All Episodes
Oct. 25, 2023 - Viva & Barnes
01:42:15
Legal Takes with Ian Corzine! From Trump to Ellis the the ACLU & Prostitutes! Viva Frei Live!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And then dealing with scummy corporate lawyers, they're always trying to do procedural tricks.
You can't trust them on anything.
They'll lie to you repeatedly, mislead you, try to trap you, try to get you to waive something or forfeit something that you didn't realize that that's what was happening.
You have to always assume they're acting in bad faith.
You can never assume they're acting in good faith.
You have to operate on a constant, persistent, paranoid perspective of how might they be trying to screw me here?
How might they be trying to disadvantage me?
What edge are they trying to gain tactically by what they're doing?
And sadly, that's who they are.
That's the reason why most sort of conscientious lawyers who work in litigation quit within a decade.
As I'm listening to this, I'm listening to Robert Barnes this morning.
This is his bourbon with Barnes from last night.
I'm like...
This is how I felt.
He's describing how I feel.
I'm like, me, me, me.
Conscientious lawyer.
I lasted a little bit longer than 10 years.
And then the punchline.
Disproportionately women, interestingly.
Well, that's not the punchline.
The constant dishonesty, the constant sleaziness, scumminess of how they behave is something that most ordinary people...
Can't handle.
It's part of why lawyers have bad reputations.
They deserve them.
Most lawyers are sleazy human beings.
Not all, obviously.
But most.
Most are.
I mean, you've seen...
To give you an example of lawyers who would rather quit the practice of law...
Had no idea he was going here.
Viva.
Viva would quit the practice of law because of this.
Probably 80% of it was this.
20% of it was probably dealing with difficult clients.
Tell it, Bones!
Dealing with opposing lawyers always up to something sleazy and scummy.
And judges who don't follow the rule of law like they pretend they do.
And try to threaten you as an individual lawyer with it.
And you have to figure out in advance, okay, if I'm going to challenge this judge, where might the judge counterattack?
Where might the other party counterattack?
Make sure you're as immune as possible in all those areas.
Look, I didn't know Barnes was going there.
I was like, oh my goodness, he's describing my experience.
And yeah, imagine living.
With the constant fear that you are always potentially being exploited by opposing counsel who is continuously looking to exploit you.
There's no good faith anything.
It's all exploitive.
It's all cutthroat.
It's all the ends justify the means.
And they can say, well, I'm just doing it to represent my client.
Oh, my goodness.
Now, I won't start swearing just yet.
The crap that I saw and the crap that I had to put up with.
And then you get in front of a judge and a judge doesn't give a sweet bugger all about the infighting among counsel.
And you live your life constantly fearing getting screwed because the opposing counsel is constantly trying to screw you.
Not about justice.
It's about victory.
And it taints the way you view the world.
When I left the practice of law, I mean, it was after like 12 or 13 years, you know, entirely.
I was like, how do people have successful businesses?
How do people actually succeed in business?
How do they trust their business partners?
All that I had seen.
You imagine, like, all you do is family law and marital law and all you deal with is divorce.
You're like, how do people actually stay married successfully?
Now, I had answers to these questions.
Oh, but, um...
Robert, somebody said, you had me at prostitutes.
I think that talks about a tweet that I made.
So it was interesting.
I'm listening to Barnes.
I'm like, yeah, my goodness.
Apropos, we're going to talk about this today.
Apropos also because if you guys don't know who Ian Corzine is, we're going to like reminisce for a bit because I met Ian.
I'm like going back.
I think it's been like close to five years.
I see him nodding in the back.
It's like five years.
And we, you know, at some point in time, lawyers who loathe lawyers.
Become friends, whether it's just by the internet or by happenstance, because I say, like, you know, awfulness congregates and goodness also congregates.
And so I met Ian years ago.
I think everybody should know who he is.
Smart guy, good guy, above all else.
Now I'm just looking at some of the chat here.
Okay, so what's going to happen today?
Ian's coming on.
He's not going to stay for the whole show.
He's going to stay for what he can.
I think he's got a busy schedule also.
West Coast, if I'm not mistaken.
And then we're going to talk about...
Everything.
Trump gag orders.
Jenna Ellis fundraiser.
Barnes talked about that last night.
I got some ADL stuff, both relating to the gag orders.
And a new law that they are contesting in Tennessee.
Aggravated prostitution.
Speaking of prostitutes.
Okay, we'll get to it.
Ian, I'm bringing you in.
In 321, Ian Corzine, everybody.
Say hello to the guest of the hour.
Hey, everybody.
Good to see you again, Viva.
Dude, how long has it been?
How long have we known each other for?
Five years.
You and I both had an idealistic notion to go online and be able to give our services to help people understand the law.
And it's been a great five-year run.
I know it's been great for you, too.
The exponential growth as of COVID, I'm not calling it a silver lining because I would rather be...
You know, grinding it out to do not the family law.
I had done the vlog stuff.
I'd rather be grinding it out just with regular law stuff than the decay of the Western world.
But we did not meet through the No Small Creators movement.
That was...
Oh, jeez, Louise.
I'm going to get his...
Yeah, Cody Warner.
Cody Warner.
Cody Warner.
Yeah, yeah.
So is that where we met through the hashtag #nosmallcreators?
I think part of it was that.
Then we had a mutual friend, Micah, from Arkansas.
Yeah.
But yeah, we were struggling creators.
That was back in 2018, 2019.
We're trying to figure it out.
Short form content basically didn't exist.
All these live streams and the popularity thereof wasn't there yet.
So we were just trying to get out there and express ourselves and help people with the law.
Now, for those who don't know you, Ian, what type of law?
Where are you from?
How old are you?
And where are you?
You're in California.
Well, right now I'm in Scottsdale.
I kind of go back and forth between California and Arizona.
51 years old.
You know, I have a whole life of practice.
I was a federal prosecutor for a period of time, was a federal law clerk.
Then for about 20 years, had my own law firm and practiced civil law, business, and insurance litigation.
So when Barnes was talking about wanting to quit the profession and how many lawyers want to do that, I felt the exact same thing you felt, which was...
I want to get the heck out of it because it was a very difficult lifestyle.
Like you said, maintaining relationships, keeping positive about the world was very difficult.
Well, people always say like lawyers make a lot of money and yada yada.
First of all, it's not all lawyers that make a lot of money and some of it is a hard grind.
But I said even those that make a lot of money, they spend a lot of money as well.
It's known as the golden handcuffs for a reason.
And I called it the unhappiness tax.
The lawyers that made money would spend it because they say, I work so hard, I'm miserable.
I want a Porsche because that'll make me happy.
I want fancy vacations.
And then they spend it as fast as they make it.
But eventually you learn that But hourly rates are not where it's at.
Obviously, entrepreneurialism and business is probably more smart for us.
So I'm so glad to be in the online atmosphere.
I have my own company now, and I'm happy to be on the show today.
You said federal prosecutor for how many years?
For about two years, I was at what's called a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney.
I was tasked with prosecuting misdemeanors on federal land.
So I did it during law school, a little bit thereafter.
And then I was drafted to be a federal law clerk for a magistrate judge in Sacramento, California.
Very cool.
I'm just flagging a question that someone's gonna have.
I'll get to it in a bit.
Yeah.
Okay, and then you went into private practice and you're doing corporate.
You were not doing litigation, right?
I was doing litigation.
Yes.
I was right in the thick of it.
And like I said before, it was difficult.
You really want to do the best for your client.
You really want to have those idealistic morals you start out with.
But it does get to be a grind.
When you have a big case and you're on the plaintiff's side and it's a contingency fee, sometimes you're like, oh, wow, they really got injured.
This is going to be a good one.
You feel yourself going to that weird place, which I didn't like.
And then when did you decide to wind it down and what did you get into and what are you doing now?
Yeah, so I decided to wind it down around 2018 or so.
My daughter was into YouTube and I saw that a lot of creators out there, YouTube creators, needed legal help.
And so I started making videos about how to succeed online and not violate laws and how to negotiate brand deals and things like that.
And did pretty well for a period of time.
And then I realized I wanted to reach out and kind of broaden my audience.
I'm a company called The People's Choice.
We're in California.
We do legal document production.
And so I wanted to kind of expand the audience and expose people to my business.
Now, hold on.
I want to pull up the tweet because I like what you're doing on Twitter.
Where's the tweet, the legal take with the finger?
And I retweeted it.
I said, we're going to talk about it today.
Thank you.
Where the heck is it?
I'll find it in a second.
Well, I could find it.
Yeah, no, I'll do it.
Oh, no, here.
Well, hold on.
I'm just going to show your entire profile.
Okay, great.
Okay, and now you're doing your online commentary type stuff and also a more business side of it?
Yeah, what I'm really trying to do is...
The brand name is Lawyer's Take, and really what that is is kind of shooting from the hip with my legal experience, giving you my true and honest opinion relating to political and trending issues.
So what I've kind of done is I've said, listen...
You know, I did some analysis and figured out that multi-platform is the best.
So I'm on TikTok, I'm on YouTube, I'm on Instagram.
And then now X, when Elon took it over, I thought it was a good opportunity to get videos on Twitter, on the X platform.
So what I do is I label everything lawyers take, and you can take it or you can leave it.
You can look at my, I do research before I do my tweets, and I give you my honest belief, and sometimes I'm wrong and sometimes I'm not.
Now, Ian, I've known you for five years and I've seen what I think is your evolution on the interwebs.
Have you gotten, I won't say black-pilled, but have you gotten more red-pilled over the last five years?
Because it seems now you're more opinionated than you used to be five years ago.
Well, you're exactly right.
And I remember that tweet that you sent me a couple of months ago on our show saying, "You got the red pill!" You know what?
I've always been conservative.
I think I would say I'm socially liberal, but I've always been conservative.
I've worked for Republican candidates.
I worked for the governor of California for a period of time.
So that's always been the case.
But, you know, recently I came to the conclusion after so much damage was done to our country that I needed to get my voice out there.
And like I said, it's not always going to be an agreeable voice, but someone needs to speak up because what's happening is a disaster to this country.
I want to make sure that I'm doing something to try to help out.
Well, of the, I forget what it was where I said, yeah, Ian has taken the red pill, but the last legal take, I mean, the news of the week, and we're going to get into all of the, I say trending, but they're not trending, just like the issues of the week.
