Owen Schroer here, and I am about to turn myself in to be a speech prisoner in Biden's America.
Unfortunately, we knew that things would get this bad.
Unfortunately, we knew the Democrats were this corrupt, and now I have to hit the front lines and be a speech prisoner in Biden's America.
And as I go, I am currently involved in litigation to try to get my original Twitter account back, at all I do is Owen.
Where I had over 300,000 followers, but I've been censored there for years.
So in the meantime, while I'm away, I've launched this Twitter account@Owenshroyer1776.
It's actually run by a media team.
It's not run by me, but my media team who will be giving you updates while I'm incarcerated, daily updates while I'm incarcerated, sharing old video clips, new video clips, and as well as phone audio recordings and maybe even live recordings while I'm away.
Owen Scheuer, 1776.
And I made a joke that when Vivek Ramaswamy was using the 1776 moment that he'd better be careful.
You know, when DeSantis was using his Martha's Vineyard gag, he'd better be careful because once they start coming after one person for something and they see that it works, and we're going to get into it today, they'll come after everybody and chanting 1776, apparently, you know, jail-worthy.
No bond, by the way.
He's going to jail for 60 days.
Owen Troyer.
We had him on a month ago, maybe, give or take.
60 days.
No bond pending his appeal.
So by the time he appeals and the appeal is done, he'll have served his time already.
Let's let him finish this here for a bit.
So please follow this account at Owen Troyer, 1776, for updates while I'm away, and spread this video far and wide to let others know, hey, Owen Troyer is back on Twitter.
Right here at Owen Schroyer 1776.
And that year, 1776, is extremely important.
Not just because it was the founding year of our country, but the U.S. government is arguing that it's illegal for me to say 1776 in Washington, D.C. Everybody should be paying attention to this unironically.
Yeah, that's what I mean.
Unironically.
Everyone should seriously be paying attention to this.
Don't believe me?
Check the U.S. government's sentencing memo for yourself.
They said that me chanting 1776 in Washington, D.C. is worthy of 60 days in prison.
So, it's Owen Troyer, 1776.
Please share this video, let people know I'm back on Twitter, and follow this account for updates while I'm away.
Godspeed, and God bless.
Now, first of all...
I'm going to leave this here for a second because when I had Owen Schroyer on and I said he looked a little bit like he gave me a Brad Pitt vibe.
Now he's giving me a Conor McGregor vibe.
Okay, I'm going to end it there.
Let me just see.
It was Owen Schroyer at Owen Schroyer 1776.
Owen Schroyer.
There is no C in Schroyer.
For those who are listening on podcast.
O-W-E-N-S-H-R-O-Y-E-R 1776.
Let me see what he's up to now.
16,500.
Last night he was under 5,000.
And I gotta tell everybody this, and everybody kinda has to understand this.
It doesn't matter if you don't like him.
It doesn't matter if you think he's a con.
I don't know what that means under the circumstances.
Cons typically don't go to jail for 60 days.
It doesn't matter if you don't think...
If you think you don't like him.
It's the old poem from World War II.
At first they came for the union workers and I said nothing because I wasn't a union worker.
At first they came for Alex Jones and I said nothing because I wasn't Alex Jones.
Then they came for Donald Trump and I said nothing because I wasn't Donald Trump.
Then they came for his attorneys and I said nothing because I wasn't his attorneys.
Oh, you think they're not going to come knock at your front door at some point?
And lo and behold, there will be no one there for you.
That's the intro.
I couldn't figure out what to start the show with exactly.
I was a little late because as I was taking Pudge out for one final squoze before the episode, she urinated all over my legs.
Oh, it's so bad.
It's so bad.
For those of you who don't know, Pudge the Paralyzed Puggle is a paralyzed puggle.
Let me just get a little picture of the dogs here.
There you go.
This is where they sit during the episodes.
That's Pudge, and that's Winston.
Pudge is a paralyzed Puggle, and I have developed the manual squeezing technique to make sure that she fully vacates her bladder.
Otherwise, she gets urinary tract infections.
Oh, I'm a little too good.
She got me on the way out to the front door, so there was that.
All right.
Today's show, I'll give you the brief overview.
My brother is coming on, Dan Freyheit.
Lion advocacy on Twitter.
We're going to go over the new Canadian Pfizer, the newly released Canadian Pfizer manufacturing and supply agreement for the Jimmy Jabs in Canada.
Canada apparently felt the need to heavily redact this document, even though it seems that it's virtually identical to the unredacted South African supply and manufacturing and supply agreement.
Whatever.
We're going to talk about that with my bro.
We're going to talk about Jenna Ellis pleading today because it's...
I try to give the benefit of the doubt to people until incontrovertible proof of malice.
I'm not yet there with Jenna, and I can understand what's going on, but she pleaded to a charge today.
We're going to watch that.
We're going to talk about that.
And then we're going to talk about some Canadian stuff as well.
Tamara Leach, her charges have been stayed.
The internet lawyers...
Think they've got the gotcha because I tweeted out her charges have been dropped.
They dropped the charges for her bail violations.
Eric C.B. Viva, you stupid lawyer.
It stayed.
It's not just like you idiots.
I'm repeating the headline from CBC for effect.
A. And B. When we refer to charges being dropped colloquially, that's exactly it.
We're going to get there.
So, my brother's coming on in a few minutes.
I've reached out to Robert Gouveia.
It's such short notice, I don't think he'll even see my message.
But if he can come on and we'll talk about Jen Ellis, if it's not today, it'll be sometime soon.
He's covering it daily.
And I get my thorough analysis from Robert Gouveia watching The Watchers.
I think I disagree with his analysis of this, or at least his interpretation of the factual elements, but whatever.
We'll talk.
I respect him, and I understand that he knows more than me.
But...
Before we get into any of that, actually, let me make sure that I've checked the right boxes here because Viva is more neurotic than the Pope.
Is that the expression?
That's not the expression.
Let me just make sure that I've checked off the box.
Yes, I've checked off the box in YouTube, so no one's going to accuse Viva of anything.
You may have noticed it said this stream contains a paid promotion, and it does.
And my goodness, people.
Is the timing on the...
Well, the timing is obviously good because it's Halloween in...
Holy crap, apples.
It's Halloween in less than a week, and I've got to get ready for it.
You're going to go if you're so inclined.
It's a very cool thing.
I actually have one upstairs.
I was going to start this video with my video footage, but I had to do it in the bathroom of the projector.
It's a very, very cool thing.
If you go to Galaxy...
GalaxyLamps.co.
Not GalaxyLamps.com.
So GalaxyLamps.co.
And it's a projector that creates an amazingly wonderful, beautiful ambiance, I believe is the word en français.
Hold on a second.
Why can't I find this here?
I brought that up.
Oh, I'm such a buffoon.
Hold on one second.
I've got that up here.
What's my problem?
I know what my problem is.
Ich bin ein uns Idiot, ja?
Hold on.
Wow, can I...
I know that I have the...
Here we go.
You're looking at...
Okay, galaxylamps.co.
It's...
Yeah, I don't have it here.
It's in the bathroom.
It's a projector, and it's super cool because it actually makes like...
Look, people like these things when they sleep.
It's very relaxing.
It's sort of like...
It's the nebulous.
They're like sort of the...
Cosmos.
And it goes on the wall and it is relaxing, soothing.
You can control it with your phone, which is very interesting.
So you can change the settings.
You can change all the stuff by your iPhone thing.
But the coolest thing about it is it's not just good for putting kids to sleep, which it is.
It's Halloween coming up in a week and it's good for Halloween.
You want to create an ambiance of like green lights, purple lights.
It's...
Fantastic.
Super cool.
And if you go to galaxylamps.co and you do promo code VIVA, you get 15% off your order.
Just in time for Halloween.
It connects to Google Alexa, so you can actually do the voice command if you want to go one step further than the iPhone command.
And it's beautiful.
The Cosmos is an amazing thing in general.
And this allows you to appreciate that.
Look at that.
Oh, that's what I wanted to do also.
Here you go down here.
Check this out.
This is the one we have.
The Galaxy Lamp Projector 2.0.
And it is cool.
It is relaxing.
And if there are children who don't like sleeping in the total dark, it is a wonderful solution to it.
Galaxylamps.co, promo code VIVA for 15% off.
And now I'm trying to end the screen, remove it here.
Booyah.
All right, now I see my brother just popped into the back.
So the link is in the description.
Halloween is coming.
Get on it, setting up the wonderful scenario for Halloween.
All right, now I'm looking at my brother in the background.
He's panicking.
Are you ready to come in, Dan?
We're going to have to teach him how to fix his angle of his camera here.
Dancer, how's it going?
There you go.
It's like rule number one of videography.
You don't want the camera looking up you.
You want it looking down, if anything, but level.
All right, that's right.
Are you on your computer?
I am.
Are you at an office?
You're actually doing the law thing?
I'm actually doing the law thing.
Hold on, I'm going to bring you in like this.
How do I tilt it like this?
Dude, your hair's looking...
I like it.
It's no longer salt and pepper.
Now it's like...
Yours is like gravity's pulling yours down, man.
Gravity's pulling it down.
The gravity of the world is giving me streaks of gray, but the beard is still staying majority dark.
Now you know what?
We're getting there, but at least...
You're looking good.
Yeah, you're looking good.
You got a nice full head of hair, and it looks like you just got a haircut, too.
No, I'm actually due for one.
I'm actually due for one.
I changed the X. Remember last time I did the inappropriate...
What did you do that's inappropriate?
Remember the X?
I had the arrow pointing to the X, and it looked inappropriate.
It looked like a wiener.
Yes, I remember that.
Oh, Dan.
Okay, so let me make sure here.
You got your documents ready to go?
I got my documents.
I got both.
We're going to do a comparative here.
First of all, let me just bring up the one first so that we can actually just see what the redacted document looks like.
Actually, give us a context, Dan.
Did you get this document?
How did this document come about?
What is this document?
Everybody who's been following this stuff knows this document was already out there, right?
We all knew Canada signed the supply agreement for the vaccine with Pfizer.
And the big drop was from the South Africa one, what we all assume was the same agreement, right?
It only matches per clause, but there might be something wildly different in it.
Right?
Well, yeah, there's a few there that weren't in...
I mean, that's what I'd like to ultimately know.
So anyhow, so South Africa came out a while ago, and that was based on some hard work done by...
I forget the name of the lawyer.
I gave her a shout-out in...
On Twitter.
Back in September, yeah.
But that was, she does a lot of advocacy, and so in South Africa, she got the court to order the release of that document.
Well, so, but I'll bring up the Canadian one.
Excuse me.
This is the Canadian one.
Now I have to make sure that I pull up the right document in the backdrop.
Yeah, see, look at the date there.
So that's October 2020 is when Canada signed up, right?
And we knew Canada was way ahead of other countries in getting the...
I guess, first question first though, who got this document and how did they get it?
Oh, someone, this was done from a Freedom of Information Act request by some person a while back.
And then you can now, so if someone does in Canada, if someone does a Freedom of Information Act request, you can get a copy of their request.
