newsmax, Trump lawyer Alina Habba made the argument that her team in fact never had a right to a trial jury in the first place.
	And this is the lawyer saying, I have to address this one common misconception in the press.
	And unfortunately, it just keeps getting repeated, which is that we have this great option to have a box checked for a jury.
	No, we didn't.
	That's not how it works.
	They brought it under Section 6312, which is a very narrow, not appropriately used section of the law, which is for consumer protections, not this.
	And that is why we're sitting here in front of the judge.
	This is according to Snopes, for those of you who are listening on podcast.
	6312 refers to a section of New York state law that allows an attorney to bring in action against businesses or people that engage in persistent or business fraud.
	Yeah.
	David Schoen, a lawyer on Trump's impeachment team, who was not part of the fraud case, cited a 2011 case in which a judge from the same court said there is no right to a jury trial under New York executive law 6312 in an interview with CNN's Poppy Harlow.
	The statement about the case is not entirely correct.
	There is no written law that Snopes can identify explicitly mandating bench trials under 6312, but there is a legal precedent for a jury trial being denied to a case stemming from that case.
	Let's read that again.
	There is no written law that Snopes can identify explicitly mandating bench trials for those consumer protection cases, but there is a legal precedent for a jury trial being denied to a case brought under that.
	law stemming from that case.
	The precedent stems not from 6312 cases, but from legally defined exemptions to a right for a trial jury investigation.
	The specific distinction applies to cases in which the damages awarded are equitable in nature, such as remedies.
	Such remedies are ones in which the court compels the defendant to perform a certain action or refrain from a certain act.
	My goodness, the New York laws of, what is it, civil procedure laws and rules explicitly states that, that might not be what CPLR stands for, explicitly states that equitable defenses and equitable counterclaims shall be tried by the court.
	Without a jury, several courts in New York have ruled that there is no constitutional right to a jury.
	Let's just go all the way down here.
	Oh, hold on, we're always at the bottom.
	In the 2011 case cited by Trump's attorney, Schoen.
	The judge ruled that remedies sought by James in this proceedings were equitable in nature and that, as a result, they did not come with a constitutional right to a trial by jury in New York State.
	As a result, there exists a firm legal argument that this case was never eligible for a jury trial in the first place.
	It's almost like the judge has the tools that he needs to avoid even getting to a jury trial.
	Oh my goodness.
	So that he doesn't even have to, you know, judgment notwithstanding a verdict.
	As Schoen noted, however, there is no reason why the Trump legal team could not have at least attempted to do so, as First American Corporation did in their failed appeal for the jury trial.
	Now, such an argument, Schoen said, might have been raised regarding the $250 million in financial restitution sought by James.
	I would have filed a jury demand to litigate the issue because here there are very severe monetary punishments at issue potentially.
	And I think there's a strong argument to be made for the right to a jury trial.
	And then we're just going to end it.
	While a substantial sum, the $250 million penalty, is still a form of equitable relief as described by James in her initial complaint.
	That relief, known as disgorgement, requires, quote, a party who profits from illegal or wrongful acts to give up...
	Any profits they made as a result of those illegal or wrongful conduct.
	It is true, as Judge Engeron stated, that Trump team did not try to assert a right to a jury trial under the New York Rules of Procedure.
	It is also true, however, that being awarded a jury trial would have been much more complicated than simply checking a box.
	It's fascinating, actually.
	Even Snopes.
	I mean, the strong legal arguments.
	All right, so there's procedure, there's tools that the judge can hang his hat on.
	To deny Trump a trial by jury.
	Not as simple as having forgotten to check the box.
	And I would have said, in my mind, it seems implausible that that would have been the sole and only or even determinative reason because there's an expression in French, procedure is supposed to be the servant and not the master of the law.
	And so some procedural omission.
	Should not violate a fundamental rule of justice.
	And if you have forgotten to check a box, they're not going to deny you a jury trial.
	But it's even more interesting to understand the tools that they used between Leticia James and the judge to ensure that Trump doesn't even get a jury trial in this case.
	Now they've got a summary judgment.
	We don't even have to determine those facts.
	Wow.
	Okay, hold on one second.
	We're not yet done.
	We might be close to done with this, but I just saw one humble rant.
	What does it say?
	If you can't listen to the YouTube video, maybe you could employ my YouTube hack and pause press period to forward the one frame to frame.
	You can catch each smothering smarmy smirks that way.
	I guess that was an old one talking about Trudeau.
	So that's where it's at.
	Leticia James, you know, talking about the Statue of Limitations, taking to Twitter multiple times a day to give summaries, updates in this trial.
	I'm sure the one that she campaigned off of prosecuting Trump to get elected.
	That's fine.
	Trump has got a gag order now and expect there to be sanctions.
	But like they said in that video that I cut short because I was going to vomit and cause my dog to expel her feces.
	This is the green light to Judge Chutney.