So the plea deals that are going on in the Trump indictment.
Now, so you have...
Look, you're in Scottsdale.
I think Robert Gouveia is not far from you, at least in Arizona.
And I know you visited him recently.
Yeah.
I showed up where I might not have been supposed to show up.
Not supposed to show up.
I showed up to surprise.
So, I mean, look, I don't necessarily just defer to other people's opinions, but I recognize when they have more experience than I do.
Robert, he might come on later this week.
He's looking at these, you know, basically deferred agreements, deferred, I would say deferred prosecution agreements, but I don't think that's the right word.
And he's a little bit more optimistic than I am about the impact of these guilty pleas.
He's highlighting that these guilty pleas, they get basically expunged or washed, for lack of a better word, if they comply with all the terms for, whatever, three or four years or the five years of probation.
But what is your take on all of these Trump defendants, or lump them as Trump defendants, who are now pleading one after the other?
Sidney Powell, Cheesebro, Jenna Ellis.
I think there's a fourth one in there, but I'm not sure.
What is your take on what's going on?
Well, first off, it's disappointing.
But as my time in, you know, being a federal prosecutor and a law clerk, it's not surprising.
The government comes in, and I used to be representing the United States of America, comes in and oftentimes they bully these people.
And it's very difficult, especially when we're on the record, so to speak, these days, where we can look at Jenna Ellis' tweets and we can see her interviews and we can go, my God, what a marked difference.
And then at the same time, you see what we saw yesterday.
And she was on camera and on a Zoom call from the courthouse, you know, giving a statement that if you watch the whole tape, you see the judge said, you don't have to do this.
And she was like, I want to do this.
So you kind of begin to understand there's other motives going on besides just being scared that you're going to get 10 years in prison.
And then you kind of do some...
Research into the background of some of these people, and you realize, golly, they're not really communicating what's exactly happening.
My expertise is actually in civil law.
I spent most of my time there.
So I did a tweet or post, an ex-post yesterday, talking about the civil complications that may ensue when you're admitting on the record you're pleading guilty to, in this case, aiding and abetting false documentation.
False statements, yeah.
Yeah, false statements.
And so we talked about the fact that, you know, this is opening them up to potential, you know, defamation per se, to negligent misrepresentation causes of action later on in time, where they could be sued by election officials.
So I wanted to make sure that there's more consequences just just what we see.
We're going to get to that side of it in a second, but you did actually say something that was quite interesting, and now I'm piecing two and two together.
The entire hearing was 23-some-odd minutes, and you're right.
At one point, she says, I'd like to read a statement, and the judge says, are you sure?
Do you want to?
And said, yes.
And the lawyer says, I want to submit a written document, which is the statement to be read.
It wasn't necessary.
It wasn't required.
And I'm not being judgmental for the sake of being judgmental.
Was that done so that...
Because apparently whatever agreement they had, the court was not bound by.
So is she groveling to some extent to the court so the court ratifies the agreement that they entered into with the prosecution?
You know, it's so hard to tell because you know as well as I, having been in court, that submission of a written statement is just...
It's fine.
Matter of fact, the judges sometimes appreciate it because they can do it on their, you know, non-court time and review it.
So that's interesting, I guess.
But I was looking at some posts today and they're suggesting that she just wanted to be on the networks.
And I don't know if that's true, but I got to tell you, it wasn't necessary.
She had it in writing.
She submitted it to the judge or the lawyer submitted to the judge.
And then she still went on.
And then we have a lot of emotion going on.
So it was a very, very odd thing to do.
I think at the same time, she threw people under the bus.
She potentially implicated herself in civil lawsuits.
Maybe she values the public exposure over all those other dangers.
The hypothesis that this might be a long-term investigation, a long-term investment into a senior analyst, legal commentator on CNN, MSNBC, whatever, we'll see.
That'll play out.
But it's not controversial that she threw Giuliani under the bus hard with that statement.
She did.
She did, absolutely.
You know, I've reviewed the indictment again in preparation for our discussion today and, you know, it's very clear.
That certainly Giuliani was part of it and maybe she was taking some orders from him, but she was also a major instigator, at least as alleged by the pleadings.
And we have to kind of affirm them as true based upon a guilty plea.
So, yeah, it was a weird thing to do.
I mean, I don't know what the value was.
If she could have just exercised that same statement and nothing would have been so much better.
But now she's saying, you know, she holds herself out as a constitutional lawyer, never been in federal court before.
And then she says that, you know, she's acting under the direction when you see her interviews, her tweets, you see the allegations in the indictment.
It's a little confusing.
Let me see here.
I'm Not Your Buddy Guy says, the whole point of the public apology is for it to be public.
These are communist tactics.
Well, yes, but then that assumes that Jenna Ellis is submitting to the communist tactic of the public apology.
I don't know if struggle session is the right word.
Oh, and by the way, everybody, I forgot to mention.
Hit the thumbs up button because I want to see this rise to the front page of Rumble.
So the thumbs up and a comment.
But she threw Giuliani under the bus hard.
Basically saying, I trusted them in what they were doing.
I don't know how that's going to be much of a defense potentially from other potential claims.
She wasn't named as the defendant or a defendant in the defamation lawsuits of Giuliani.
Sidney Powell Dominion.
I guess she didn't repeat the statements that much, but felt the need to say it here.
I guess, but you know, that's a violation of her professional responsibility.
You can't go and mount this multi-state litigation on behalf of the President of the United States without verifying things.
It just, if you put all the facts together, you spend some time with her history, it kind of reeks.
Yeah, but Barnes is actually sort of on the similar bandwagon of the similar opinion that They were out of their league or out of their expertise at the least.
I just didn't think that she made any overtly, gratuitously false statements, unlike Sidney Powell and Giuliani.
I mean, I'm looking at tweets right here.
President Trump should never concede the election.
The video evidence being shown in the Georgia Senate hearing is shocking.
You could share that with me in the private chat.
I can bring it up.
But if there's any you want me to...
It's interesting.
So now Gouveia's take, and I say not take, but Gouveia's explanation is that these guilty pleas, they are basically, I don't know if expunged is the right word after several years, if they comply with this, so they're not actual guilty convictions.
So flesh that out and then tell us what the practical impact of that is if, for the time being, they've now gotten three or four lawyers to plead guilty to wrongdoing, not in the RICO context, but in the broader context, which will have an impact nonetheless, if on nothing else, public opinion.
Well, you know, I used to use this strategy as a prosecutor.
I mean, really what you're trying to do on these people, they don't care about these people.
I mean, the prosecution.
They're just trying to get them to roll over on President Trump and other high-profile people.
That's the goal.
So that's the whole point of these pleas.
You know, you look at what she actually pled guilty to.
I don't think she's even alleged to have made false statements in writing in the indictment.
Certainly she's alleged to conspire, but she pled to a charge that's different than she was charged with in the indictment.
So it's clearly a situation where, you know, they just want to be able to get the whole posse together, get as much bad stuff against Donald Trump, and then use it at trial.
Now, do you think one of the explanations was that the prosecution was not ready to go to trial?
They had asked for a speedy trial, and this...
Was them, the defendants, jostling or jockeying, I should say, for a better plea deal?
Was it the prosecution not ready to go to trial or do they really just not care about these defendants?
They slapped on a bunch of crazy charges so they could substitute them for the lesser charges to which they pleaded so that they can then use these guilty pleas as some sort of influence or momentum for the bigger fish, Trump and others.
Yes.
You know as well as I do, before you bring a case on the criminal or the civil side, your case is done.
I mean, you're prepared.
You got the evidence lined up.
I firmly believe this is a situation where they need more time, the prosecutors, and they don't have their evidence together, and they're trying to get as much evidence as they can from these witnesses.
So I think it's, to be honest, I think it's a delay tactic.
That was my initial impression.
Okay, very interesting.
Now, what we're going to do...
Ian, let me see.
That's the link to Rumble.
We're going to end this on YouTube now.
And then we're going to get over to Rumble.
Doesn't change anything on our end.
And you're going to tell us whether or not you think Jenna Ellis has opened herself up to a civil suit, potentially for fraud, for the fundraising.
And we'll do that in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 on Rumble now.
Okay, so...
Look, there are a number of people floating the idea, and this is not every fear hides a wish.
Look, I donated.
I would never think of having a part in it.
She's under enough stress, and I think she's got her own problems.
I wouldn't partake in it.
That being said...
You know, they start a GoFundMe.
I'm sure somewhere in the small print, did I say GoFundMe?
A Give, Send, Go.
They started a Give, Send, Go.
It was to fight for the truth, this malicious prosecution.
She needs money for a robust defense against this weaponized system.
It's going to the lawyers.
Let's assume for the second that the lawyers haven't already billed it all.
What do you think?
Are there misrepresentations there that could be actionable?
I think there are.
You know, of course, the standard proof in civil court is much lower than the burden of proof in criminal context.
So lawsuits, it's easier to allege in good faith allegations and be able to be successful there.
I think this is a weird situation.
I can't figure it out.
I've spent so much time on it.
Her history shows that she received a large settlement in her life relating to some sort of injury, personal injury, and that she's fine financially.
Of course, she started this Go Send Go campaign and has earned up to $216,000 and continues to get the donations even as we speak.
I thought it would be done after she pleaded.
So it continues to grow.
She's made no public statement about where this money is going.
I put my tweet recently, you know, when you're negotiating a plea like this, and it's only been about two months, actually a little bit less than two months since she was indicted to this point.
I don't think you're expending over $200,000 in attorney's fees, even if you're working with the absolute best counsel in the world.
So my personal thought is there could be some fraud related to that money if she does not give it back.
I think it's ethically and legally required for her to give that money back to the extent she didn't use it.
But then there's a larger issue.
And I saw it when she was sitting there on the Zoom video reading the paper and then throwing people under the bus.
Admitting to wrongdoing.
My first thought was, oh my God, she's opening herself up to civil suit.
The transcripts, the things that are being taken down by the court porter and in the record could be used later on in a civil action against her for defamation.
In other words, election officials who are accused of being fraudulent and of not counting votes, of stealing voter information, that's...
In my book, defamation per se.
In other words, you don't even need to show a harm.
That is wrong as a matter of fact.
Per se, wrong as a matter of fact, with no further explanation per quad might require context to understand why it's defamatory.
Yeah, that's absolutely true.