And so someone via one of the platforms messaged me a copy of the copy that they got.
Okay.
It's out there.
And I'm saying this is just neither credit nor blame.
You didn't get this directly yourself.
No, this was not my request.
And that's important to clarify because if it was my request, then I could apply to the Information Commissioner and ask for these provisions to be unredacted.
But because it was not my request, I don't think I have the right to get it unredacted.
I'm bringing it out for one second because when I bring it up once and then I can't find it a second time to scroll through it.
So I want to go back to the Canadian Pfizer document.
This is it right here.
Now I can scroll.
Okay.
Redactions.
And we're going to do a little comparison to the South African one.
But Manufacture and Supply Agreement.
What did you say the date of it was?
We're up at the top here.
October 26, 2020.
Right.
South Africa signed theirs in March of 2021.
So we were five months ahead of schedule.
Hold on.
Can we just appreciate this?
COVID.
Hit.
I was going to say COVID.
I don't know why I'm putting in quotes here.
Everything is in quotes.
COVID hit in March of 2020.
And they were able to develop.
They had this developed and ready to sign contracts for within March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October.
Six months?
Not going there.
I'll go there.
Your show.
You know, we're on YouTube, so I gotta watch what I...
I'll go there.
They had the research development of the only and one and only solution to this virus within six months, and they had...
How many pages is that contract?
They had their manufacture and supply agreement contract already ready to go within six months.
Bullshizer is what I'll call that.
Okay.
Hold on.
Trump got, with his executive orders and stuff, he got things rolling real fast for the development of this vaccine, like within a week of COVID or something crazy, didn't he?
Yeah, well, not that...
I will not give Trump a pass on...
How things went.
But even what was, you know, the Operation Warp Speed, as far as I understood, was to develop something for the vulnerable.
And it was never intended to be the one size fits all for children aged six months and up.
So in as much blame as Trump might deserve for all of this, there's a certain portion of it that he can now wash his hands of and say, well, this was never what it was intended to be.
Within six months, they had the product and they had their contracts ready to go already.
It's amazing.
Speed of science.
Now we're going to add this and we're going to look at this again.
So this is October 26, 2020.
The table of contents, the redactions we're seeing here, what is your understanding of what you have to do to appeal the redactions?
You've got like 30 days and there's a separate, in Canada, there's a separate department that can order the unredaction.
But bro, it takes so long that whoever got this...
If they got it back, I don't know if they got a copy of this Freedom of Information Act request released, but it took me about a year, over a year, for the Vaccine Injury Support Program contract.
It took me about a year to get that one unredacted, and there was no dispute on that one.
It's like you have these 30 days, and then the other party can respond, and then it goes back and forth for a good chunk of a year in some cases.
Point being...
Point being, yeah, this is the date of October 2020, but if you look down, it was amended.
So there was basically two amendments, I think, that were significantly redacted.
So this was the form of the framework, but it was finalized later.
I'll just read the preamble.
This might be news for some, and it won't be news for others.
This manufacturing and supply agreement, dated October 26, is made between Pfizer.
Whereas Pfizer US and BioNTech SC, a company organized and existing under the laws of Germany.
Are collaborating to develop a vaccine to address the global pandemic.
Whereas subject to clinical success, and everyone should remember that, Pfizer, US, and BioNTech shall be responsible for all requirements and processes of approval of the clinical trials and the marketing authorization of the product.
Whereas purchaser desires to purchase the product in Canada, subject to the clinical success, and you say they don't have a vested interest in making sure that it succeeds after they sign this contract, regardless that it succeeds.
And subject to regulatory approval in Canada.
Wow.
This is absolute corruption.
Corrupts absolutely.
Pfizer desires to manufacture and supply such product and purchase, whereas the parties are willing to carry out the foregoing.
Okay, fine.
Go for it.
I was going to say, I think people want to know high level.
Because, yeah, at the end of the day, it's basically the same as the South Africa contract, right?
Yep.
Except what's redacted, which we're going to compare and contrast.
Right.
So I think high level...
First of all, why did they redact this?
Right?
I took some notes on this.
Yeah, someone says that they redacted the redacted contract.
I don't know that this is true, so I'm going to compare it to the South African contract in a second.
Let me just bring back up here.
We've got this now, Pfizer, and I want to go to...
I wrote it down here.
Section 2.3.
First of all, BioNTech, so this presumably here, I don't know what proprietary information might be redacted there.
1.12, we don't even know what that is.
All your definitions, yada, yada, yada.
I had section 2.3 for some reason here.
Let me just go.
Oh, yes.
They've censored the definition of vaccine, bro.
Sorry, let me go up.
Let's go through the alphabet.
What comes after T?
That's right.
U, V, W, X, Y, Z. Okay?
So one point just...
Remember, hold on.
We're going to do this in real time.
I'm going to remove this one.
And I'm going to go to the South African one.
Hold on.
South African contract here.
I can't do a word search on the PDF as I have it, so I'll just have to go up to the top.
So what were we at?
1.15, or 1.51, sorry, of the definitions.
There you go.
Yeah, let's go down here.
This is the Pfizer South African contract.
I'm sure it's very, very different.
T-U-V.
Here we go.
Vaccine.
We don't know.
It might not be the same terms under the Canadian Supply Agreement.
Vaccines shall include A. All vaccines.
And I love vaccine is capital V. So it's not the word vaccine.
It's the defined term in the agreement.
It shall include...
It can change, right?
It can change within jurisdictions and from time to time.
I'll read it here.
Vaccine, the term capital V. Remember when they told you that they never said it would prevent transmission of the human disease,
COVID-19 or any other human disease in each such case is caused by any of the virus SARS-CoV-2 and or any all related strains, mutations, modifications or derivatives of the foregoing that are procured by purchaser, its agents, etc.
I want to skip a little bit to this heavy verbally rub.
...or that are administered within the territory and whether...
Procured or administered prior to or following the execution of this agreement.
Any devices, technology or product used in the administration of or to enhance the use of effect of such vaccine.
Any component or constituent material of ABD.
Yeah, it's a more expansive definition than what you'd find on Wikipedia or the dictionary, right?
Well, it includes components and parts, and so it's not even the product.
Although there it says the prevention of COVID, which we were now told they never warranted that it would prevent transmission.
Interesting.
Okay, so that definition was redacted.
So now that was one cut or compare and contrast.
Let me go back to the Pfizer contract of Canada.
1.56.
Okay.
We got the section 2, supply of product, massive redacted section there.
Did we compare that or do we need to?
Yeah, I don't know what that is.
I'll do that afterwards.
2.3, purchase orders.
Honor the effective date.
Purchasers shall submit to Pfizer a legally binding and irrevocable subject to clinical trials and regulatory approval.
I'm sure none of those things are going to be fudged and whatever.
A purchase order for 20 million doses.
Okay, then we go on.
What is this now?
This is in the Canadian one.
Okay.
Yeah.
So we're in the Canadian one.
20 million doses.
Delivery schedule, yada, yada, yada.
Oh, by the way, you missed it.
Capacity.
It censored it there.
Section 2.2, right?
Section 2.2.
Capacity.
Pfizer shall blank.
All right, hold on.
So section 2.2, let's remove this.
If only there were a more efficient way of doing this other than this way, but that's all we have.
We've got South Africa.
Section 2.2.
Go for it.
Let's do it.
Commercially reasonable.
2.2.
Capacity.
Pfizer shall use commercially reasonable efforts to build or obtain manufacturing capacity to be capable of manufacturing and supplying the product to purchase.
What would be...
I'll tell you why.
Yeah, go on.
Your question is, what would be the motivation to redact that?
Yeah.
They're going to say, I think it says the explanation on the Canadian, it says section 18B of the Access to Information Act.
If you look at the top left of the Canadian version, it'll tell you which sections of the Access to Information Act they're relying on.
So, it could be because commercially reasonable, whatever, that's like a business concept that's proprietary to Pfizer.
So, they don't want Canada saying that because it's a business proprietary term.
They're redacting it.
I'll tell you what I think why.
Because basically what they're saying is safety is going to be subjected to...
What was the term that they used in the year?
No, that's...
We did our best.
Subject to reason.
Bull crap.
That's not what safety and efficiency is supposed to be measured.
Reasonable business?
No.
Oh, well, we were manufacturing it quickly.
Some of it might have had little shards of metal in it.
Others might have had DNA that wasn't supposed to be there.
But we were moving at what was the term under the South African?
What was the term under the South African?
Reasonable commercial whatever it was.
I also think it shows, and if I was in the government trying to redact this, it shows how powerful...
It shows that it's Pfizer's discretion.
It's in Pfizer's hands how they're going to apply this commercially reasonable standard.
So it really shows the power imbalance in a lot of these redactions, I think.
Absolutely.
I'm just going to, before we leave this, pull up Anthony Housefather explaining how the poor, itty-bitty government...
Had their hands tied when negotiating this contract with Pfizer.
I mean, he explained it in so many words.
2.3.
All right, 5.5.
Do you have any notes that you want to go over before we get...
What is this?
On the delivery schedule?
Yeah, delivery schedule.
No.
Again, this just shows how much, how powerless Canada was.
Oh, product shortages.
Right.
This is cool.
This shows what happens if Pfizer has to, like, reallocate their doses to different countries or whatever, for whatever reason.
Basically, again...
All in there, just commercially reasonable discretion.
It's all Pfizer's power.
It was commercially reasonable efforts for safety and product.
And then what were we on?
It was 2.5 product shortages.
If authorization is received, but there are insufficient supply to deliver the full number of contracted doses, yada, yada, yada.
Okay, I don't care about this.
Including to the extent of...
Where are we getting the end of the sentence?
Including any existing shortages due to...
Pfizer shall work collaboratively to provide...
Okay.
I'll have to find out a nefarious reason for which that would have been redacted because there is no good reason for why any of this would have been redacted other than they think it is incriminating for some reason.
I'm going to skip to 5.5, Dan, unless there's price and payment.
Okay, this is all this stuff here.
Because this is the best.
Warranties and representations.
Okay.
It was 5.2, which is fully redacted.
Does everyone remember what 5...
I think it's 5.2 of the South African contract, which we're going to pull up right now.
Yep.
South African contract, 5.2.
Wait until you hear it, people.
If you've been here for a while, you've already heard it a couple of times.
Oh.
Why is this document?
Is this my computer or is it the document cloud that's slow?
5.2, warranties of Pfizer.
Was it 5.5?
What was that?
You were 5.2, but warranties of Pfizer, yeah.
Let's go up to 5.5.
No other warranty.
Purchaser acknowledgement.
This is from the South African contract that was unredacted.
We've talked about it, but let's just...
Flesh it out again.
Purchaser acknowledges that the vaccine, capital V, so that's what was intended to prevent transmission and all of its components...
The capital V vaccine and materials related to the capital V vaccine and their components and constituent materials are being rapidly developed due to the emergency circumstances for COVID-19 pandemic and will continue to be studied after provision of the capital V vaccine to purchaser under this agreement.
We're going to continue studying it after the provision of the vaccine to the purchaser, which necessarily entails after the administration to the purchaser's citizens.