	Well, if I saw it in another case, I mean, they had to do it in New York.
	I know he's going to do it here, so I'm already persuaded to do it.
	They're going to do it in each and every case.
	And they said in that nine minutes of verbal and audible diarrhea, you know, like, this is going to be an indication for all the other jurisdictions to do the same thing.
	It's exactly what my prediction was when they came down with this outrageous indictment.
	On the state charges from Alvin Bragg in New York?
	It doesn't stop here.
	This is the little domino that's going to push over the bigger domino and the bigger one and the bigger one yet.
	This is the political permission slip that they needed in D.C. This is the political permissions that they needed in Georgia.
	One indictment, an absurd indictment, was not going to be the end of it.
	It was just going to be the beginning of it.
	And so one absurd gag order, which they will follow up with something, is going to be the beginning of absurd gag orders in all the cases.
	They're going to try to lock them up.
	They probably, I mean, don't even know what the logistics of doing that would be.
	But more important than that, they're going to use it as a pretext at some point in time to further compromise and restrict any of Trump's substantive defenses.
	More so than they already have done.
	They did it to Bannon.
	They did it to Jones.
	They're going to do it to Trump.
	And they see one judge doing it.
	It's not the...
	It's not the deterrence to do it.
	It's the incentive.
	It's the green light.
	It's the political permissions that they need to say, I'm not the first one to do it.
	Look how bad he was there.
	We got to spank him even harder here.
	He's not learning.
	Like they did to Jones in Texas after having done it in Connecticut.
	They did it.
	They set up the precedent there.
	Nobody seemed to have given that much of a shit.
	And now they're seeing it here with the president of the United States, the former president.
	Leading political candidate.
	But Russia bad.
	Joe Biden good.
	Okay.
	There was one more thing that I wanted to talk about.
	Tabarnouche.
	No, no.
	Oh, yeah, there was this.
	It was this.
	Liquidating the assets.
	So the question was, what's going to happen now that they've, you know, determined he's guilty of fraud?
	Canceled his business licenses.
	Well, they've got, I presume, a time to appeal.
	And then what's the ultimate?
	Liquidation?
	Selling of assets?
	Let's see how much Mar-a-Lago sells for.
	I mean, they're not going to sell Mar-a-Lago.
	Let's see if Mar-a-Lago only goes for $18 million.
	You buffoons.
	And by the way, Tristan Snell, that's the guy who I...
	You're not called a piece of shit.
	Compare January 6th to 9-11.
	This is Tristan Snell, whose Twitter feed, his bio, he's proud to have prosecuted Trump University.
	So you know you're going to get...
	A fair assessment out of him.
	Donald Trump's properties will likely be auctioned off, attorney says.
	Donald Trump's properties will likely be liquidated and sold off at auction after a judge found he had committed fraud, New York's former assistant attorney general has said.
	Tristan Snell, who infamously, in my view, or it ought to have been infamously, on Twitter said September 11th was a terrorist attack.
	January 6th was a terrorist attack also.
	Something along those idiotic, shameless, disgusting lines.
	Speaking after, the court found the former president to have massively inflated the value of some of his properties and ordered that some companies involved be stripped of their corporate licenses.
	Take your business and get the hell out of New York.
	Bottom line.
	It's one part of Trump's ongoing civil fraud trial.
	Quote, the worst outcome that could have come from this case has already been handed down.
	Oh, interesting.
	And that is for the corporate licenses to be canceled, Snell told MSNBC.
	The properties are likely going to be liquidated.
	The properties are probably going to be sold at auction.
	That's probably what's going to happen.
	It's not going to happen.
	Snell said that it was important to remember that Trump had already lost, despite his protestations of innocence.
	Interesting.
	Just fill in the blank.
	Trump.
	Jones.
	Bannon.
	It's amazing.
	It's amazing what happens when you're stripped of your defenses.
	You're born guilty, baby.
	Judge Arthur Engeron ruled last week that Trump, his adult sons, his sons, the Trump Organization and other businesses associated with the former, had overvalued several of his properties, including his Mar-a-Lago residence in Palm Beach, a triplex in Manhattan, for financial gain.
	I mean, it's so preposterous.
	How far down do we want to go?
	Angeron will now hear arguments on charges including whether Donald Trump and other defendants falsified business records after fraudulently overvaluing his worth, issued false financial statements, and committed insurance fraud.
	Okay, whatever.
	Let me go down there.
	I don't think they're going to liquidate the assets, but you never know.
	There's going to be an appeal.
	There's going to have to be a stay because liquidation of the assets is the ultimate sanction when it comes to corporate affairs.
	That's like an execution.
	You can't get him back afterwards.
	You can't revive that puppy.
	That's where it's at.
	And it ain't in a good place.
	And it only seems to be getting worse.
	You know, someone's saying it's...
	The expression we all...
	I mean, I often say it is it's always darkest before the dawn.