But regardless, even if we go to the broadest and we go to defamation, or the easiest to prove, negligent misrepresentation.
There could be a lot of damages here that the election officials, reputation, emotional distress, their own attorney's fees, those kinds of things.
So I don't know, but I bet the powers that be that are out there that are kind of manipulating these things are thinking about a civil action against a number of these defendants.
And now that you mention it, I'm just going back to look.
It's at 217.
Now it was at 216 yesterday.
So there's two things here.
Some people were Not questioning whether or not the lawyers could have billed a quarter of a million dollars.
Let's just assume there were various motions that we don't know about.
Assume that they prepped for the entire trial.
A lot of people don't appreciate this.
It's a day of prep for a day of trial, and you prep for a trial even if it settles on the day of the trial, which means that if it was scheduled for a week, you've prepped basically a week or two for the trial.
So you could have incurred substantial expenses there.
Sure.
The question is...
The basis on which the donations were requested were not to settle.
I have no doubt somewhere in the small print it said Jenna Ellis is going to have the right to settle and you have no claims for this.
But I guess the underlying question was a quarter of a million bucks for what was done in that file ostensibly.
Some might say that's some heavy billing.
Yeah, that's a little excessive.
And to be honest, I think that she should for the benefit of her reputation because she's really getting...
Hammered.
Yeah, hammered is, I guess, the better verb.
She posts a tweet on something else totally unrelated.
Every reply is about this.
And I would implore people.
Look, there's still a human there.
I know Jenna Ellis is a human.
And I'm trying to think of someone else who's getting some flack now that I know is a human.
Like, there's still humans at the end of the day.
Yes.
They're not Justin Trudeau.
No, they're not.
That's too far.
No, Jenna, she posted anything.
Anything, every response is traitor, Benedict Arnold, whatever.
But what were you saying before I catch off?
Now I forgot.
Well, you know, I agree with you.
I do not mean to berate Jenna Ellis.
I do not mean to unduly criticize her.
I'm just looking at the facts and I'm just trying to come up with a hypothesis for why she's doing what she's doing right now.
We talked a little bit about public exposure.
I guess the old saying is that any exposure is good exposure.
Oh, not this.
Definitely not this.
Well, unless it's a long-term play for left-wing legal analysis.
It may very well be.
She's an attractive person, speaks very well.
I watched both episodes.
I believe you did two with her.
And she comes off fine.
She comes off knowledgeable.
She has some experience.
So we don't want to do that.
But what we've got to do is kind of look into what is the thought process behind behavior.
And in this case, it doesn't add up with Jenna Ellis and also doesn't add up with the other defendants.
I mean, it's a mystery.
And we'll have to see what happens with their testimony against Donald Trump.
To me, it's mind-blowing because I say, to some extent, one way or the other...
Her life was going to be, not ruined, I don't think it's going to be ruined entirely one way or the other, but it was going to be severely compromised.
Either she runs the risk of going to jail for whatever period of time, or she destroys her credibility, the following of people that trusted her and that relied on her warranties and representations back then, and then leading up to now, only to see, okay, so she buckled under the pressure, we can all relate, but one way or another, your reputation is destroyed, and it might have actually been...
Amplified and strengthened had she taken the Owen-Sroyer route and gone to jail for a cause.
And Barnes is constantly saying, at some point, you need a lawyer who's going to say, I'll go to jail for my client.
If they make me give up solicitor-client privilege, piss off, I'll go to jail.
And thus far, it doesn't seem like Trump's lawyers have been taking that route.
I will say this, having been on both sides, it is scary.
When a federal prosecutor looks you in the eye, and by the way, you know, they're not limited by much.
Certainly prosecutorial misconduct is an allegation you could make later on time, but a lot of times you're in jail by the time you're alleging civilly or criminally that charge.
But it is scary looking down them and seeing all the counts.
All the implications of this indictment, especially for people like you and I. It's so funny.
We deal, you know, I guess it reminds me of a doctor.
It's like, yeah, you know how to fix someone, but boy, I bet you're scared when they're fixing you.
And it's the same kind of thing with a lawyer.
Yeah, you know all the details of the law, but at the same time, when you're facing, you know.
Years in prison, I get the pressure.
But I also agree that, you know, I think some of the acts that she committed that resulted in this took place way long ago.
We're talking about, you know, 2020 time period, maybe even earlier.
And you've got to make sure that you are acting in a professionally responsible way when you're representing your client.
And if she is now saying...
That she, you know, does not believe the election was rigged and she relied on hearsay statements from other attorneys to believe that.
If you go through the indictment, which is documented, you'll see that that doesn't make sense.
And a real attorney or a professional attorney would have come out with that much earlier than she has.
I think she's kind of sweeped it under the rug and hopefully she's not going to get implicated.
Well, I don't believe her statement yesterday.
I think she genuinely believes it, but this is the...
I love Big Brother, Bend the Knee, and I think it was apparent, but other people can look at that and read something different.
The gag orders, let's hear what you have to think about this.
So the gag order, Chutkin, last week issued, or when did she issue the gag order?
I think she issued it on the Monday.
October 16th, I think.
And then she suspended it on the Friday.
She paused it.
She paused her own gag order while Trump says we're going to appeal it.
So what is your take on that?
Well, I did a tweet.
Look for Lawyer's Take out there.
I keep saying tweet, but a post on X about it.
Initially, I saw it and I was like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
That's going way too far.
You know, the primary reason why you...
You know, implement a gag order, what we refer to in the real practice as a protective order, is for a fair trial.
You are worried that words will impact the ability of the defendant or some sort of mechanism of the trial.
But even then, if you look at the law, you have to make any orders as the less restrictive means to be able to control that speech.
So you could use jury instructions, let's say, to be able to control that speech, and also, You know, Judge, you've gone too far.
You really are impacting.
Donald Trump's ability to freely criticize the process, which is absolutely allowed.
This is the ACLU that will the same ACLU.
Here, hold on a second.
This is I'm not sure if this is the right one.
Lawyers take.
Here's a video of Donald Trump's actual post.
Judge anger on gag order violates.
Oh, let's.
Oh, these are the actual posts.
Oh, yeah.
So this is well, this is not the gag order from Chutkin.
Oh, we're going to talk about that, Josh, in a second here.
So these are the posts that Angeron served as the basis for Angeron's gag order.
Schumer's girlfriend, Alison R. Greenfield, is running this case against me.
How disgraceful.
This case should be dismissed immediately.
Sinister music.
Do you like that?
Now hold on here.
Clerk Greenfield palling with...
Look at Chuck Schumer.
Is he not the face of evil?
Yeah.
How does he get his lips like that?
It's just crazy.
It's Joker-level face right there.
Why is Judge Engeron's principal law clerk, Alison R. Greenfield, palling around with Chuck Schumer?
Free speech.
Free speech.
Well, some people are observing, let me just close that up here, that you issue a gag order when it risks interfering with a jury.
Well, jury tainting, but in Engeron's case, there is no jury.
Yeah, exactly.
It's absolutely wrong.
And I'm sure there's going to be an ACLU lawsuit with respect to that proceeding, too.
Yeah, I mean, it's very rare that these gag orders take place.
I think it's all preemptive.
I think it's a situation where they're trying to control the process.
And I think the minute I saw it, I thought I was wrong.
So, Chutkin, going back to the D.C. case, she suspends her gag order while Trump appeals.
What's the appeals process for appealing the gag order that has now been stayed, so to speak?
My understanding from being in the Ninth Circuit is it's going to take a while.
Even with protective orders like this, they don't view it as a top priority when they're reviewing the appeals that they face.
So it's going to be a six-month situation.
That's my guess.
It takes a long time to go through that process.
And also I think that since the order is paused, there's no harm right now.
So I don't think the appellate court is really looking to...
They don't have to hurry up, so to speak.
There's no harm and there's also no risk.
Trump cannot be sanctioned for violating that order that's suspended.
What are the chances that she either reenacts it or revise it or issues a new one?
The chances of her issuing a new one are, I think, are high, maybe being less restrictive.
The other part, too, is she could just let it go and hope it goes away.
The Ninth Circuit reverses the order.
I'm sorry, not the Ninth Circuit.
The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals reverses the order in matter of course.
So I think something's going to happen, but I think she realized that she went too far, for sure.
And this is the trial that is scheduled to start on the Monday before Super Tuesday?
Yeah, I don't remember the date.
It's March 2024.
I don't think it's going to go on that day.
I've always said that.
I know how federal proceedings are, and it takes a long time, especially when you're the president.
Now, let's bring this back.
I mean, you're following these things as much as anybody else.
The New York Leticia James, this is before Judge Angeron.
How closely are you following that?
I'm following it, just like everyone else.
It's hard to keep your arms on all the litigation, but...
Now, hold on.
I gotta play it.
I haven't watched it yet, people.
This was...
What day was this an update of?
24th?
That's yesterday.
So this is Letitia James' daily update to the world.
I love it.
You'll tell me after this whether or not this is, in your view...
Unconscionably inappropriate that she's pleading this in the court of public opinion while in the court.
Donald Trump directed those around him to lie and scheme to make his fantasy a reality.
Well, welcome to the world of entrepreneurship, minus the lie and scheme.
Oh yeah, you make fantasy a reality.
But fraud is very real.
So is the law.
Let's see this.
Watch again.
We just concluded day 15 of our trial against Donald Trump, the Trump Organization, and other defendants.
I just have to say it every time.
She's in an empty room looking at nobody.
This is psychotic.
This is straight out of Orwell's 1984 or something.
I don't like this person.
She's plainly uncomfortable too because she's not even looking at the camera.
No, I think she thinks she's making herself look more grandiose by staring at an invisible orator.
Oh, you think that's a...
Yes, like Julius Caesar.
This morning, we heard testimony from the current general counsel at Mazar's, Donald Trump's longtime accounting firm.
Oh, yes.
Let's hear what they said.
He wrote the letter to the Trump Organization saying that Trump's statements of financial condition should no longer be relied upon and that the Trump Organization should inform any entity that received those statements previously.
that they should not rely upon them either.
That's in part because Mazar's learned that the statements were prepared based on questionable valuations provided by Trump and his employees.
And that is one of the reasons why Mazar's terminated their relationship with the Trump organization.
Then Michael Cohen, Donald Trump's former personal lawyer and so called fixer, took the stand.