Purchaser further acknowledges that the long-term effects and efficacy of the vaccine are not currently known and that there may be adverse effects of the vaccine that are not currently known.
Safe and effective.
Further, to the extent applicable, purchaser acknowledges that the product shall not be serialized.
Now, that was five...
And what was the title on that?
That's Purchaser Acknowledgement.
Okay, let me just see if we're going to go back to the Canadian one.
Yeah, I think that was redacted.
Warranties of Pfizer.
And then we got...
No, they didn't redact it.
Purchase or acknowledgement.
Okay.
That one wasn't.
So now hold on.
5.2.
Warranties of Pfizer.
By the way, sometimes they make mistakes and they forget to redact one thing.
Or they redact.
Hold on.
5.2.
Stop screen.
And let's go to 5.2 of the contract up here.
Warranties of Pfizer.
Pfizer warrants to purchase for that.
At the time of the delivery, the product, except for the noncompliance or failure to meet the relevant standard or requirement that could not be reasonably discovered given the state of medical scientific interest or technical knowledge at the time Pfizer delivered the product, one, complies in a materialization This is interesting.
And two, has been manufactured in material accordance with the current good manufacturing practices.
Subject to Pfizer's disclaimer of non-infringement.
Okay, property rates.
And the execution, delivery, and performance of this agreement, Pfizer will not violate any agreement or any agreement.
So it's definitely the 5.2a that is of interest.
Now, we don't know that it's the same under the Canadian contract, but we can come to conclusions.
Yeah, that good manufacturing practices, what do you call it?
Capitalized term there.
So that's important to know for this latest issue that came up with the DNA, plasma DNA that's been in some of the manufacturing processes.
So that'll be interesting to see.
I don't know if some of your viewers are experts on that topic, but like, so, you know, what does it say about manufacturing if you switch up the process?
I think Dr. Buchholz said it was like, there's a process one versus process two.
Like, what discretion do manufacturers have to make those kind of changes as part, consistent with good manufacturing practices?
I think it was assumed that by switching up the process, that was automatically a breach and everyone's consent is vitiated, right?
But I think if you look at good manufacturing practices, whatever, I think it might say in there that you can actually change the process a bit and you don't have to tell everybody because it's not necessarily relevant, even though people might bite my head off for that.
I think that's the reality of it.
Right?
Yeah.
Hold on.
Someone had just said something.
Oh, here, hold on.
Let me bring this up.
Dan?
Gnarly Bonesful says, is Dan a subject matter expert on supply and manufacture agreements with the government?
Is this speculation or is this a regular occurrence?
I don't know if that's an attack or if that's a legit question.
No, no.
I'm not.
So, no.
So, on supply, no, I'm not on these type of agreements.
So, that's a good point.
I don't know if it's, you know, what's standard to include and what's not.
Or redaction.
I'm becoming a subject matter expert on Access to Information Act requests and the Vaccine Injury Support Program agreement, but not on supply and manufacturing agreements.
Just a general commercial lawyer perspective.
Oh, look, there's a little bit of logic in all of this as well.
I've got it now here.
There's a little bit of logic in all of this, but the bottom line is they're redacting something from this Canadian contract.
They're redacting it for a reason.
And it's all the more peculiar, given the fact that it seems that...
If these contracts mirror each other the way they look like they do, that information is already out there.
So what's the purpose of doing it?
Well, again, in defense of the government, I think there is an obligation for certain things to redact certain things.
And then if you appeal, and by the way, I just got a note from my ATIP expert.
It's actually 60 days to appeal.
So if you do appeal, that's where, you know...
Pfizer should generally waive, if they were ethical, moral, whatever, they should waive their certain things that are relevant to the public interest and that are not really commercially, you know, need to be protected.
So yeah, that whole thing though, the 5.5 there, the purchaser acknowledgement, I thought that was a huge problem.
I raised that in early September because...
What does it say there?
It says we're not sure if this is long-term, you know, safe or not.
Let's bring up the South African.
No, well, it's actually in the Canadian.
So hold on.
Let's bring up the Canadian one.
Stop screen.
This has got to be giving some people headaches out there, popping in and out of these screens.
Here, 5.5.
This is from the Canadian Purchaser Acknowledgement.
And it's the same thing.
The vaccine and materials related to the vaccine and their components are being rapidly developed due to the emergency.
yada, yada, yada.
Purchaser further acknowledges that the long-term effects and efficacy of the vaccine are not currently known and that there may be adverse effects of the vaccine that are not currently known.
And this is at the exact same time that they're coming out and saying it's safe and effective.
You have to do it.
And if you don't get on a plane, if you don't do it, you're not getting on a plane or a train and you're putting everyone else's kids at risk.
While they were also, you know, retroactively saying that they never told anyone it would prevent transmission.
I wonder also, because that was signed in October 2020, I wonder if they're going to say, well, in March 2021 or whenever, when we started really cracking down and making everybody get vaccinated, I wonder if they're going to say, well, at that point we had the, you know, post-market data enough to say, okay, now it's safe and effective.
I think that's going to be their defense.
Well, no, but that wouldn't make much sense to the extent that they have the same provision in the South African contract, which is already later on.
Which is March, yeah.
Temporally.
Anyways, it is what it is, and what it is, in my view, is...
Do I say criminal?
In my humble view, it's potentially horrendously inhumane.
Some other interesting, I'm looking at, because I took some notes, some other interesting sections you might want to touch on.
Section 8 and 9 was redacted in the Canadian version, and that has to deal with indemnity, insurance, and liability, which I thought was interesting.
And they're going to say this was redacted because it relates to litigation, potential litigation.
I think that's the angle sometimes they take for that.
Anything, like any dispute resolution clause, they also redacted because it relates to potential litigation.
Who was Minister of Procurement then?
I think it was...
Am I wrong?
I think it was Anthony Housefather, which is the perfect segue.
Let me just bring it up, Dan.
It'll take a minute.
No, he wasn't, was he?
Well, he is now.
I'll see when he came in.
But here, let's listen to Anthony Housefather explain the procurement process.
His words.
These agreements require employees of the government of Canada that access these documents to sign confidentiality agreements.
And why is that?
Why is there...
Why?
Because these documents were signed at the beginning of a pandemic, when everybody was desperate for vaccines, when companies were being told to rush vaccine production, do testing in an unprecedented way, in a way they normally don't do it.
So these companies were exposed to way higher liability, putting their products on the market than they normally would, because they didn't do the type of testing that now they were Can you believe this?
Just saying here.
So that's why these companies said if I'm going to deliver you this product that I haven't Yeah.
And with companies, all countries around no liability with each other to get these, the countries had less leverage than they normally do.
For example, if we were entering into flu vaccine contracts or monkeypox contracts or other things that were normally available, this would be a different issue.
We got screwed.
And you all suffer.
Oh my goodness.
That enrages me.
Hold on.
It doesn't enrage me because there's some truth to it.
If they're rushing it to the market, Pfizer doesn't want to be responsible for everything that they're being pressured to do.
I think an indemnity is appropriate.
The question, the issue...
Is what they told the general public while they were doing it?
Correct.
The issue is misinforming, and that's, I think, why they redacted it.
That's why they didn't want people to know about this contract, because it would have caused vaccine hesitancy.
And in the government's mind, the vaccine hesitancy would have resulted in millions more people dying.
And that's why they hid all this.
That's why they've dragged their feet and delaying it.
Because had people known...
I mentioned this to you last in February 2022.
Same thing with the Vaccine Injury Support Program.
If you market that thing, if you advertise it, you're advertising a danger of the product.
And no one's going to want to take it.
And maybe that'll cause more fatalities.
And so the government gives itself a pat on the back and justifies its conduct by saying, we saved millions of lives by...
It's called lying to get people to consume your product.
And it's also called concealing the fact that you're getting hosed, putting everyone at risk because whatever.
Because you can't negotiate with big bad Pfizer and then yet somehow Moderna ends up with a manufacturing facility in Laval.
Amazing.
It says here that he assumed office as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement in December 3, 2021.
And I don't know who was before him there.
So maybe he wasn't the Minister of Procurement at the time.
I wanted to go through another funny, not funny, but like an interesting, and I have a scheduled tweet on this later.
If you can't laugh, cry.
I mean, if you can't cry, at least laugh about it.
Section 12.8.
So on the Canada version, this has to do with the definition of what is a force majeure.
A major force outside the control of any party that would make the contract impossible to perform.
Section 12.8.
Go down.
Oh, oh.
It's like, oh, force majeure.
There we go.
Neither party shall be liable for any failure to perform the data.
Okay.
By the way, important clarification.
You still have to pay during a force majeure.
So this happened with landlords during COVID and tenants.
Tenants couldn't open, so they said that we don't have to pay because of force majeure.
And they lost those cases.
So commercial tenants had to pay their rent, even though it was a force majeure preventing them from operating the business, right?
Yes.
Okay, but hold on one second.
Silver is real money.
Thank you for the super chat.
I'm not reading it.
Under this contract, the manufacturing supply agreement, they have a force majeure clause, meaning Pfizer may not be able to deliver on time or at all.
But at least for the on time, if they're not able to deliver on time, they're allowed to delay whatever, and there's still an obligation by Canada to eventually pay for the product.
But look at the definition of force majeure.
Hold on.
Where is it under the South African country?
I think it's the same one.
12.8?
No, no, no.
So they got arbitration.
Looks like it's a little different here.
Publicity, governing law, third parties, relationship.
I wait down.
12.8, force measure.
Okay, sorry.
Neither party shall be liable for any failure to perform or any delays in performances, and neither party shall be deemed to be in breach or default of its obligations set forth in this agreement.
I hate legal contract.
If to the extent and for so long as such failure or delay is due to any causes that are beyond its reasonable control and not to its acts or omissions, in question, This is a hell of a run-on sentence, as they all are.
Pet.
Pandemic.
So...
Sorry, I didn't get there.
And then hold on.
Failure or inability to pay shall not be a basis for force majeure.
All right, so they've got to respect the contract even in the event of force majeure.
But so what I thought was ironic was that this contract was drafted in the middle of a pandemic and they have the definition of force majeure, meaning Pfizer can get out of it if they're in the middle of a pandemic, which they are.
So in other words, I don't know.
So it says neither party shall be liable.
Does it mean that they...
It doesn't mean that they still get paid.
It just means that if they don't produce it, they will not be...
For reasons of the pandemic, they will not be liable under the agreement.
Right, but Canada can't say...
Canada can't get out of the deal by saying there's a force majeure.
It locks them in.
And I just thought it was kind of ironic that not even the pandemic...
No, it's great.
So we couldn't do it because of the pandemic that we're supposed to be providing the miracle cure for.
Oh, lordy, lordy.
So, yeah.
Anita Anand, they say.
Let me see if that's the case.
Anita Anand would have been the Minister of Procurement.
Anita Anand.
I'll go to Wiki just to see what they are.
Anita Anand, Wikipedia.
Okay, now my computer's taking a little bit of time here.
Yeah, she was Minister of Procurement from 2019 to 2021.