	It's always darkest before the dawn.
	But you never know when the sun is coming up.
	But someone else said, no, that's not the good analogy.
	The good analogy is that the more the cancer has spread, the more toxic has to be the treatment, the more chemo you're going to need.
	And this cancer, this political cancer, has metastasized.
	It starts off on your forearm and it spreads to some organs.
	This started off in New York, it spread to D.C., spread to Florida, spread to Georgia.
	I'm not convinced that this is a question of darkness before the dawn.
	I might be more in line with the analogy that this is a cancer that has metastasized and the chemotherapy for metastasized cancer has to be exponentially more powerful the more the cancer has metastasized.
	So that's it.
	But I guess we'll end with a bit of a white pill before going over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com because we are going over there.
	Here's the link.
	Let me read some of the chat here and then I'm going to end this with a bit of a white pill.
	His only crime was running for president and winning.
	I hate all these pieces of shit and I wish...
	Okay, we'll not finish that sequence, Squirrel66.
	Let's see here.
	Troll servants bullying the people is maladministration qualifies as treason.
	It's not treason, but Jones was found guilty of defamation and very said their names plus statue of limitations was tossed out.
	He was found guilty of defamation because it was a default verdict.
	It was a default verdict.
	They bypassed every aspect of judicial process.
	Statute of limitations.
	Public figure arguments.
	Hyperbolic media rights.
	I mean, they bypassed every aspect of the judicial system to get to that default verdict.
	Period.
	Who said that?
	That was Desert Rider 1234.
	Yeah, overestimation of personal value.
	Opinionated, uppity, not doing what I'm told.
	Sure, okay.
	Makes you wonder who is next.
	Musk, RFK, Bongino, Rumble, says Coder, Wendy, too.
	Everybody?
	Wendy1967 says, Viva is lucky not to be in Canada now.
	Government trying to silence all voices that are not bought and paid for by government.
	Yep, and they're using the voices that are bought and paid for in government to say it's not so bad.
	They're only coming after the $10 million in revenue podcasters or podcast platforms.
	It's not so bad.
	They're not after you yet.
	As if nobody knows the poem.
	Cashman Bashman says, I have a feeling Judge Nancy Pansy will have his stuff liquidated in the near future.
	I don't think so.
	But then again, I have been accused of being too optimistic.
	And ultimately, look, predictions are always 50-50.
	Predictions are always 50-50.
	I remember my wrong predictions more than I remember my right ones.
	But that's just me.
	These people are sick, says Seferdeed Squibb.
	All right.
	What we will do, just because we have to end on something of a...
	Play us out with something of a white pill.
	It will be...
	It will be my...
	Let me look at what the surf camera at the beach looks like.
	It looks decent.
	We're going to end with a Viva family fishing video.
	I published it yesterday.
	Some of you may or may not have seen it.
	We'll just start...
	Oh, and I'm seeing an ad for...
	Brickhouse Nutrition for Field of Greens.
	Okay.
	Are we on?
	Yeah, we're on Rumble, and I only ask that because this is going to get copy-claimed the second I put it on.
	We'll play this for a bit.
	Where do we want to go?
	Do we want to go to the fish?
	I'll play a little bit of the funny stuff.
	That's Pudge.
	That's my wife.
	Are we ready to go yet?
	I'm going to go fishing.
	Excuse me where I've got two snacks.
	I'm so fucked Is swearing in this song?
	Let's go to the fishing part here.
	Let's go to the spot where we actually caught the fish.
	Okay, so we catch a big kingfish.
	Here, we'll go right here.
	This is the...
	Oh yeah!
	Woo!
	Turn the box!
	Okay, and then we're gonna go over to locals.
	Boom shock market, yes sir!
	I don't wanna go with you now!
	Have we figured out who this kid is yet?
	No!
	We're on the top of the boat, we just had a double header, kingfish, two keepers, so we got dinner, at the very least.
	And it's been fantastic, okay, so check it out.
	Wait until you see these fish.
	Warning, trigger alert, there's blood from fish.
	When all else fails, at least, you know, it doesn't have to be big fish, but there's always fish.
	That's a nice kingfish.
	Crazy beautiful fish.
	Delicious as well.
	Okay, now's the moment.
	Look at it jump out of the water.
	That's a mahi-mahi.
	Beautiful.
	Wow.
	Swing on, cool!
	What?
	What?
	We're cold!
	Almost here, yep.
	Wait until you see the size of the...
	This is a bull and the cow.
	We caught both on a doubleheader.
	I've never caught a mahi-mahi in my life before.
	Get him in!
	No, get him in!
	Get him in!
	Get him in!
	See you on Locals.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com We're on top of the boat again.
	We've had a mildly successful day thus far.
	Hey, locals.
	I'm back.
	All right, peeps, what's up?
	What time is it?
	245?
	Okay, good, good, good.

▲