He testified that he and defendant Allen Weisselberg would reverse engineer the statements of financial condition to inflate the value of Donald Trump's assets to whatever number Trump told him to.
What the fuck?
What is that?
Reverse engineer the...
Oh, my God.
It's crazy.
It's crazy.
Well, it's crazy.
Go for it.
I was just going to say, you know, the context is such that...
Why in the world is she doing this?
She is an officer of the court.
It is her duty to remain neutral.
And obviously where she sees crimes, prosecute where she sees.
But this is crazy.
This is like some sort of, you know, like closing, a small closing argument online.
It's totally inappropriate.
And not just that, like, for those who are not following, I'm not following the juicing of the evidence.
I question every damn word she's saying right now, and I've got so many other questions.
When did Mazores terminate his relationship with Trump?
What the hell does reverse engineer to inflate values possibly mean?
Okay, with 30 more seconds of this torture here.
...falsely raising the value of multiple assets to increase his overall net worth.
Assets like Trump Tower, Trump Park Avenue, the Trump World Tower, and even Miss Universe.
Oh my goodness.
This is the Attorney General.
Crazy.
Oh, look at those eyes.
It's crazy.
I want to see something.
There was something that did not make sense.
Here we go.
Mr. Cohen recalled falsely raising the value of multiple assets to increase his overall net worth.
This is so childishly stupid, as if to say, well, my net worth is now a trillion dollars because I've overvalued my assets to a trillion.
He was getting loans.
Look, Ian, I don't know how many people I have to ask this obvious question to.
No one's going to give a different answer.
What are the chances that the banks did not evaluate the assets against which they were lending monies?
Zero.
They totally evaluated the assets.
They knew exactly what the market value was.
I don't understand how this has gone this far.
Have you seen the clips of Judge Engron talking about the tools that he has to, you know, bypass jury verdicts and what do you think of that?
Janov, jury nullification.
Oh, sorry, no, it's juror.
Oh, not jury nullification.
Oh, you mean notwithstanding the verdict.
Judgment, notwithstanding a verdict.
I mean, you might have seen those clips because I posted them a number of times.
What do you think of a judge saying the quiet part out loud, seemingly unaware that a decade later it would come back to haunt him?
Well, I just think it's inappropriate.
I think we have so many judicial advocates, and I think they get...
Happy because they're online and they become kind of famous.
There's that famous clip, I did a video about it, about the judge, Enderon, where he's smiling for the camera.
I mean, it's so inappropriate.
It almost should be reasons for recusal or, you know, elimination from consideration to be a judge in the case.
So it's ridiculous.
It's absolutely ridiculous.
It shouldn't be happening this way.
It didn't happen this way when I was in federal court, and it should be stopped.
What else is pressing for you or what are you following closely these days in the news?
Well, you know, we're talking about who the heck is going to be the speaker.
I mean, that's always going to be there.
So the latest news, I don't know who the guy is, but apparently he's pissing off the likes of AOC.
Hold on, let me see.
Do I have this tweet here?
Oh, yeah, I do.
I do.
Hold on.
This is good.
Didn't know this was going to happen.
It was per here.
AOC.
I'll just go to her tweet before you see this here.
I did.
Introducing extremist GOP speaker nominee Mike Johnson.
Let's see what he says here.
He was a key architect on the January 6th strategy to overturn the election.
Here he is leading a crowd that's booing and telling a congressional correspondent to shut up when asked.
Let's hear this clip because I think whoever asked the question deserves to be told to shut up.
John, can you help lead the efforts to overturn the 2020 election for Bill of Peace?
You helped lead the efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
Oh gosh.
Oh, stop!
Stop!
So, I say if it's pissing off AOC, that's one thing.
But I also want to make AOC live by her own standards.
There was a point in time when she was accusing others of stochastic terrorism.
Yeah, I didn't know what that word meant.
I had to look that up.
Yeah, I had to look it up at the time.
Now I know what it means.
It means like...
Sporadic and suggested.
So by dropping words in, by making accusations, you're engaging in stochastic terrorism because you're inciting other people to do bad things.
When they refer to any elected official, especially their ideological political adversaries, as extremists, that's stochastic terrorism.
So AOC, stochastic terrorists, enjoy.
But if it's pissing off AOC, I presume there's a bit of good there.
Do you know anything about this particular nominee?
Yeah, I spent a little bit of time researching his background from Louisiana.
He was a lawyer, trained as a lawyer, worked for some non-profits.
Really is religious and spends a lot of his time kind of advocating, or did spend a lot of his time advocating religious causes in the law.
Yes, he was hired by Donald Trump as a litigator related to the election.
I don't know the details.
I couldn't really find more details on what exactly he did.
Some people, you know, on the Republican side that maybe aren't Donald Trump supporters are saying that he's now going to be controlled by Donald Trump because of his prior employment and use by Donald Trump.
So it's hard to tell.
When you look at all his interviews, he seems well informed and prepared.
He does seem to try to seek consensus, which I think is really important when you're the speaker.
So we'll have to see.
It seems like there's a large amount of Republicans that are behind him.
And I'm just excited.
We need a speaker.
We need someone to lead.
Because right now, we're aimless.
Well, what is going on right now for the Canadian who doesn't really understand this?
If there's no speaker of the House, what practical functions of government are being impeded?
Well, you just don't have a leader to be able to push for the agenda of the majority of Congress.
I mean, obviously, the administrative functions are being performed, but you need a leader as a main representative of the United States to be able to get...
Our job's done.
Get the budget passed.
Get new laws in place that help us domestically in the United States itself.
One of the things that I think we've lost focus on because of all the recent tragic events is our domestic policy.
I'm kind of an online hound, so I'm looking at the opinions that I'm seeing.
And if you're looking at TikTok and Gen Z, you're seeing that they're very dissatisfied with their life in America.
And that's, I think, because...
Because there's been no focus on domestic policies to assist us Americans, as opposed to, like, all other people in the world.
So I do think the speaker is important to lead in that agenda, get things done, and hopefully, you know, make America a better place.
Well, let me see what the news...
I'm going to go to Fox or...
One of these.
I said I wouldn't go to Fox, but speakership vote underway, but Johnson can only afford a handful of defections.
Okay, so there's no news just yet.
We'll see if there's any news happening in real time.
So you're floating between California, Arizona.
Yeah.
I say geographically, these are both border states.
Yes.
What is California's...
Does it have a serious problem on its southern border?
Why does it feel like it's only Arizona, Texas that have a big problem?
Or Texas.
Yeah, yeah.
Mostly Texas you hear about.
Yes, of course they do.
It's just that, you know, we're in California, it's a much more liberal state.
So they actually view it as a positive as opposed to a negative.
So, yeah, we definitely do.
It is impacting so much, especially in Arizona here where I'm at.
And I'm just hoping...
You know, that we can come to our senses, even on the Democratic side, to understand it is not in our national security interest to have people flooding across the border like we have.
Well, that's the major concern now, having seen what occurred in the Middle East, in terms of who exactly is getting over.
It's so insane with the resources that are poured into certain prosecutions that are just diverted from legitimate...
I don't want to put you on the spot.
Not sure if you know about this.
One of the talking points is that Biden, after having spent, you know, however many years saying a wall is racist and Trump is racist for the build the wall, the talking point was that he suspended something like 25 federal laws or bypassed federal laws in order to facilitate.
So what does that mean?
And what is the status?
I mean, are they are they building a wall?
It's hard to tell because we don't see any news that they are actually actively building a wall at this point in time.
I believe that any action that it takes at least 30 days to implement with the contractors and all those different things.
So I don't know what the purpose was of that.
He certainly could have not announced it and continued the construction of the wall.
But I do think that it's necessary.
Countries that are trying to protect their borders, especially America, as large as we are, absolutely needs it.
I know it was kind of a lame attempt by President Biden to kind of reinstate this thing.
I'm kind of glad that that's taken place.
I'm hoping that we also take other measures to be able to secure our borders because right now it is a disaster.
Scottsdale is a little bit far from the border in Arizona.
Is it Yuma and what other cities are right on the border?
Yeah, Yuma County, you see it.
I haven't actually visited the border in Arizona just yet, so I'm not seeing it.
I've been there before, and I've seen the wall that's there, because there is actually a wall there.
But yeah, we're just starting to feel it.
We're just starting to feel it as a country, and something needs to be put in place.
And that's why I think the speaker, getting a speaker involved, could really help this process.
Alright, now Ian, what do you have on the horizon for upcoming stuff on your end, content-wise, and what are you looking out for specifically these days?
What I'm looking out for is really just trying to get out the word about lawyers' take and to be able to express myself politically and get kind of a balanced perspective on some of these trending issues that are coming up.
As you know, if you're on X and the various platforms, being polarizing oftentimes gets you more views, gets you more impressions and all these different things.
But sometimes it's just important to express yourself as you feel.
And sometimes you're on one side, sometimes you're on the other.
And I think that we all need to build in a tolerance for free speech.
I think during the COVID period of time, our tolerance went way down.
You know, we talked about hateful words, you know, should be, you know, excised from our language.
They should be punished.
You should go to jail for hateful words.
We have to understand that this is a nation of really intelligent people with a lot of different opinions and we need to hear them all so that we can kind of develop our own perspective.
And that's what I'm doing.
And then putting that online with Lawyer's Take.
I have noticed that the polarizing discourse, I say like offensive or edgy for the sake of it, or conveniently edgy, conveniently politically inflammatory, it works wonders.
And also sometimes, I mean, I only operate by the honesty standard.
I won't say something that I don't believe in as much as it's frustrating nonetheless to see how sometimes it's tribal out there where if all of a sudden you say something that I don't like that word.
The people who watch you, your viewers don't like, then you're a traitor and then they go into all sorts of reasons to explain.
How you could think that here when they don't agree with you?
And I'll talk about it a little more when I go to the local side of things, but it's been a little discouraging.
Yeah, Aviva, if you had a minute here, how do you deal with the hate?
Because I know, you know, I read your tweets.
Yeah, well, I'm trying to adopt the...
Joe Rogan post and ghost strategy, but I don't like doing that because, first of all, you learn from the interactions.
It's not because you don't like it or it hurts you.
In fact, some of those are the ones that you learn from.
The ones that drive me nuts, and I'm seeing it now, is having everything that, whenever I disagree with someone, they reduce it to...
The same aspects of identity politics that other people have done.