Okay, that looks like right.
Okay.
Okay.
I think.
The other last issue that I wanted to get off my chest was the dispute resolution and jurisdiction clause.
What is the governing law?
What is the governing law?
I would have thought...
Well, I want to take a guess.
Well, it's either going to be Canada or German.
Wait, wait, where is Pfizer's...
Why would I say German?
Where's BioNTech manufacturing?
It was Pfizer US.
Where is the governing law?
I don't know for sure, to be honest.
I assume, based on South Africa, I assume Canada had the same bargaining power as South Africa.
And so, in that contract, it said they've got to go to New York.
Okay.
Which, to me, again, I'm not a subject matter expert in international, you know, supply agreements for vaccines, but I would have thought, if I'm the king of Canada, or the Her Majesty at the time, And I'm saying, no, no, no.
I'm not submitting.
No offense to your U.S. followers.
I'm not submitting to U.S. law.
I'm submitting to Canadian law.
But the point is, beggars can't be choosers.
Canada was a beggar at that point.
And we had to submit to...
They were a beggar if you don't think that they're all...
Okay, there's some collusion.
Concerted effort here.
Mr. Sauerkraut says, did I just get the great Viva to respond to my comment?
You got it twice, Mr. Sauerkraut.
All right, Dan, what are you working on these days?
Just the usuals.
On the whole vaccine front, we've got some usual wrongful terminations.
We're trying to settle some cases there.
And then slowly working through.
I mean, it's the Vaccine Injury Support Program.
I'm not really taking on new cases, just trying to help.
Any definitive concrete results, or is it still going through the process that you can talk about?
I feel like it's getting ready to crack.
Basically, you've got to get your medical documents really lined up.
And so that's kind of the delay at the end of the day for a lot of these.
But I'm sensing that there's more willingness now by the Vaccine Injury Support Program to expedite and pay.
But it's, yeah, it's rough.
It is rough.
All right, man.
Dan, I'm going to bring this party on over to Rumble, and there's going to be a very, very funny...
Initial video there.
Link to Rumble.
Everyone, come on over to there.
And then at the end of this, we're going to end it and go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
Dan, you're going to be on the screen for one last shout-out to today's sponsor.
Galaxy.
Here we go.
Galaxylamps.co.
Oh, look, you're the real dude.
You have sponsorship.
And it's actually a product that we have.
So it's the win-win.
Galaxylamps.co, people.
Halloween is coming.
Viva promo code.
15% off.
Okay.
I'm going to buy one now.
It's actually kind of cool.
All right.
Go.
Thanks for having me.
All right, man.
See you soon.
Peace.
Bye.
Oh, I'm sweating.
I can feel the sweat dripping down my chest because this makes me so angry where...
Oh, lying to you in real time.
I think it was Tom McDonald who said in one of his songs, if you lie to the government, they put you in prison.
When they lie to all of us, it's called being a politician.
Lies.
Boldface lies that we're only now discovering, but everyone just wants to...
We just want to get back to regular...
We don't want to be reminded that we might have put at risk the people that we were entrusted to protect on this earth by believing what they were telling us.
Okay, I'm not going to get too far into it because I'm going to save it for Rumble.
But I do want to show everybody where we're going with this.
Hold on, hold on, hold on.
The classic?
No, that's not it.
No, no, no.
Oh, here we go.
Two things at once.
This is where we're going, people.
Come on over to Rumble as I end this on YouTube.
VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com on Locals.
I'll give everybody the link for that as well.
We've got the party.
We have the after party.
Oh, we're going to watch this.
And we're going to laugh at this.
And I'm going to share some thoughts.
Some really, really sinister.
Black-pilled, doom-pilled thoughts that go beyond selling your soul for a little bit of that beautiful pharma money.
I got my pharma money.
Does everybody watch Teen Titans and they got that waffle money?
I got my waffle money.
Hey, they got that Pfizer money.
But the possibilities are even darker than that.
We'll get into it on Rumble as we end this on YouTube in 3, 2, 1. Booyah.
731 people should be migrating over to the Great Rumbles.
Now, okay, we're there.
Let me see something here.
And we're going to play that back in a second.
Okay.
All right, now let's get into that Pfizer money.
You see, the problem now is I've got to go find this tweet in the back.
Okay, now I know who this guy is.
What's his name again?
T. Kels.
Travis Kels.
Or Kelsey?
Kelsey.
Travis Kelsey.
Let me see if he blocked me yet.
I know it's coming.
I know it's coming because they don't manage their social media accounts.
And when you rag on them for having sold their souls to the Pfizer devil, they invariably and inevitably rapidly block you.
Let me see.
Still good.
I'm still not blocked.
That check is in the mail.
But let's watch this wonderful, wonderful piece of horrendous propaganda.
This is Travis Kelsey.
I interviewed Dr. Drew yesterday in studio at Locals, and the currently practicing Dr. Drew explained to me some statistics which are undeniable, demonstrable, verifiable at this point in time, even though some people in the chat still take issue with Dr. Drew's overall analysis.
There's a certain demographic that has a certain demonstrable risk for a certain...
Something that was never, ever, ever in the history of humankind regarded as mild, just a mild case of myocarditis for a, you know, young adolescent male.
He might be a little bit past the adolescent part.
Look at this piece of propagandist rubbish that Travis Kelsey put out.
Travis, did you know you can get this season's COVID-19 shot when you get your flu shot?
Two things at once.
Two things at once.
Look how happy he is.
What the hell is going on here?
I mean, that guy on top looks like he's constipated.
Two things at once.
Oh, he's eating a nice lobster at a fancy restaurant dressed in a suit.
It's amazing.
It's a good life.
That's what that Pfizer box buys you.
Now, that's two things at once.
That's not two things at once.
Wow.
Oh, is that funny?
He's a human after all.
He gets nagged by his mother as well.
Travis, ask about getting this season's COVID-19 shot when getting your flu shot.
How much did they pay him for that?
And I think of what...
Someone's going to get the verse of the Bible.
What good is all the fortunes of this world for he who has forsaken his soul?
Two things at once.
And I made my, what I think is a very funny joke.
Well, if you include the risk for myocarditis in the demographic that is targeted by that piece of propagandist rubbish, well, you might get three things at once.
Plus, if you include the seat in hell that you just reserved yourself, Travis, you get four things at once for that.
Oh, it's just, they're still pushing this crap.
Did we not just read the provision of the South African contract, the manufacture and supply agreement?
They don't know.
They still don't.
Hey, Pfizer can wash their hands.
We told the government we make no warranties and representations as to safety and efficacy long term because we don't know.
You're getting 15 things at once.
And the absolute dark and cynical thought, it wasn't even mine because, you know, like my Twitter profile says, as cynical as I think I am, it's tough to keep up.
Someone says, like, you know, it's going to be a little crass.
And I apologize in advance, but I'm going to go there regardless.
Travis Kelsey is dating...
What's her face?
Taylor Swift.
I am a married man in love with my wife and my wife only, and there's no but to that.
There are other people on this earth who covet thy neighbor's wife.
Who say, oh, that's one heck of a good deal.
You imagine?
I just said, oh...
That Pfizer money's got to be very good.
And someone in the reply, I think it was to the tweet, says, oh, yeah.
And plus, you know, he gets to Taylor Swift.
And I was just thinking, like, can you imagine if that level of depravity actually exists in this world?
It might not be a contract like, hey, you done good, Travis.
Now here's your concubine or whatever the heck you want to call.
But can you imagine if just if the world works to some extent like that?
You got Travis Kelsey shoveling out the Pfizer crap.
Now dating Taylor Swift, who shows up to football games, jacks up the viewership and the revenues of the football games, which have been in a steep slump because everybody wants to catch their glimpse of Taylor Swift.
I keep forgetting her name.
And Travis Kelsey raking in that Pfizer box, and it's just a wonderful, disgusting world in which we live.
And that thought never even crossed my mind until I read the comment.
But then, my goodness, can it make sense?
Like, here's your reward of Travis.
See how long that relationship lasts.
See how organic that relationship is.
Everyone benefits.
NFL benefits.
Travis Kelsey benefits.
Pfizer benefits.
It's an amazing thing.
And even if it's just selling your soul for the Pfizer bucks and the innocent souls that follow that...
Propaganda.
And statistically, one in 5,000, according to Kieran Moore, Dr. Kieran Moore out of Ontario, according to some studies, one in 800.
Those poor souls, he's got that Pfizer money.
And it's good.
How much do they pay her?
She's an effing delusion, Fry.
I don't know what that means, Sariel, but, uh, jeez, anyhow.
No, that's it.
Yeah, that's it.
I just had to show it.
Hey, you get your two for one.
Two things at once.
You might get three things at once, and some of you might get your four things at once.
Enjoy the riches.
All right, now what I was going to do is I was going to go over to the Rumble Rants and just see what we got here.
Finboy Slicks has gotcha, hopefully about locals.
What happened about locals?
Okay, nothing happened at Locals.
VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com And then the second crumble rant before we get into Jenna Ellis.
Righteous indignation.
Mention of canine bodily fluids.
Paid promotion.
Neurosis about forgetting Locals.
This is the Viva Fry I know.
We are live on Locals, right?
And you don't want to know what else I've learned?
So I've been doing these stretches for my sciatic, which has been hurting me.
And one of them says, put a tennis ball under your leg while you're sitting.
Well, I've been putting a dog chew toy under my leg because depending on the level of pressure that I want, I can go with the big tennis ball level pressure, or I can go with the lesser bone portion pressure, which I've been using, and it takes a little bit of weight off the sciatic, and it seems to be working.
And the figure four stretch, which also seems to be working.
Oh, here, hold on a second.
I think we might have gotten the...
The portion here.
Ginger Ninja, 1776.
Ginger Ninja is the member of our, the supporter from our locals community, member of our locals community, made the most absolutely beautiful, stunningly one-of-a-kind, magnificent chessboard, and then made a video about how he did it.
He says, Mark 8, 36-37, Jesus speaking, For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?
For what can a man give in return for his soul?
I'm not a religious person, but I can appreciate damn good lessons of life when I hear them.
And now speaking of which, what are all the riches of this world worth?
For he who has forsaken his soul, There's a flipside analogous understanding to that, interpretation of that, or just, you know, lesson to that.
Bearing false witness to oneself.
We're going to get into Jenna Ellis now.
I do my absolute best to be as empathetic as humanly possible, and I don't think I have a choice because I know, as a matter of fact, that I...
It's an affliction.
I suffer from something called hot empathy, which is...
I will feel other people's pain even if they don't feel pain for themselves.
And I'm not saying this to say that I'm all virtuous and whatever.
I look at Justin Trudeau and every now and again with him, I'm past that point.
I look at his eyes and I just feel deeply sorry for the human being.
I just feel sorrow for what an awful, repulsive creature he has allowed himself to become.
Even if he does not hate himself.
Even if he doesn't feel that himself.
When I look at people who are doing terrible things and I say...
I can empathize with the circumstances of life, with, you know, the genetic, I don't know, biochemical deficiencies or whatever that allow people, contribute to people doing terrible things.