Oh, you're this, therefore you think that.
Or I'm going to discredit the legitimacy of your belief because I have now identified you as fill in the identity politics blank.
The one thing that's driving me nuts, though, is...
You realize that you get into debates, arguments on the internet, people say things, and then you want to correct them because it's the first time they've discovered you, and you end up starting debates and trying to educate people from scratch, an infinite number of them.
And it's draining, it's exhausting, and it's also a little bit demoralizing to just read people shitting on you day in and day out.
But it all depends on what you focus on.
So the hate has not been terrible.
It's just been superficially juvenile in terms of saying, Oh, well, you know, you're either pro-Hamas or you're pro-Israel.
Without understanding that one can be critical of Israel and very much condemning Hamas and sympathetic to Palestinian people.
But it's got to be reduced to a litmus test that is measurable with a tweet or an internet trope.
And it drives me nuts.
And if they disagree with you, it's because you're Jewish.
And then it's like forcing you.
Say something anti-Israel so that you can prove your loyalty, Jewish boy.
I've never in my life said as a Jew I believe this and therefore it's more valid than you who's not a Jew and yet that's what we're being compelled, forced, pigeonholed into saying and believing drives me nuts.
I know.
It's difficult.
I tell you, when you're an online personality, you've got to be prepared for that.
I think back in the day, we didn't have it in our face as much as we do now.
Oh, Ian, back in the day, did we ever think we would be in...
Back in the day, I thought I would just make everybody happy, make cooking videos.
And then, you remember that ostrich egg video?
I don't know if you remember.
I, of course, remember the ostrich egg video.
That got hate.
That's like, holy shit.
If I make an ostrich egg video, and you're dealing with people who say, you just killed a baby ostrich.
And I'm like, my God, I've answered this 50 times.
An egg.
And then you realize, if an ostrich egg cooking video is going to make enemies, well, I'm going to make enemies at least for being honest and speaking my truth, and not my truth, speaking what I think is the truth, and I'm not going to make enemies for staying quiet when I think someone needs to say something.
Well, I just want to say, and I don't want to kiss too much butt, but I just want to say, we're so happy.
As the online lawyers are out there, we're so happy that you've done so well for yourself.
And I think it's really your clarity of communication.
I think that one of the best aspects about you is you have a very intelligent mind, and you're able to really kind of distill these complicated concepts into simple, bite-sized pieces.
Thank you so much for doing what you do.
Ian, we've evolved together.
Some days I wish I could go back to the car vlog, but people don't understand how draining that is to sit there and spit out these sentences and then go edit it.
And then you spend five hours on one subject when the world is moving.
So you do that and you come back like, holy crap, okay, we've entered World War III.
I was busy editing a Project Veritas video.
It's nuts.
But meanwhile, have you lost friends or family because of you starting to get a little more honest?
I don't mean honest.
I mean outspoken.
Yeah, a little bit.
And then, you know, COVID really didn't do a good job for our family.
We had a big kind of split and it's been real difficult in the past couple of years, I think for a lot of us.
So I'm just looking forward to hopefully making a difference with some of the research and some of the opinions I have and maybe have people think twice.
And I'm trying to do whatever I can to encourage people in a positive dialogue.
I think I'm like you.
I don't have any problem with someone either pointing out something that I did wrong or didn't do as well.
I learn from that stuff.
It's just that when we get into stuff where they don't watch the video, they don't read, you know, and then they're criticizing it, it gets very frustrating.
But like you said, this is part of the business.
It's part of the business.
I don't want to get into the post and ghost because I think that detaches you, A, from the critique, which is good, and B, from the aggregate knowledge of the internet.
True.
Oh, what did I tweet out yesterday?
It was Paul Krugman.
And I retweeted his tweet.
I didn't realize his tweet was four years old, but my goodness, it was more apropos now than it was when he wrote it.
So there's certain types of mistakes you make once or twice, but they have to be good faith, sincere mistakes.
They do.
But the being provocative for the sake of it because it's good for the subs and whatever, that I'm not into and it drives me.
When I think I see that...
Like, in its purest of form in other people, I get skeptical and then I start to question everything I ever believed in life.
Yeah, there's no shortcuts.
You have to be true.
And like you said, if you're really into the online world and you know about SEO and all these different things, you might be able to win on the short run.
You might get more subs.
You might get more followers or whatever.
But in the long run, you don't want those people.
You only want people that are there for you, to listen to you, and then you can educate them and they can educate you.
Now Ian, before we end, I'm gonna go on and I've got some funny...
Some of which are going to, you know, segue from what we've been talking about.
Where can people find you?
I mean, I put your link to Ian Corzine.
It's I-A-N-C-O-R-Z-I-N-E at Twitter.
What else do you have?
Where else can people find you?
You can find me anywhere.
I can just type in Ian Corzine.
You're going to find a whole lot of things.
But TikTok, doing real well there.
Instagram, YouTube.
I have two channels.
I have your social media lawyer where I have lots of different tutorials and teaching about fair use and some of the principles that apply to creators out there.
And then I also have my new channel, which I started in February, just called Ian Corzine, where I focus on short form content.
What I love doing, like my favorite thing in the world, is trying to reduce a complex subject down into 30 seconds, 45 seconds max.
And so I've been having so much fun doing these short form videos.
And again, just trying to teach, give my little Well, you're going to take some flack for the TikTok.
Nobody likes TikTok these days, but I appreciate, like Vivek said during the...
The second debate.
Dude, if you want to win elections, you've got to be where the people are, and TikTok is where the kids are, and so long as there's good stuff on TikTok, I don't like the platform, but I still think it's a mental illness manufacturing factory.
Who did I have on?
Sidney Watson is the one who I think coined that term.
Oh, yeah, yeah.
I've seen it.
There's no question.
And when I talk to my kids who have friends and they start describing what their friends are doing, I'm like, your friends are on TikTok.
There's no question about it.
But it is a place, it's a great place for short format content.
Yeah, and it's a good place to learn.
Ian, I never asked you this.
Your last name, Corzine.
Is that Italian or is it...
- Eastern European.
- Supposedly, my parents say it's French Huguenot.
You know, it's pronounced in France "Courzonnais" or something like that, but it's really unclear.
I did do one of those DNA tests.
- Oh boy, you did that?
Oh my goodness.
- I did.
I probably shouldn't have, huh?
- Well, what were the results?
- This is before COVID.
Yeah, I don't know.
But yeah, the results are that I'm almost wholly from England.
I'm like 99%, so I don't exactly know how that, you know.
Well, actually, on the England coat of arms, it says, because there was some overlap between France and England back in the day.
Shame on he who thinks ill of something so simple.
It's a beautiful, beautiful...
I like that.
It's sort of like confession through projection, where when someone...
You know, like, I don't know, sees a kid with, you know, in a diaper and a dog biting it off and says like, oh, that's gross.
And then you say, shame on he who thinks ill of something beautiful.
Okay.
I'm going to learn that phrase and maybe do an ex post on it.
Well, explain why it's found on the British coat of arms.
It's an interesting history.
Yeah.
It is weird.
Ian, thank you very much.
So we'll do this again.
Thank you very much.
It's great to see you again.
We've been running into each other on Twitter, but it's great to catch up again.
Thank you so much, Viva.
I really appreciate your time.
My pleasure.
Go.
Have a good day.
All right.
Thank you.
See you.
And now we're going to get into the stuff.
I didn't want to bring up the saucy videos when Ian was here.
That's a joke.
But Ian was talking about the ACLU fighting the gag order for Trump.
Oh, I'm going to talk about the ACLU fighting for...
Hookers.
I'm not really inclined to say that I don't think there's anything wrong with being a hooker.
A prostitute, I should say.
It's not something I would encourage anyone to do, ever, full stop.
The ACLU put out a tweet yesterday because they're fighting a Tennessee law, which...
How do I even start this?
They're fighting a Tennessee law...
Which is seeking to enforce very severe penalties for what is called aggravated prostitution.
And I'm going to bring this up.
Let me see.
Maybe I'll just have to bring it up here.
I'm going to bring...
Oh, is my reply to their tweet no longer there?
It's there.
They are...
I've got to bring this up.
It's the stuff of parody.
They put out a tweet.
And they've got to have absolutely no insight, self-reflection, or taken a step back to say, let me read that tweet one more time before I hit that send and put something out there that can never be taken back.
Okay, ACLU, we're going to get into this.
It's so...
You could write it.
It could be a headline in the Babylon Bee.
Breaking.
This is yesterday.
The ACLU, the American Civil Liberties Union.
I know people don't like them anymore, and I think they've earned that reputation.
Breaking.
We're suing Tennessee for their, quote, aggravated prostitution, end quote, statute that targets people with HIV with harsh punishment and lifetime sex offender registration.
Right up until that...
Oh, I wish I could have just covered the last...
Okay.
You want to challenge a law that basically criminalizes aggravated prostitution, which, as we're going to see, is basically...
I think offering your services as a prostitute while being HIV positive because the harsh punishment and lifetime sex offender registration, that would be non-controversial.
Oh, wait a minute.
What's that?
The tweet's not over?
This law is unconstitutional and disproportionately affects black and transgender women.
To which I said...
Sarcastically, but my goodness, does sarcasm not necessarily translate all that well?
This is racist and transphobic.
We're suing Tennessee for their aggravated prostitution statute.
It criminalizes HIV with harsh punishments because it disproportionately affects black and transgender women.
In response to that tweet, I said, are you basically telling us that black and transgender prostitutes are more likely to carry HIV?
It's what they're saying.
But let's just have a look at this piece of legislation, which...
It will blow your freaking mind.
Here's the aggravated prostitution.
It's on a website called womenslaw.org, and I hope this is right.
Yes, Tennessee, Tennessee, Saskatchews, 3913-516.
People have fun playing with that number and seeing what you can get.
Aggravated prostitution.
I think this is it.
This says it's from December 6, 2022.
A person who commits aggravated prostitution.
Sorry, let me rephrase this.
A person commits aggravated prostitution when, knowing that such person is infected with HIV, The person engages in sexual activity as a business or is an inmate in a house of prostitution or loiters in a public space for the purposes of being hired to engage in sexual activity.
If you are an HIV-infected prostitute and you engage in prostitution, this provision of law is for you.
For the purposes of the section, HIV means, we know what it means.
Okay.