It's one of my problems that I had when practicing law.
I would destroy, eviscerate, break into tears a witness while cross-examining them.
My client would be happy and I would go home that night feeling terrible, even if it was deserved.
I'm thinking of Jenna Ellis right now.
Jenna Ellis, she's been on the channel a couple times.
I had her on to talk about the Georgia indictment.
And I don't know what I would do if I were in the position of Jenna Ellis, Sidney Powell, Cheesebro, who's the latest one who pleaded?
I forget his name.
I don't know what I would do in their circumstances.
They have the full brunt of a highly weaponized prosecutorial judicial system.
Media enterprise coming down on them, bearing the brunt down on them in real time.
I don't know what I would do.
But when you know that you are not a criminal, when you know that you haven't lied, when you know that you haven't done anything wrong and they compel you, they coerce you into condemning yourself, I can understand why people do it and then I can have a great...
Bit of resentment for why they've done it.
In certain circumstances, more than others.
Sidney Powell, at the time of the election, came out with the Kraken theory.
You know, she has the Kraken.
It's coming incontrovertible evidence of the ghost of Hugo Chavez.
Servers being, you know, raided, flipped votes, etc., etc.
She was convinced about it.
She said she was convinced about it.
She led hundreds of thousands of people.
Is it down a primrose path?
She misled hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people that caused them to be discredited.
The theory that she put forward, other than jeopardizing herself, which we said at the time, jeopardized the legitimate, um, baseful, not baseless, but the legitimate election contest.
It undermined everything.
It was the red herring that the media needed to undermine and ignore the actual election fortification as described in the Time Magazine article.
But she believed it.
She was a true believer who, come time for her to defend her true beliefs, cops the sweetest deal of the ascending dominoes of plea deals that we're seeing right now.
That's a betrayal, not just to herself, but to others as well.
But it's a betrayal to herself.
Then you got Cheesebro, who also pleaded.
He didn't get quite as good of a deal as Sidney Powell.
And this morning, maybe it happened yesterday, I discovered it.
It was this morning.
Jenna Ellis pleaded.
Pleaded.
Pleads.
Please.
And I listened to the entire 23-minute hearing, and I just cut what I think is the most important part of it: Jenna addressing the court.
If anybody hasn't read 1984, now is the time.
Like, 1984 is my Bible of sorts, because it's got all the lessons that everybody needs to understand in terms of politics.
It's a political Bible.
Although I think the original Bible is probably also the political Bible as well.
This is the abridged quotation.
It was Winston from 1984 looking up at the big poster of Big Brother and he says, oh, what was hidden behind that mustache?
It was a misunderstanding.
Why all of this strife?
All of this suffering for a mere misunderstanding.
Quote, two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose, but it was all right.
Everything was all right.
The struggle was finished.
He had won the victory over himself.
He loved Big Brother.
That's the end of the book.
This is Jenna Ellis bearing false witness to herself a second time.
And we had had the discussion as to what was learned the first time when she bore false witness to herself for the ethics complaint.
I think it was in Colorado.
And we had learned this lesson from James O 'Keefe who said never again would he bear false witness against himself.
It was the biggest mistake he ever made in his life.
Here she is bearing false witness against herself and betraying herself, among others.
Thank you, Your Honor, for the opportunity to address the court.
I'm telling you this, I genuinely feel bad for her.
I genuinely feel bad for her, and these are the tears, in my view, not the same tears as Winston at the end of 1984.
She is not...
Truly believing what she's saying.
I don't think.
Maybe I'm wrong and maybe I'm giving her too much of the benefit of the doubt.
This is a coerced settlement because her life was set up to be ruined one way or the other.
If she goes to court, goes to trial and goes to jail, that's going to put a stick in the spokes of her life.
If she does what she's doing now, that's going to put the sticks in the spokes of her life as well.
And she is now being forced to betray herself and I think that's what the tears are.
I don't think these are true Winston tears of, I now genuinely love Big Brother.
I've convinced myself that 2 plus 2 is 5. I think this is, I'm crying because I'm betraying myself and everyone else out there who supported me in my stated fight for the truth, and we'll get to that.
As an attorney who is also a Christian, I take my responsibilities as a lawyer very seriously, and I endeavor to be a person of sound moral and ethical character in all of my dealings.
In the wake of the 2020 presidential election, I believed that challenging the results on behalf of President Trump should be pursued in a just and legal way.
I endeavored to represent my client to the best of my ability.
I relied on others, including lawyers with many more years of experience than I, to provide me with true and reliable information, especially since my role involved speaking to the media and to legislators in various states.
What I did not do, but should have done, Your Honor, was to make sure that the facts the other lawyers alleged to be true were, in fact, true.
In the frenetic pace of attempting to raise challenges to the election in several states, including Georgia, I failed to do my due diligence.
I believe in and I value election integrity.
If I knew then what I know now, I would have declined to represent Donald Trump in these post-election challenges.
I'll actually break this down afterwards.
I'll just let it play out.
I look back on this whole experience with deep remorse.
For those failures of mine, Your Honor, I have taken responsibility already before the Colorado Bar who censured me, and I now take responsibility before this court and apologize to the people of Georgia.
Thank you.
And thank you, Ms. Ellis, for sharing that all too often.
I don't get to hear the perspective of the accused in these cases, and so that's appreciated.
That's appreciated.
Thank you for groveling for the mercy of the court and bearing false witness against yourself and discrediting yourself to everyone who had supported you in this endeavor.
And I'm not saying that judgmentally.
I'm saying that just as a matter of fact.
Because this is duress.
And anybody who says otherwise is deluding themselves.
But I want to break it down from the beginning because it's also interesting.
Jenna will be able to convince herself that she admitted no wrongdoing here.
She relied on the warranties and representations of more experienced lawyers.
I'm thinking Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani.
She was merely the spokesperson.
You know, we don't need to play it again.
She was merely the spokesperson.
For the Trump campaign, she wasn't doing the due diligence.
She was repeating what she was told.
In the actual full 23-minute hearing, they go through five or six statements, which they are now saying were demonstrably, incontrovertibly false.
But she's saying, I relied on people with more experience.
I should have done my own due diligence.
And had I known then what I know now, I would have declined to represent Trump.
That's a different statement than saying, had I known then what I know now, I would have made different public statements.
Because at the end of the day, You're damn right she believed what she was doing at the time.
And you're damn right she believes it now.
But what she is facing now is simply too much for her to face.
Actual jail time of a system that is totally flipping corrupt.
And so now she's got to say, not that I would have said anything differently, but I would have, if I had known then what I knew now, that they were actually going to come after lawyers and criminalize the practice of law, criminalize the representation of a client.
Hell yeah, I would have said no.
Some people are saying, you know, like, well, this is why I think...
There might be some fault here for not coming out and defending those who defended him vocally.
I'm not sure what he can say.
That wouldn't be considered further RICO interference with the co-defendants.
But my goodness, yeah, sure.
I would have declined to represent him because I didn't know that they were going to come after lawyers and criminalize the practice of law.
I would have just found another profession.
And the problem, however, And it's a big one.
The betrayal to herself is one thing.
The betrayal to everyone else who came out and said, we want to help you in this pursuit.
We know that this is an injustice.
We know that you are receiving the short end of this political prosecution stick.
And she raised, you know, brought up a give-send-go to which...
A lot of people donated.
I'm not suggesting that this was all a ploy from the very beginning to get $200,000.
I mean, that's a lot of money.
It's not life-changing money, and it sure as hell is not money that you can use for the rest of your life.
But it was the statements in the give-send-go, the give-send-go that was set up for her by her attorney.
This is the official crowdfunding support page for Jenna Ellis created by her legal team.
Jenna Ellis, a former senior legal advisor and personal counsel to President Trump, is being targeted and the government is trying to criminalize the practice of law.
Help us fight back and stand for the truth.
I donated to this.
I donated to this, even though at the time I donated to it, I was taking a lot of flack from people who had already said Jenna was throwing Trump under the bus.
She was a turncoat.
She jumped on the DeSantis camp and started pooping all over Trump supporters.
I was like, even if you believe that, this is bullshit.
Even if you believe that.
And if you believe that, all the more reason to show not just good faith but principled support.
I will support the people who I don't even align myself with ideologically at this point.
And I'm trying to withhold judgment because I don't know what I would do in that circumstances.
But help her fight back and stand for the truth.
And, you know, you raised $216,000 for the defense to stand for the truth.
Some people say that was never going to be enough.
Others are saying, you know...
It was a grift.
That's not enough money for the rest of your life to have burnt the bridges that Jenna has burnt by bearing false witness to herself.
So even in all of that, I still feel bad for her because that's not even the riches of this earth to sell your soul.
That might be enough to get through a few years of life.
Where it will really be problematic is if in two to three to five years, you see some of these people...
On CNN, MSNBC, raking in those big checks.
That will be the ultimate betrayal.
But $216,000, some people are going to see that as a grift.
That's not enough money in the world to burn the bridges that Jenna has just burnt.
And I'm sure it pains her to do it.
Now, Robert Gouveia, a man who I deeply respect, has a different perspective on these plea deals.
I think it's a little bit more rosy and optimistic.
I appreciate that he's got...
More experience and knowledge by a long shot than me, but I've heard differing interpretations by legal minds, and I know which ones I found more plausible.
But everybody, go to Robert Gouveia this evening.
He does the afternoon recaps, and they're amazing.
But I don't chalk this up as a win for the defendants.
I don't chalk this up as a W, as an L for Fannie Willis.
This is a big, fat...
This is a big, fat W for Fannie Willis.
I want to show you the graphic, which I think is absolutely on point, if I dare say so myself.
It's a good meme, or a good graphic.
Everybody should keep this one in mind here.
This was in response to Kyle Becker, to which I'll get his tweet, but I said, you know, this is the cascading up of plea deals here.
Let's just pause it.
Stop.
That little one on the bottom, that's Sidney Powell, you see?
And the one after that is Cheesebro.
And now we're getting into the bigger planks because I think getting Jenna Ellis to plea to what she pleaded to and ostensibly throwing Giuliani under the bus, well, I think Giuliani, I don't know if Giuliani's going to flip.
We'll see.
But this is what it is, people.
One plea deal leading to another plea deal and they're going for that big plank, Donald Trump.
And everybody knows that it's bullshit.
Everybody knows the prosecution's bullshit.
Does everybody listen to Leonard Cohen?
Everybody knows.
Anyhow, that's it.
So that's the latest.
She pleaded, you know, she pays a $5,000 restitution.
She's got five years of probation.
She had to beg the court to let her go back to Florida today because they couldn't get the agreement in.
And if they couldn't get the agreement in, then she couldn't leave Georgia because of jurisdiction.
Can you please?
I mean, groveling and begging.
For mere freedom.
I want to read what Ginger Ninja said here.
Ginger Ellis.
Ginger Ninja, 1776.
Hey, watch that handle, Ginger.
Ellis.
Calls on God.
Blames more experienced attorneys.
Viva, those aren't the tears of sadness for betrayal of the truth or people who support her fight.