Nothing in the section shall be construed to require an infection, yada, yada.
Aggravated prostitution is a Class C felony.
If you are a hooker and you're HIV positive and you're knowing that you're HIV positive and you continue being a hooker, you should be subject to this aggravated prostitution Class C felony.
And the ACLU says, we're going to challenge that law.
Because we say it affects blacks and transgender prostitutes disproportionately, disparately.
Therefore, it must be a racist provision of law.
Yep.
That's what the ACLU is fighting for.
The right for HIV-infected prostitutes to have sex without, I guess, telling them.
Where's the article here?
Let's go to the article.
The ACLU's press release.
Here we go.
Here we go.
Plaintiffs file federal statute to overturn Tennessee's aggravated prostitution statute.
The lawsuit challenges requirements to register as a violent sex offender based on HIV status.
No, no, no.
You see, you did it right there, ACLU.
They're not required to register based on their HIV status.
They're required to register based on their...
Prostituting out to other people while HIV positive knowingly.
You're not required to register as a violent offender just because you own a gun.
You're required to register as a violent offender if you use the gun to commit a crime.
It's a complicated distinction when you don't want to see it.
Tennessee's aggravated prostitution statute and related sex offender registration requirements are unconstitutional and violate the Americans with Disabilities Act, according to a federal lawsuit filed against Filed by the ACLU.
Plaintiffs argue that the aggravated prostitution statute is rooted in fear and discrimination.
It might be rooted in fear of contracting HIV from a prostitute who doesn't tell you that she has HIV before prostituting with you.
Targeting people living with HIV for harsh punishment.
Nope, not living with HIV.
Engaging in prostitution knowing that they have HIV without telling.
To register as violent sex offenders for the rest of their lives.
Criminalizing people with HIV.
Nope, that's not what's being done, but whatever.
ACLU, I leave it to your better judgment to discredit yourselves as an institution.
Defies evidence-based best practices and is patently unlawful as it singles out people living with HIV.
No, it doesn't.
A protected disability for harsher...
My God, this is propaganda.
It targets people with HIV.
No, only those who are engaging in prostitution.
Without disclosing that.
People convicted of aggravated prostitution must spend years in prisons and then register as violent sex offenders for the rest of their lives, meaning they cannot access the housing employment.
Employment?
They're HIV positive prostitutes.
No judgment.
Although I don't think I disagree with this law.
Yadda yadda.
Okay, fine.
HIV stigma is becoming a thing of the past and it's time for state law to catch up.
Tennessee's aggravated prostitution law was passed in 1991 at a time of national panic over HIV.
Okay, fine.
It's nuts.
How long does this go on for?
This goes on for a long time.
The aggravated prostitution statute is a relic from when HIV first emerged in the 1980s and is motivated by fear, misinformation, and discrimination.
Not sound science or evidence, says Jeff Preptit.
No.
Sorry.
Jeff Preptit.
ACL-UTN staff attorney.
Noman S. Omen, the name is a sign.
I'm just going to go prep tit and talk about prostitution.
Instead of criminalizing HIV, which disproportionately targets transgender and cisgender black women who are already socially and financially marginalized, lawmakers should invest in evidence-based public health responses to support people living with HIV to end the pandemic.
That might also include...
Making sure that HIV-infected prostitutes don't engage in sex with people for prostitution.
All Tennesseans should be able to live a full life free of discrimination and harm regardless.
This is almost like a parody in and of itself.
You can all go read that.
That's what the ACLU is up to these days.
It's fantastic.
Holy crab apples.
There's the link if anybody wants to...
Let me just read some of the chat here.
Wait, if STDs are a disability, can hookers get ADA parking placards and hook out of ADA spots?
That's from Grey Patch Actual.
You don't live with it, it kills you, says Honor234.
Oh my goodness.
It's just wise not to engage with the services of a prostitute ever, says Sefradin Squid, which I think we can all agree with.
Okay, that was one of the funny stories of the day.
I'm looking at the page, the front page of Rumble, and I don't see us there yet.
That's irritating.
Hold on, and we only have 144 thumbs up.
Oh, 198.
Okay, keep that going.
It doesn't matter.
I don't care about it, people.
Short notice.
I might have to get to a schedule of sorts so that there's some predictability.
Oh, but the ACLU.
Fighting the good fights for HIV-positive prostitutes to...
Be able to freely engage in their practice and their trade without discrimination.
Remember, it's criminalizing HIV, being HIV positive, right?
Not being a HIV positive prostitute engaging in prostitution services with people without telling them.
Yeah, you got it all right, ACLU.
Oh.
All right, what do we move on to here?
Oh my goodness!
See, I also got to put better listing of our stuff.
So there's been a bit of a development in the...
Obama chef dying, drowning in eight feet of water.
Holy crab apples, people.
The audio recording has been released.
And now that I see the ad for Police State, hey, this is a prime example of where an ad is going to actually serve an amazing purpose.
Today is the, not the release date, but today is the date that Dinesh D'Souza's documentary Police State airs.
It's in like 500 locations where you go to Google.
I don't know if you go to Google.
You go to policestatefilm.net and you put in your postal code and it'll tell you where the theaters that are playing it are.
You can buy a ticket and you go and that's how he's launching it.
It's a great idea.
I got a sneak peek of it because I'm a VIP.
I'm a VIP.
And I watched it already.
It's fantastic.
It's fantastic.
There were...
I'm very much familiar with most of what was documented in this documentary, attesting to the degree to which the West has become something of a police state.
But there were a couple of stories in there that I was not aware of that just blew my mind.
So it's today the 23rd.
Oh, it's the 25th because it was the 23rd and the 25th.
So check it out.
An ad well-placed.
From the director of 2000 Mules and Obama's America.
A film by Dinesh D'Souza in collaboration with Dan Bongino featuring Nick Searcy.
Are you next?
Some of us already are.
Okay, go check it out.
Do we watch the trailer?
Is this going to work?
No, that brought up a new window.
Okay, all that to say, people.
News in the death of Obama's chef.
If their goal were to not resolve...
Conspiracy theory?
They're doing it on purpose at this point.
They finally released the audio.
We're going to read a bit of the article.
This is the chef who drowned 100 feet off of Obama's property in 8 feet of water.
They chose a particularly sinister-looking picture of Obama.
He's up to no good.
And got Michelle, his partner in crime, behind him.
All right.
This is from a conservative brief.
You'll hear the way they describe the audio, and then we're going to listen to it.
Hurriedly tells an emergency dispatcher that Obama's family chef was drowning after he fell off his paddleboard near the former president's home in Martha's Vineyard.
Drugs or foul plays involved is my humble opinion.
Drugs, alcohol, or something else.
Because I knew someone who drowned, but they didn't know how to swim.
And they were, for whatever reason, walking in water and went over their head.
This man who died was a very fit Very strong swimmer.
Okay, so look, they just tell you what happened.
So let's just go listen to the audio.
I think it was down here.
Where is it?
Okay, no, that's not what we want to look at.
Is it here?
Here it is.
Okay, let's check this out.
July 23, 2023.
The article just describes the audio, so we're going to hear this here.
9-1-1, the sign is recorded.
Where is your emergency?
Redacted.
We have a male drowning in the back of the property right now.
We have our rescue swimmers.
They're attempting to go out there right now.
None of it makes sense.
It's very curious.
What's your phone number that you called in on?
What's the best access?
swimmer and an agent driving down there right now to get on the boat uh someone came running up to our uh back post saying that a gentleman It's just the guest of the house is out there.
Just the guest of the house.
The rest of the swimmers going out there.
It's funny, like when someone says someone's drowning, you presume that there's some sort of visual, and I don't know what the weather was like in terms of how hard it must have been to get out there and to find the person, but if the guy's under the water, there's no longer someone drowning, there's someone who's under the water.
But you said you guys have access to what you guys need.
Do you need an ambulance or do you need water rescue as well?
They didn't advise right now.
Take your time, by the way, dude.
This doesn't sound frantic to me.
This sounds like unnecessarily slow.
Take your time.
What do you need?
Lease an ambulance, and I don't know what they're doing in the back of the property right now.
I know we have our rescue swimmer who's getting the boat right now.
I'm going to read the chat and see what people think about this.
Take your time, man.
I don't know what the lead time is.
and I'll contact the fire chief and see where he wants to go, the duty chief, and see if he wants to drop the boat in there.
And I don't know if you have, like, a better number for me to call you back if we get him out of the water.
and I can give you another situation report.
They're not passing anything over the radio right now.
Yeah, I can give you that if you'd like.
Yeah, go ahead.
We'll have our gate open, and we'll send the ambulance down to the front.
I'm not entertaining the Michelle jokes.
Once they give a status report, down by water.
He's just a guest of the house.
And do you know if it's a male or a female?
It's a male, 40, 40, 40 things.
Nothing about this sounds frantic, but let's set that aside.
The hesitation as to what they need.
Get a freaking helicopter out there, okay?
Okay, thank you, sir.
You're welcome.
Thank you.
Take care.
There's a second callback.
If anybody knows what the 1953 means, let me know.
So our rescue swimmers aren't able to locate the gentleman that was reported drowning.
This is all so flipping bizarre.
So, they're out in the water right now.
But as of now, they don't know where he is.
Okay.
They're unable to locate the party right now?
Correct.
Do you have any description of what he was wearing?
Do we know what he was wearing?
Stand by, let you know in a second.
Let's stand by.
I'll let you know the answer in a second.
All right.
Oh, this is...
Oh, 1953 is 753.
Thank you very much.
Yeah, so he's wearing all black.
He's on a paddleboard.
40th year old black gentleman.
regular build.
And we have our rescue swimmer on a boat in the area right now.
I gotta tell you, so...
Okay, so let me just see.
What did they say?
This was the security, right?
Hold on one second.
Yeah, Frantic Secret Service.
That's Secret Service, and it ain't frantic.
So that's the latest.
They finally released the audio.
I don't know why it took so long, but I'm gonna go to the chat.
Actually, I'll give everybody the link to this.
You can get it on...
How do I close this here?
So...
Doesn't seem urgent.
Guy is too calm, says maple syrup.
Valley Park says a wetsuit.
Yeah, like, they don't care.
It's weird, says Sophronia.
It's very weird, because describing, he's like, what did he say the second time around?
The man that was reported drowning, is the way he says it the second time, as though he wasn't the guy that reported him drowning the first time?