Those are tears of pity.
I'll disagree with you.
I like you and I'll disagree with you.
I think those are tears of betrayal of her own principles.
And she knows what she's doing.
She is nothing but self-centered and she is throwing a pity party for herself.
She still views herself as nothing but an innocent, perfect martyr.
May she live to see herself be treated the way she should.
We'll see, man.
If ever you see Jenna Ellis on CNN or MSNBC as a senior political consultant or legal analyst, that'll solidify the deal.
Anyhow, I know the crap I took when I had her back on.
I know the crap I took when I donated, when I promoted that Give, Send, Go.
And this is not about my ego whatsoever.
I wouldn't do anything differently knowing now.
If the plan was always to plead out, then why raise nearly a quarter of a million dollars for your defense to stand for the truth?
I know how much the defense could have, would have, and probably ultimately would have costed.
But the warranties and representations of that give, send, go stand for truth against a weaponized, politicized, prosecutorial process.
My goodness, that was supposed to be the purpose.
Not only is she cutting a sweet deal for herself, which is understandable, but in so doing, much like Sidney Powell in Cheesebrook, she is throwing under the bus those bigger planks, and they don't care about any of the planks except for the biggest one.
Because once the biggest one falls, after that, if and when...
The meme, and it's a great one.
They're not coming after Trump because they hate Trump.
They're coming after Trump because he stands in the way of them controlling...
What did they say?
They're not coming after Trump.
They're coming after you.
And Trump just happens to be in the way.
Crack my knuckles.
Sorry, I know that pisses people off.
Okay, so that's the latest from Jenna Ellis.
Let me get to some comments that are not only crumble rants.
Chrissy Kingdom said she lied to get donations.
Huh?
Is that not a crime?
I don't know.
I'm not trying to make her suffer any more than she's already suffering.
She probably will be sued for it now, says Chrissy Kingdom.
Ghost Night, I have to read just in advance so I don't get myself into too much trouble.
Ghost Night 7777 said the powers that killed millions in Russia and China have their sights on North America.
Everyone should listen to, or I say listen to because that's why I listen to books.
Michael Malice's White Pill.
You wonder how millions of people could have starved in the 20th century?
Yeah, in the 20th century?
How could millions of people have possibly starved?
My goodness.
Do we know how many millions of people, tens of millions of people, have starved as a result of the COVID response?
Interruption of supply chains.
Bill Gates, I think at one point, said 300 million people at the risk of starvation because of interrupting supply chains.
Communism.
That's how.
Socialism, fascism, whatever you want.
Consolidation of government, media, agriculture, nationalizing of what individuals do better than the states.
Yeah, they killed...
Tens of millions in Russia, in Mao Zedong's China.
And the method of doing it, history doesn't repeat, but it tends to rhyme.
I'm putting the dog bone back under my leg with the dog bone part for mild pressure relief, not total pressure relief.
And now I'm looking at Pudge, who's kicking her legs as we sleep.
Okay, actually, I got to show you this.
This is kind of cool.
So Pudge, she's paralyzed, but she's getting some movement back.
Okay, I'm going to zoom in a little bit.
Look at this.
This is so cool.
This is actually scientifically cool and we're gonna hear in real time.
She's dreaming and she's clearly running in her dream.
Okay, here you go.
Look at this.
Look at this.
And you see her legs twitching here.
Look at this.
Is the tail gonna go again?
Well, that's it.
Little twitches.
It's very cool.
She still runs in her dreams.
Is that a white pill?
Pudge the paralyzed Puggle still runs in her dreams.
And she poops in her sleep.
So there's that.
Okay.
All right.
Let me see if I got any other chats that we should read.
Maybe $250,000 isn't a fortune, but it's a hell of a shopping spree.
Well, at this point, it's going to be a hell of a...
Oh, that came from...
Oh, cripe.
Did I just lose that?
Let me see if I can get it.
It'll be a shopping spree, but unfortunately, that's from Tech Raji.
It'll be one heck of a shopping spree, but given that she will be unemployable, and I'm not saying this to be like a curse or an insult, she's going to be unemployable for a long time.
That'll pay necessities of life, and life ain't cheap, and it's not getting any cheaper.
Okay, I think we've harped on that for long enough.
I just read someone said, that's beautiful, except for the poop part.
All right, well, speaking of not beautiful, let's get to Canada.
Tamara Litch, people, has been, she's suffering the brunt of the Canadian prosecutorial process.
Tamara Litch, Chris Barber, they are currently, they're in their third or fourth week of their criminal trial.
Third or fourth week, I don't even know what we're up to right now.
It's going on so long.
That the Crown has to stay certain charges as it relates to violation of bail conditions because they don't have enough time because their trial on mischief, incitement to mischief, what was it?
Obstruction of justice.
They're into their third or fourth week.
It's a bloody gong show.
Tamara Lich, one of the organizers of the Freedom Convoy, raised money so that people could pay their expenses as they traveled across the country to...
A mass in downtown Ottawa, the capital of Canada, to protest in front of the Capitol building, the Parliament building.
She got arrested for mischief, incitement of mischief and obstruction, among other things.
Jailed for a couple of weeks.
Released after being detained on mischief charges.
Re-jailed on alleged violation breach of bail conditions.
All the biggest load of shizzle you can possibly imagine.
And the news of the day, people.
Now, I'm saying drop their charges, even though there's no legal definition, there's no legal concept of dropping charges in Canada because there's what they call an administrative stay.
It's a prosecutorial stay of the charges.
So here's the headline.
Oh, sorry, not the headline.
Did I bring up the headline?
I thought I put the headline up there as well.
This is from CBC.
Tom Maratzo is another one of the individuals involved, and Tamara Leach's alleged breach of her bail conditions was interacting with Tom Maratzo, another co-defendant, by virtue of the fact that they took a picture together at a gala, the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms.
Oh, jeez, I want to forget the name.
It's a Freedom Award.
It'll come to me in a second if it's not here.
That was the alleged violation of her bail conditions because when she was released from jail after two weeks of detainment on mischief charges, the dude who ran over four people in Winnipeg got out sooner than that.
She took a picture with Tom Maratzo and she said something to him at a gala that she was authorized to go to.
Jonas Freedom Award.
I forget the rest of it.
Morazzo was never charged by police for his role in the protests, helped organize the Freedom Convoy during its time in Ottawa, and at times appeared as an official spokesperson for the demonstrators.
Yada, yada, yada.
Litch was taken into custody in Medicine Hat, Alberta, on June 22nd after the Ottawa police issued a Canada-wide warrant for his arrest for alleged breach of bail conditions.
A Canada-wide warrant.
I don't have much...
Criminal law experience.
None practice.
I studied it.
From what I understand and what has been explained to me, that's rather exceptional to issue a Canada-wide warrant for arrest for alleged breach of bail conditions.
She was not allowed to contact Marasso and others involved in the protest without lawyers present as part of the conditions attached to her original charges stemming from her role in organizing the protest.
But she was released with new conditions about a month later.
Oh, that's just about a month.
released again about a month later, detained in jail for alleged violation of bail conditions on charges that at their core were nonviolent mischief charges.
And someone's gonna tell me this is not the biggest load of crap in human history.
During a brief court appearance on Monday, Crown prosecutors announced they were staying the bail-related charge against Leach.
A charge being stayed means the issue of guilt versus innocence doesn't get settled.
Oh my goodness.
And I said to that, The Crown drops the charges for bail violation after issuing a Canada-wide warrant for her arrest for alleged breach of bail conditions.
The Crown drops the charges for bail violation after she was jailed for alleged breach of bail conditions.
And look at the pathological framing from state-funded propagandist CBC News.
It doesn't mean she's innocent!
She will always be potentially conceptually guilty.
And I just want to go back to that.
A charge being stayed means the issue of guilt versus innocence doesn't get settled.
You know what?
There's a presumption of innocence.
And so what it means is that the crown, did I just close everything?
I didn't.
It means that the crown has stayed the charges such that, in theory, I think they have 12 months within which to potentially...
Revive the charges?
Continue the charges?
Although they don't do that except exceptionally?
You know what it means?
Her presumption of innocence has not been refuted beyond a reasonable doubt.
Nah, but you know, CBC just always wants to keep the guilt out there.
You're guilty until proven innocent, and you're guilty even when you're not proven guilty.
Now, some smartasses on the interwebs.
I love it.
I've got a number of trolls.
I don't see all of them because I mute the people who I know are just of bad faith annoyances.
And with all of these sex bots and auto replies, I mean, the amount of muted accounts that I mute those because I still don't want to block those.
I don't want any account saying I block them.
They want to spam and do all their sex bot crap.
Maybe someone's into it.
I don't have to see it, but you can do it on my timeline if you want.
Some smart asses out there like, They didn't drop the charges.
They stayed them.
You're an idiot lawyer, so you've got to figure that.
I was like, oh my God, you guys are idiots.
You're idiots for a number of reasons, and I don't like using that word, but sometimes it's warranted.
You're a dumb lawyer.
You don't know the difference between dropped and stayed.
It's like, first of all, drop is a colloquial term that we use to refer to what was done, but I'm quoting the freaking headline for...
You don't even click to read the headline of the propaganda that has already convinced you.
Oh, yeah, there is no legal term, legally defined term for drop, but colloquially, A, that's what is understood when they say we are not pursuing the charge anymore.
Why?
Their excuse is that we've run out of time because we've been pursuing the trial on mischief for three freaking plus weeks.
We don't have time.
Or you know what they did?
They realized it was a load of crap charged from the beginning.
But lo and behold, they no longer even need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
They get to CBC to maintain that for the rest of Tamara Leach's life.
Oh, she'll always be not innocent.
Scum of the earth.
Period.
Sorry for swearing.
I didn't swear, actually.
So that's the latest on Tamara Leach.
She's still going through her trial.
I'm going to try to get, if I can't get, if I can't get Eva Chipiak back on, the lawyer, the criminal lawyer, who was the lawyer for the, not the criminal lawyer, I'm sorry, the lawyer for the convoy, I'll try to get Krejcik, Robert Krejcik from Rebel News.
I'm going to get someone back on who's covering this, following it day in and day out, but like, at some point.
It's a flipping joke.
That it goes on for four weeks doesn't mean that there's four weeks of developments to watch in this trial.
It means it's four weeks of prosecutorial abuse.
And Tamara Leach, who has raised enough money for her defense, has to pay for her defense while taxpayers pay for her prosecution.
She hasn't buckled.
She hasn't bent the knee.
Although in fairness, even if she gets convicted, I suspect, you know, it might be time served already or something along those lines.
But she is someone who is prepared to go to jail.
She is someone who has spent, I think it's an aggregate of 59 or 54 days in jail already on non-violent mischief charges and alleged breach of bail conditions.
She spent time in jail for that.
Only so the godforsaken Crown can come in and drop the charges, stay those charges against her after three and a half weeks of a horse-rubbish prosecution.
Yep.
Nothing to see there.
All right, but that's not all that we have coming out of Canada in terms of the rubbish.
And this one's good also.