It's...
I'd go nude on a paddleboard, but then again, I'm Florida Man, says Nomad Sky.
I went water skiing naked once with a friend, and that quickly turned out badly because the friend deliberately took the boat in places where there were people I had to let go.
Side note, over.
Yeah, that wasn't frantic.
That was the conflicting sort of descriptions from the first call to the second call don't make any sense.
And that's not going to do anything to quell any conspiracy theories.
When people drown, like Jeff Buckley, there's alcohol involved or accident, trauma, or something more sinister.
But thus far, that doesn't make any sense.
But those are the latest developments in that.
There was a witness it had initially been said, says Hoppity Hooper.
And never fear hyphens here.
Okay, now, that was one thing.
We're going to end.
Well, not end.
We're not nearly done yet, but we're going to have a few decent laughs or some lighthearted stuff.
It's not all going to be doom and gloom, even though the world at this point feels doomish and gloomish.
Let me see here.
This was, I believe, the AOC.
Oh, no, no, that's not what I want to talk about right now.
I'm going to save that for Locals afterwards.
We can come over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
I've been blocked by Cassandra on Twitter.
One of the disappointing, not upsetting, disappointing turns in life, but I'm still very good friends with Tim Pool.
What was I going to bring up here?
I was going to bring up something that would actually be something lighthearted, that we can get away from the miseries of the world.
We got to that.
We got to Gouveia's stuff.
Oh, yes.
Alright, we're going to put this story on a little bit of blast.
Gays Against Groomers.
If you don't follow them, it's one of the accounts that was once upon a time.
I think they got banned from Twitter once upon a time.
Well, Instagram doesn't like them too much, apparently.
And there's a scandal afoot.
There's scandal afoot.
Gays against groomers.
If you don't know who they are, let's just click on it and see what their deal is.
A non-profit of gay people and others within the community against the sexualization, indoctrination, and medicalization of children under the guise of LGBTQIA+.
Well, you've got to go up to Canada, gays for groomers, because in Canada, it's the 2S LGBTQIA plus community.
Two spirits.
They have a mildly big account.
They're mildly influential.
Leave the Kids Alone is their banner for anybody who's listening to this on podcast afterwards.
They tweeted out this morning, Breaking Instagram has just suspended our account with 360,000 followers.
This comes just weeks after GLAAD and Media Matters, I have to look up what GLAAD acronym stands for, pressure campaign calling on them to do so.
Remember that company, I think it was the ADL, that little itty bitty baby company?
Elon Musk is picking on because they go on these ban campaigns and they try to get advertisers to pull advertising.
And there's other entities out there, itty bitty baby watchers of the internet that try to...
Get people shut down if they don't like what they're saying and wait until you see where this goes.
This comes just weeks after GLAAD and Media Matters' pressure campaign calling on them to do so.
Instagram gave us no reason and we have had no content violations.
This was a direct attack because of their malicious lies about us.
It's unbelievable that a group like ours, who only seeks to protect children and their innocence, can be banned for "hate speech".
But here we are.
Where did it say hate speech here?
We've appealed.
We're unlikely to get it back.
We've suspended your account, gays against groomers.
This is like the ACLU saying, you know, like, oh, that aggravated prostitution law really targets black prostitutes and transgender prostitutes.
Gays against groomers, your use of the word groomers really disparately impacts...
The people that we think are in the 2SLGBTQIA + community.
These people are not thinking through what they're suggesting and the ones complaining about institutionalized racism and discrimination and bigotry are the ones who adhere to their discriminatory bigoted principles.
It's crazy.
So anyways, that's what happened.
But then there was a twist.
OMG.
Oh my goodness.
One of our members has a direct connection to this person.
I don't know who this person is.
President of GLAAD.
Okay, what is GLAAD?
Accepting...
What does it say?
Accelerating acceptance for LGBTQ people.
GLAAD.
What does GLAAD stand for?
Oh, it's one of these accounts.
Nothing screams cult.
Like saying the same thing over and over again.
The nighttime is the right time.
The nighttime is the right time.
Does anybody get that reference?
Hold on before we go.
Does anybody get that reference?
The nighttime is the right time.
Let me see.
I'm not even going to give anybody a hint.
I want to see who gets that reference because I was literally...
I don't even want to give a hint.
The nighttime is the right time.
Who's going to get the reference?
Someone out there.
Is going to get it.
And it's going to be hilarious.
I got Sophronia says, Nah, so.
Nomad Sky says, Nah, sorry.
Oh, I do want to wait.
I'm going to wait 30 seconds to see.
Things that rings a bell.
Comedy movie.
Isn't that from a song?
No.
The night time is the right time.
Okay, do I do it?
I don't care.
Sorry.
Miller Time?
No, no, no.
It's from Adam Sandler's comedy album called They're All Gonna Laugh At You.
And one of the skits was about a cult.
They're All Gonna Laugh At You is perhaps one of the greatest original comedy albums ever.
They're All Gonna Laugh At You!
No!
Okay, so the nighttime is the right time was the cult in Adam Sandler's tape.
And then the Simpsons.
The leader is good.
The leader is great.
We surrender our will as of this date.
Saying the same thing over and over again, trans people, hashtag won't be erased.
I don't know a single person who's trying to erase a trans person.
Okay, so that's what GLAAD is.
I still don't know what it stands for, but whatever.
Now we know who Sarah Kate Ellis is.
She is the president and CEO of GLAAD.
Actually, I want to see one thing here after.
Back to the Gays for Groomers tweet.
We're doing the tweet-ception here.
OMG, one of our members has a direct connection to Sarah, whatever her name is, the president and CEO of GLAAD.
Only thing is, she wasn't aware that he's in our organization.
He texted her asking her what her thoughts are on our Instagram suspension, as it was her organization that motivated it.
That's argument.
That's unsubstantiated allegations, Gays Against Groomers, okay?
Maybe.
Maybe it's true, but you don't know that.
And this was her response, which she immediately unsent.
Too late!
The screenshot was already captured.
And it says, as you can see here, new contact, Instagram.
What did it say here?
What's your thoughts on this?
And her answer was, they are anti-LGBTQ organization.
And then they unsent the message.
Now, it is true.
I do not know if this is a doctored image.
It might very well be.
But that's a pretty damning response from an organization that might have it out for you.
But what I wanted to see was this.
CEO salary.
These are not-for-profits?
No flipping way.
Okay, I don't want to get ahead of myself.
This might not be an accurate number.
That looks like...
Glad.
What are we on here?
We're on projects.publica.org.
Not-for-profit.
Designated as a 501c3 organization for any of the following purposes.
Yada, yada, yada.
Deductions are tax deductible.
Okay, whatever.
2021, their revenues were $10 million.
Their expenses, I'm sorry.
Their revenues were nearly $25 million.
Holy crabapple.
Executive compensation is 12.5% of total expenses.
Wow.
1.3 mil.
Key Employment and Officers, Sarah K. Ellis, CEO and President, base salary, $535,000.
I don't call people grifters very often.
I might have done it, so I can't say I've never done it.
I don't often do it.
I'm not going to do it now.
But I'm thinking it.
My goodness, is there money to be had in sowing discord and perceived discrimination?
Or even real discrimination.
But my goodness, the incentive to actually solve the problem when you're getting paid $535,000 to manage the problem becomes nil.
Oh my goodness.
I want to make sure that I haven't made a mistake.
So that is $535,000.
Sarah K. Ellis.
And then we're going back to here, to the original tweets.
Sarah K. Ellis.
$535,000 a year as a not-for-profit.
That's obscene.
That's unconscionable.
And that's immoral.
Not to make that much money.
You want to be a capitalist and go out there and kick some ass?
Go out there and kick some ass.
Make FU money.
But you want to run a charity and make FU money?
Well, FU.
Oh my goodness.
And then the question, because what incentive on earth would you ever have to resolve the problem that you're getting paid half a million dollars a year to manage?
Some might even say you have a vested interest in exacerbating that problem.
Same problem with other organizations that I've tackled.
Same problem with the Red Cross.
Obscene salaries.
And don't give me that bullcrap.
It's to attract the best talent.
You need to pay the best.
Bullcrap.
Holy crab apples.
Holy crab apples.
That does not seem like a profitable salary.
Oh, anyway, so that's what's going on with gays with groomers.
So I don't know how you'd, like, you know, put social media pressure on Zuckerberg.
Gotta control the narrative, people.
They don't want the gays thinking for themselves.
They don't want any dissenting voices within the gay community.
What's that?
You have an actual community of gays, lesbians, who are against grooming the sexualization of children?
Well, that runs against the narrative.
Got to shut them up.
Shut them up and shut them down.
Wow.
Okay.
Yeah, let's see.
IrishMarine57 says, Most charities are BS.
They only make their board of directors rich.
Same with the Wounded Warrior Project.
I don't know anything about the Wounded Warrior Project, so I'm not commenting on that.
Don't donate to any charity, people.
It's a terrible thing.
First of all, the tax deduction is not worth it.
What I have found...
Is that just donating strictly straight to the give-send-goes is the best way to do it?
Or raise the money for them.
I mean, except maybe with the donation I gave to Jenna Ellis' campaign.
I would have done it anyhow, and I'm not going to complain about it.
But donate right to the source so you don't get your tax deduction for $500, maybe.
But if you don't get a tax deduction, no financial advice, I do think as a business expense, it could be deductible.
That's wild.
So anyway, so they went after the...
GLAAD admitted that, you know, or was very happy about the fact that gays for groomers got taken down because they're an anti.
Those gays are anti-gay.
Makes sense.
Make it make sense.
And where's my check?
$535,000 a year.
Okay.
That was one part of the news that we're going to end with.
But the last one.
Oh, well, on the subject, on the subject of...
Gays against grooming.
See, I wanted to bring the tweet up because our politicians who are always striving for unity, unification, non-polarization, they're always trying to do it.
And yet they always seem to fail.
I mean, who would have thunk that mixing toxic politics and hockey would be a bad thing?
Okay, here we go.
This is it right here.
Boom shakalaka.
Let me end this down.
You know, the biggest crisis of a Western society is that when you're barred from putting rainbow tape on your hockey stick, it's the greatest injustice ever.
And it's exclusionary.
It's discriminatory.
It's outlandish.
It's egregious.
It's preposterous.
Adam van Koverden.