I mean, it's good as in the most black pill that you'll ever get.
I guess...
Who is it?
Bongino saying it's got to get worse?
It's not bad enough yet?
Let's do this here.
And then we're going to get to a funny one about Joe Biden's $200,000 check.
I've railed against it.
I've been on Steve Bannon's show talking about it.
I will rail to anybody who will listen about what's going on in Canada with the eugenics era.
Hitler-level stuff.
And everyone's going to say, Viva, that's a horribly insensitive comparison.
How dare you do that?
Forbes.
Trudeau.
Nazi.
And look at what comes up, people.
At some point, you make the comparisons because the comparisons exist.
This is from Forbes magazine, so you want to call me an insensitive prick for making comparisons that I think are well within the bounds of reason and historical understanding to make at this point?
Yeah, I was slow.
I was slow to get on a number of bandwagons because I prefer to be cautious and I prefer to be circumspect in my words.
Euthanizing the mentally ill is a Nazi-era policy.
They had a different word for it.
They called it mercy killings.
They didn't call it maids, medical assistance in dying.
Euthanizing the mentally ill.
And now, as we're going to get into, they're talking about authorizing, expanding euthanasia to drug addicts.
This is from Forbes magazine.
Canada's new euthanasia laws carry upsetting Nazi-era echoes, warn experts.
You're going to call me names?
You're going to call Forbes names?
You're going to call the expert the legal expert.
I don't even call myself an expert.
You're going to call this legal expert insensitive.
How dare you make that analogy?
It's so terrible.
It's so disrespectful to people who live.
My grandfather escaped Nazi Germany.
He escaped Poland in 1936.
Nobody's going to lecture me and moralize me about when it's an appropriate time to say what we're witnessing right now.
It's not the same distance, but it's the same bloody direction.
And I'm not going to go through this in this entire way, but I've done it before.
Canada's extremely liberal euthanasia law is getting more liberal, which next year are set to be extended to include people suffering from mental health conditions and potentially minors have been slammed for being reminiscent of the way Nazis dealt with people with disabilities by leading academics in the field.
That's all we really need to read about that article.
Go read it.
I'll flip you the article.
At some point...
The ball doesn't lie, to quote my father.
And at some point, success leaves clues, and so does tyranny.
So what are they doing now?
In Canada, it's absolutely mind-blowing.
Just recently, this is in British Columbia, they decriminalized hard drugs.
I crap you not.
They decriminalized hard drugs.
There was this infamous...
Picture of a guy who was selling cocaine, heroin.
He had a little bill, selling it.
They decriminalize hard drugs, make it available for safety, you know, safe consumption.
You don't want people OD 'ing on fentanyl-laced drugs, as if the black market is not going to exist nonetheless.
Like, I read somewhere, and I forget where, and if it's wrong, someone's going to fact-check correct me.
But ever since they legalized or decriminalized marijuana, that didn't do very much to the black market.
That actually only enhanced the black market.
Make it cheaper?
Because the government stuff is too expensive.
They legalize, I mean, you know, they legalize tobacco.
They tax it up the wazoo.
There's a black market for like black market cigarettes.
People don't know this.
In Canada, you could go to the native reserves and you can get, it's not black market cigarettes, but you can get like, I don't know what you call this, like knockoff under the table cigarettes.
They think, oh, we're going to decriminalize hard drugs to make it safe for people to subdue the black market.
Bull crap.
But then when you see what they actually do, Canada, this is British Columbia, decriminalized a small amount of hard drugs, February 2nd, 2023.
How it started.
How it's going.
October 19, 2023.
Canada will legalize medically assisted dying, medically assisted euthanasia.
Mercy killings for people addicted to drugs.
Some drug user activists have likened the move to eugenics and say Canada should be funding more harm reduction.
Oh, but you see, they are.
You see, they finance the harm reduction by decriminalizing it, and then they let you kill yourself when your life gets ruined because you get addicted to the hard drugs that they just decriminalized.
It's beyond words, and it's beyond black pilling.
Because if someone were trying to depopulate...
What would they be doing differently?
If someone were trying to reduce the Canadian population to then say, well, we have no choice but to open our borders to immigration because, look, our population is not only not growing, it's actually shrinking because we're killing everybody.
And I'm being hyperbolic.
They're not killing everybody.
In 2021, and you all know this, let me just bring this out.
In 2021, Canada euthanized 10,064 Canadians.
That's if we believe the number and there is good reason to believe that number is a lot more than that because some people are not being counted and my goodness once once they found out in Quebec that medically assisted death was the third leading cause of death well there was a public pressure campaign or at least the government felt pressure to say holy crap we better back up with this 2021, 10,064 Canadians euthanized under the medical assistance and dying that we know of.
That represented over 3% of all death in Canada for 2021 state-sanctioned.
2022, we haven't gotten the numbers yet.
The projections were 13,000 and change, which would represent over 4% of the death in Canada, assuming excess death or assuming death numbers haven't gone up, which they probably will, give or take.
3.5%, 4% of the death in Canada in 2022 is projected to be government-assisted dying.
Euthanasia.
Or if you're going in the context of the mentally ill and drug addicts, I will dare call it state-sanctioned murder.
People who can't consent to contracts cannot consent to a contract to end their lives.
So 2022, the numbers haven't come out yet.
And my prediction is it's going to be wildly more than 13,000.
Some people were predicting 16,000.
I'm going to just go, Not half doom pills, and I'm going to say 20,000.
It hasn't come out yet, and if I'm wrong, I'll be happy to be wrong, although it'll just be disgustingly high regardless.
That's even assuming we can trust the numbers.
But this is where Canada's going, people.
Daily Mail.
Canada to legalize euthanasia for drug addicts with no other illness in March.
You got some people saying it's not fair to exclude addicts, while others say it's rooted in eugenics.
This was the argument, by the way, to include the mentally ill.
Unsolicited, the liberal, some liberal minister, I forget who it was, in 2016 when they're debating this law, says, look, the Canadian Supreme Court of Canada came out and said it's unconstitutional to deprive people of dignity and death.
If you're suffering from pancreatic cancer, you've got three months left to live, you've got all your stuff in order, and you don't want to go through the anguish of a pancreatic cancer death, we want to make it humane, and we want to allow people to determine their own destiny.
And my goodness, I don't think very many people have a problem with that.
Then, for no reason whatsoever, somebody comes in and says, well, we don't want to deny this constitutional right.
To the mentally ill.
I mean, that would be unfair to the mentally ill.
So we want to allow mentally ill people to decide to end their lives.
Not as a result of other physical illness that is uncurable.
As a result of mental illness.
Well, okay, that's a little controversial, they said at the time.
So we're going to include an exclusion that's going to sunset into the wind and disappear in 2023.
The sunset clause.
It's been sunset, people.
Oh, you thought they were going to stop with the mentally ill?
This is the government we're talking about.
You give the government an inch, they'll give you the full rope.
So they say, okay, we're going to extend it to the mentally ill.
That sunset provision comes into effect as of 2023, give or take.
I think it's 2024 maybe.
The mentally ill can contract their own death with the government, even if they don't have terminal cancer.
And then there was a poll that showed, you know, like, a substantial portion of Canadians support medical assistance in dying for the homeless.
And they're expanding it now, or they want to, to drug addicts.
And minors.
And even minors who can't consent, the parents can consent to them.
I mean, people made a joke about the post-birth abortion.
I mean, it's like, it's a Babylon Bee article.
Well, we had the baby now.
The parents want to consent to the baby being euthanized.
Well, what can ever go wrong?
You've got to get two doctors to sign off on that.
You get doctors signing off on chopping off the breasts of little girls, the weenies of little boys, hormone replacement therapy, puberty blockers.
You've got doctors signing off on genital mutilation for developing children.
I'm sure they're not going to find two doctors who are going to authorize the parents to euthanize a child.
I'm sure you're not going to find two doctors to authorize euthanasia of a drug addict.
Why treat them?
Why treat them for the problem that you just exacerbated for them when you can just kill them?
And harvest their organs afterwards, by the way.
Canada's medically assisted dying MAID law is due to expand in March 2024.
It will include mental health patients, including those suffering from substance abuse.
Canada's due to legal...
yada, yada.
When the country's law around medically assisted dying changes in March 2024, mental health patients, including those with substance abuse issues, with no physical ailments will be able to seek assisted care.
I don't know why the format is like this.
But we're, okay, let me just make sure that we can see the entire thing.
We can.
Okay, medical assistance.
Look at this.
Hey, it's like the dominoes that we saw earlier today.
Oh, no, we just won 2016.
We just want to do it for the terminally ill.
Oh, we just want to do it for a lot more terminally ill.
Oh, we just want to expand the definition of terminal illness to include chronic life illnesses that will not get healed.
Oh, now we just want to include the mentally ill.
Oh, now we want to include drug addicts and minors.
Look at where the dominoes are now, people.
They've got the momentum and the inertia.
The process for an assisted death in Canada starts with downloading a form online.
This involves the applicant answering a series of tick box questions and signing the bottom followed by securing a signature of a witness.
They will have a phone call and a home visit from a doctor.
If the application is approved by two separate doctors, the person must wait 90 days from the time of their application, and then a doctor can administer the lethal drug via injection.
Currently, people solely with mental illness such as depression and personality disorders with no physical conditions are not eligible.
A framework for suicide.
A framework for assisting people with substance abuse disorders for MAID is being discussed at an annual scientific conference held in Canada this week.
The agenda for the workshop includes teaching attendees and medical professionals how to know the difference between suicidality and a reasoned wish to die.
Babylon B, you've got your headline there.
Babylon B. Anyways, it goes on.
It's just an absolute freaking travesty.
Here, I'm going to give you the link to that so you can go.
You know, we've got to train doctors on the distinction between suicidality and a reasoned wish to die if you're a drug addict.
Although they haven't approved it yet.
Don't worry, they'll stop somewhere.
A reasoned wish to die if you're mentally ill.
It's a contradiction in terms.
And there are some mentally ill people out there.
There are people suffering from mental disorders who are saying, the government is supposed to protect me from myself when I'm in that most vulnerable state.
Not allow me to end my life.
Oh, we'll give you time.
Are you suffering from mental illness now?
I tell you, no, I'm not.
I'm not.
And I still want to die.
Oh, lordy, lordy.
Lordy.
Hold on one second.
I see something here.
Didn't they recently update DSM-5 to include refusal to be vaxxed, belief in conspiracy theories, to be classified as mental illness?
No, they didn't.
They didn't.
My understanding from that, there was at one point in time a meme going around that says...
People who refuse to get vaxxed should be treated as being mentally ill.
And at the time, despite the fact that it got a little bit of criticism when I called things the way I see it, I said that's not what the internal memo said.
It said that some people have a fear of needles as their reason to refuse to get vaxxed.
And they should get treatment or what do they call it?
Basically like counseling to get over their fear of needles to get the vaxxed, to get the jab.
And I'll tell you one thing.
I don't have a fear of needles.
At this point in time, I've got a fear of that particular jab.
If I knew now, then, what I knew now, know now.
Let me start that again.
If I knew then what I know now, you would have to tie me down to a table to get me to take that back then.
Okay, I hear a kid who's making a lot of noise out there.
Do you guys hear that?
It's happy noise.
All right.
Now, we're actually...
Look at this.
We're doing good here.
There is some other stuff in the backdrop.
So that's what's going on in Canada.
It's a free fall of depravity.
Let me see here.
I got my brother.
Okay, fine.
That was my brother.
That was a tweet from earlier.
I still got more stuff and some of it's fun.
So don't go anywhere.
Although, if you're going to go somewhere, come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
Oh my goodness.
Joe Biden's $200,000 check.
The link to locals is in the chat in Rumble.
Joe Biden's $200,000.
First, let's start with this.
Yesterday, some outlets, multiple outlets, tweeting, reporting that Putin suffered cardiac arrest.
And I'm like, holy crap.
Of all things to happen at this point in time, but there has been no follow-up on that.
Putin cardiac.
And let's just see if there's any news on that today.
Kremlin denies Putin had a heart attack.
Kremlin denies rumors of Putin's body double amid a heart attack.
Let's hear this one.
This one I want to see.
Of the Telegram account.
Okay, claiming Putin was found convulsing from a heart attack.
It was reported in Sky News.
It was reported in a number of outlets.
And they all reference back to the original one.
And which is why, before I say anything, I'm just going to...
At this point, I don't trust anybody.
And I was like, if Putin had a heart attack, I mean, this would be a, like how many, how would anyone out there ever believe it was natural, even if it were natural?
And B, this would be the biggest news on earth.
Kremlin has issued a denial of a prominent Russian Telegram account saying Putin suffered a heart attack.
The anonymous account General SVR regularly pumps out fascinating claims about Putin.
There's good reason to be highly skeptical.
All right.
Well, that was the...
Irrelevant news of the day.
I mean, irrelevant in that.
It's at this point in time, like, nobody knows what to believe.
This is the absolute state of the destabilizing effect of disinformation, CGI, bot accounts on Twitter.
Nobody knows what to believe.
And I dare say, even if you saw it with your own eyes, you wouldn't know what to believe.
But what you can believe.
And we're going to end it on this, I think.
What you can believe is that if...
What's his name?
Aaron Rupar is saying something.
If Daniel Goldman is saying something, they are lying.
I mean, it's the safest bet on the internet.
So, check this out.
Check it before you wreck it.
The House subcommittee or whatever the hell, the ones who were investigating Biden, last week published this document, which is a...
Check from Joe Biden's brother to Joe Biden, dated March 1, 2018, for a cool $200,000.
Buckaroonies.
Wait a minute.
What was it from the jerk where he says, well, I can cash 50 of the buckaroonies now and then take the other 200 home.
And then he finds out it was a check for $250,000 and not $250.
This is a check for $200,000.
Joseph R. Biden, that's Joe Biden, from his brother.
And it says right there on the bottom, loan repayment.
Totally kosher, nothing to see here.
It says loan repayment right on the check.
Everyone go on with your days.
2018, Joe Biden is neither vice president nor president.
He's just a citizen.
It's going to be the other defense.
On this very same day, James Biden apparently received a loan from a bank or a transfer of funds from a bank.
I forget the details exactly, but something along those lines.
Boom, he gets the money.
$200,000 right to his brother.
Loan repayment.
What do the liars have to say about this?
Don't worry, everybody.
Aaron Rupar, a man who has a definition in the Urban Dictionary.
I'm not joking.
As a scumbag liar who is a propensity for making up crap.
I'll get to his Urban Dictionary definition later.
He's such a known, proven, demonstrable, filthy liar.
He's a definition in the Urban Dictionary.
He says, I've obtained documents showing Joe Biden made two loans to his brother James.
One in July 2017 for $40,000 and a second in January for $200,000.
They were paid back in full without interest within two months.
January to February to March, two months.
Raises a lot more questions than answers.
The loans took place when Joe wasn't in office or a candidate for one.
Horse.
It wasn't a candidate for one.
All technicalities, as if they didn't know.
All right.
The loan was repaid.
He's obtained documents showing the loan.
You know what documents would evidence a loan?
A promissory note, a loan agreement, and or transfer of funds.
Show us the $200,000 going from Joe to his brother.
That's all I want to see.
Don't worry.
Trust the liar.
I've seen it.
Trust me, bro.
But then you also got Dan Goldman, who I've called out so many times for lying.
I have to go look at all my tweets.
He says, per usual, GOP oversight is blatantly misleading the public.
Rep James Comer concealed a $200,000 loan from Joe Biden to his brother six weeks before his brother repaid him.
Six weeks?
We just had two months earlier.
I think he and Alan Aaron need to coordinate their lives a little better.
It's time to end this charade and focus on opening the house.
You know what's acutely missing?
Acutely missing.
And not in a cute way, but noticeably, remarkably absent from both of these tweets, any corroborating evidence, documentation to prove the loan.
If Rep.
James Comer concealed the $200,000, that means that there's evidence out there of a $200,000 loan, which we haven't seen.
All that we've seen is just the check that says...
It says loan repayment right there.
Shut up.
Go home.
Piss off.
They were only peddling their name and influence.
Internationally, for massive payments.
10% for the big guy.
But it says loan repayment right there on the check.
And none of them in their me thinks they doth protest too much.
I've got the evidence.
I've seen it.
Trust me, bro.
Remember when Adam Schiff, that scumbag pathological liar, came out of those committees and said, I've seen the smoking evidence, the smoking gun evidence of Trump-Russia collusion?
Or was it the quid pro quo?
Geez, Louise, I forget which one it was.
I've seen the smoking gun evidence.
Hold on, I gotta make sure I remember this.
Schiff, smoking gun, Trump.
It was in the impeachment.
The collusion.
So it wasn't in the impeachment.
It was in the collusion.
Oh, God.
Let's just, for the sake of it, all cleanse our palates by vomiting into our mouths.
We have Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff.
He's the new chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and the co-chair of the bipartisan Congressional Freedom of the Press Caucus.
Good morning, Congressman.
Good morning.
That's a lie.
It wasn't morning.
If he said good morning, it was afternoon.
Paul Manafort's own attorneys that he had passed this proprietary polling data to Russians.
Well, it's pretty shocking.
And you think you're not capable of being shocked anymore.
But, of course, we continue to learn things that take your breath away.
And here we have the chairman of the Republican presidential candidate in private conversations with Russians, with Russian-backed Ukrainians.
Evidence of collusion is clear.
Offering polling data, inside polling data.
Remember when Schiff came out and said, I've got the evidence.
It's smoking gun.
Lie.
It was a lie at the time and it was a lie that he knew no one could disprove because for whatever the reason, some confidentiality, they couldn't disclose the documentation evidence that would have showed that Adam Schiff was abusing of confidentiality to lie to the American people.
I'm no doctor, but my suspicion is that Goldman is doing the same thing right now.
So Marjorie Taylor Greene writes in a tweet, Biden bribery money trail on March 1, 2018, distressed company AmeriCorps.
Okay, it wasn't a bank loan, it was AmeriCorps.
Wires $200,000 to Biden.
Because his last name, Biden, could open doors to Middle East investment the same day Joe Biden received a $200,000 check from James Biden.
Here's the evidence.
But it says loan repayments, Marjorie.
You're such a liar.
Why would you lie like that?
Ryan Sheet, I don't know who he is, comes in and says, I don't come from a wealthy family, but I've gotten loans from my dad that I paid back.
It was $5,000, not $200,000, but my dad was a car engineer, not a political figure with generational wealth.
Joe Biden didn't have generational wealth.
That was just political wealth.
But set that aside.
Even if this were the correct context, even if it was 2018, even if they did it, they didn't do it.
But even if they did it, there was nothing wrong with it.
Even if there was something wrong with it, they had to do it because they had no choice.
And even if they did it voluntarily, you're a bigot for noticing.
Even if the context were correct, it was 2018.
Marjorie Taylor Greene keeps saying influence peddling when posting this.
Oh, and then...
But he did it.
But he did it worse.
But the entire Trump empire was built on influence peddling, not hard work.
He licenses his name.
Yeah, it's called Brand.
Much different than licensing your political name.
Unbelievable what people do.
Mental gymnastics.
Yada, yada, yada.
He didn't do it, but if he did do it, it wasn't illegal.
And if it was illegal, there was a good reason for him to do it.
And even if there wasn't, look at what Trump did.
He made it even worse.
Also, acutely absent from all of these protestations.
A little thing called evidence.
To quote Ace Ventura.
Ventura.
Alright, I do think now that that's it.
We're going to go over to locals.
Yeah, we're going to go over to locals.
We're going to do something funny there.
Everybody, thank you all for being here.
It has been a wonderful time trying to make sense of the absolute insanity of the world.
Hold on a second.
Hold on.
I'm going to break this up.
Last chat.
There's a rumble rant in there.
Okay.
I'm picturing something out of Family Guy with this.
Ginger Ninja says, Canadian.
Wants housekeeper.
Searches on Google.
Doorbell rings.
Doctor standing on doorstep with needles.
Somebody needed a maid?
Oh, you give it...
What a beautiful acronym.
Medical assistance in dying.
Oh, it's just...
We're not...
It's not action.
Whatever that action...
14 was out of Nazi Germany.
It's not mercy killings.
It's not euthanasia, because even euthanasia is too ugly a term.
Medical assistance and dying.
But we don't want to say the death word either, so just maids.
Everybody gets a maids.
Okay, let's do it.
So what was I going to say?
For the rest of the week, tomorrow, I've got Ian Corzine coming on.
I hope it's tomorrow, but Ian Corzine, another internet lawyer dude, practicing as well with a very interesting area of expertise.
We're going to shoot the...
Shoot the poop, as we say, because I haven't seen Ian in a long time.
Ian Corzine on Twitter.
I forget what his handle is.
Ian Corzine.
I-A-N-C-O-R-Z-I-N-E.
Oh, okay.
Sorry to say...
He's going to be on tomorrow.
Later this week.
There's a bunch of good stuff coming.
I mean, just stay tuned.
Great guests, great, you know, I say great stuff to talk about because the world's going to hell in a handbasket.
And that's it.
Everybody, come on over to Rumble.
We are on Rumble.
Come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
And I'm going to end it on Rumble.
Thank you all for being here.
Tonight, Mark Robert for America's Untold Stories might be doing it out of my home studio.
We'll see.
So if you see a Viva Fry in the backdrop of Grobert's stream this afternoon, it's because he's here and we're going to have dinner, possibly with another guest.
So go enjoy the day if you're not coming to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
If you are, I'll see you there in a few.
And thank you all very much.
Peace out, peeps.
I think we're alone now.
FinnboySlick, VivaFry, finally we're on local so I can nag you about rat-tat-tat It's good.
I listened to it.
It's very good.
I also included a great little pumpkin pie tune to your Amos Miller pie video.
Okay, so hold on a second.
Oh, my goodness.
I'll tell you.
Rat-tat-tat is good.
It's nice.
What do they call that type of music where it's not instrumental?