He is liberal MP, so you know he's going to be an idiot.
I'm sorry, I shouldn't call people names.
Let me motivate that.
He's a liberal MP, so you know he's going to be a corrupt, divisive, bigoted supporter of a divisive, bigoted, discriminatory, vile, hate-spewing Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau.
That's this guy's boss.
Liberal MP for Milton.
Athlete.
Physical activity advocate.
Good, we have something in common.
Grateful to have used an Inuit invention to get four Summer Olympic Games.
He...
Hold on.
An Inuit invention.
I think he's talking about a kayak.
We're going to look up who invented the kayak before.
It doesn't matter.
He tweets out, happy to see this reversed.
Hockey is for everyone.
And the news, as we're going to get to, is the NHL has removed its ban or come back on its decision to prohibit rainbow tape on hockey sticks.
And I just have to say that hockey is for everyone?
Who the hell was being excluded?
Nobody was being excluded.
What was being discouraged was politicizing the frickin' hockey stick.
Who was being denied the ability to play hockey?
Be specific, I'll never get an answer.
Also, importing politics into the game of hockey.
What could possibly go wrong?
Hey, yeah, let's have some of the players put white and blue tape on their sticks, and the other players put on black, green, red, and white.
Let's do that.
Let's see what that leads to in terms of hockey fraternity.
Encouraging the politicization of anything is a surefire way to ruin it.
We know that politics ruins everything.
In fact, politics...
VivaFryo.
VivaFry ruins everything.
Go get yours at VivaFry.com.
Hold on.
Where is the Politics Ruins Everything shirt?
It's the best one by message.
There it is.
There it is.
Go get your Politics Ruins Everything shirt.
VivaFryo.
Let's let hockey players protest with their hockey sticks.
Politics Ruins Everything.
VivaFry.com.
Where you can also get your Wanted for President.
I've got the shot glass.
It's beautiful.
I'll show you that in a second.
The question that I wanted to look up was, who invented the kayak?
It's believed that kayaks were invented by the Inuits 4,000 years ago.
Over here, we generalize these tribes and call them Eskimo people, so I'm already now very skeptical of that.
A brief history of kayaking?
All right, well, it seems that the...
Very brief Google search results if they can be trusted as far as we can throw them.
Indicate.
Oh, so good.
Does he thank every people, every group for his enjoyment of their invention?
When he eats a bagel.
Oh, forget it.
It's so flipping patronizing.
It's so damned degrading, demeaning.
Dehumanizing.
I'd like to thank the Inuits that I was allowed to use their invention to win.
Who are you going to thank for breakfast?
Which minority are you going to thank for your coffee?
Oh my god.
Alright.
But the story of the day is, as far as that goes, that the NHL has reversed course on the controversial Pride tape ban after outcry from fans, players.
How about people go tape their steaks white?
And say it's for white lives matter.
Let's see how hockey feels about that.
Let's see what methods of protest on their hockey sticks by way of hockey tape they'll tolerate.
I don't think they're going to tolerate all of them.
I'll just predict that up front.
Pick a color, make it a controversial cause, and put it on the hockey stick and see what they do.
I'm trying to think of one funnier than that.
Go put blue and white on some hockey sticks.
Let's nationalize and let's import into sports.
Political conflict, political strife, foreign conflict, foreign strife.
Let's do that.
It'll be great for cohesion.
It'll be great for national unity.
It'll be great for sports.
You idiots.
They walk back the controversial Pride tape ban.
And that's Tuesday.
It was walking back a controversial ban on Pride tape following weeks of outcry from players and fans.
Bullshit!
What are we on here?
The star?
Bullshit.
Weeks of outcry?
Who gives a sweet bugger all that you can't use tape on your stick to protest political causes?
Nobody, except a very vocal minority.
Who was I talking to?
It was Dr. Drew, who was talking about, like, we've never been a society that has been ruled by the tyranny of the minority, and yet here we are.
The ban was first instituted by the League earlier this month as it attempted to crack down on the use of special ice gear.
For theme nights, including Pride Nights.
After consultation with the players, NHL players, yadda yadda yadda, inclusion coalition, what the hell is that?
Players will now have the option to voluntarily represent social causes with their stick tape.
Do white lives matter?
See how far that goes.
I'm going to tape my entire stick up in white.
Let's see how the hockey world tolerates that.
No, probably tolerate it because nobody's...
That was a cute raccoon.
Sunday, yadda yadda.
Okay, you want to have everyone feel included and that's something that I have felt passionate about for a very long time.
Detroit told...
Dermot told...
Okay, whatever.
What I...
Let's get rid of that stupid story.
What I think is that there might be some just logistical reasons why you don't want to have all sorts of tape on your hockey stick.
Like you want to be able to spot the puck.
You want to be able to not confuse players.
Abuse it.
Put like black and white circles on your stick so you can confuse players as to where the puck is.
Maybe that's a very juvenile way of thinking about hockey.
I don't know how hockey works.
I'm the only Canadian who never really skated.
But that's what's going on there.
Now the question is this.
The question is this.
On the backdrop, I've got a very funny video from Tess T. Eccles Brown, PhD.
It's obviously a parody account.
Tess T. Eccles Brown.
For those of you who don't get the joke, that Twitter handle is Tess T. Eccles Brown, PhD.
It's a video about a woman upset about what 9 to 5 jobs are like.
And people are making fun of her, but I have a bit of a different angle on that that I think I'm going to share, but I think I'm going to save it for Locals.
VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
Let me see here.
We've already covered this.
Okay, we got the boo shut up.
I think we're going to do that because I think I'm going to have to go parent sooner than later.
Let me just make sure that there was nothing else left in the backdrop.
What's the name of that suite?
What is this?
Oh.
Oh, dude.
Okay, no, we're gonna bring this up.
We're gonna end on this, and then we're gonna go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
I don't know how old this commercial was.
I should have checked when it was aired.
And I'm gonna make sure to commentate over it, because this is fair use, and I'm gonna fair use the hell out of this, because this is...
Vile, disgusting, Orwellian.
I don't even know what the bloody message is in this.
I've linked everybody to vivabarneslaw.locals.com in the chat on Rumble, so come over there because we're going to have a fun time talking about this afterwards.
This is the most insane thing I've ever...
It is a threat.
I take this as a threat.
This is Martha Stewart.
Just watch this crap.
I'm going to stop it just to give you my...
Okay, so we've got a nice kitchen here.
That's too loud.
Sorry, hold on one second.
Oh my goodness.
Martha Stewart sharpening a samurai sword.
I think it's a Kill Bill reference, but I don't get the Kill Bill reference.
A grinding stone.
She's sharpening a samurai sword for those who are listening on podcasts.
Viva Barnes Law for the People on Podbean, Stitcher, and all other places where you can find good podcasts.
Albert Bourla?
Pfizer?
The unwanted guest that everyone wishes would leave already is Albert Bourla, and it is Pfizer, but that's not who you're talking about.
Lady, it's left my house already.
You know what else?
Even if it were to come back in, Uh, I don't care anymore.
Oh gosh, it's not COVID-19.
It's Pfizer.
Understand your market.
Oh, but enjoy selling your soul to the devil.
Now we see the grinding stone again.
She's sharpening a knife while talking about getting vaccinated because you know that that's where it's going now.
That's why I got the new updated booster designed to help protect against recent Omicron variants.
She just decapitated a pineapple.
This is Martha Stewart.
I don't have to look up how old she is.
She's shockingly old for the way she looks, but whatever.
Got it?
It's a threat.
It's a threat.
Schedule your new updated COVID-19 booster at vaccines.gov as she continues to sharpen the blade.
Got it?
Taking three synomacron variants.
Alright, I need everyone's respective opinions on this.
What the hell is up with?
Is that intended to be a threat?
She already cut her husband's dick.
Take the jab, or we're gonna cut you, is how AbsurdBeat says.
Get your booster!
Sounds like Fauci, jabby, okay.
It's just terrible.
How much do they get paid for that?
How much is their dignity worth?
Let me just see something here.
Martha Stewart, age.
82 years old?
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to scream like that.
There was a lot of Vaseline on that lens then, I guess.
I mean, she looks great.
I mean, the fact that she's alive for an 82-year-old is already better.
She's in better shape than Biden.
Better luck having her as president than Biden.
But 82 flipping years old.
Can't take her house.
She's too old.
Holy cow.
Yeah, no, that is the most gross ad I've ever seen.
And then the question is this.
Martha Stewart paid Pfizer ad how much?
Do we know how much she gets paid for that?
Kill COVID-19 spots.
Fierce Pharma.
What the flipping flip is this?
Martha Stewart in Kill COVID-19.
This is on fiercepharma.com.
January 13th.
What month are we in?
So this is almost a year old.
How did I only discover this the other day?
It's both rather odd and strangely compelling.
Unwelcome guest features Stewart.
Yada, yada, yada.
She then effortlessly cuts a thing.
Get the thing?
You got it.
The whole vibe of the spot is Kill Bill meets Top Chef.
Stewart is both charming and vaguely menacing throughout.
Is the threat aimed at anti-vaxxers?
Luckily, the direction is clean and beautiful, so all of these disparate themes somehow work.
What the f...
The octogenarian Stewart, who somehow barely looks over 30 at the spot, is the right target for pushing the booster.
Push it.
Push it hard.
Push it real good.
How will it resonate is anyone's guess, but Stuart...
Not anymore.
Still the goal of the spot, which is unbranded, other than Pfizer-BioNTech name flashed at the end.
It gets folks boosted.
Pfizer was a big name during the pandemic with its COVID-19 vaccine, Cormornaty, as well as its antiviral Paxlovid, and clearly hopes to continue the success.
Wow.
All right, well, that's it.
That's outrageous.
It's, yeah, looks like a threat to me.
And let's just go to the chat for a few more seconds here.
Make sure I didn't forget any rumble rants, which I see.
Stop, scream.
Thank goodness I saw these two.
Before we end, and I can get to the chat, Finboy Slick says, Inuits might have invented kayaks, but Celine Dion made them relevant.
Thin Boy Slick, $535,000.
That's almost as much as you make if you sold the hair off the sides of your head to make the mullet fund.
That would be one heck of a fun fundraiser, but I'd have to think about that.
Yaz Daughter says, yep, that's a threat.
Damn right.
Okay, let's see what we got up here.
Keep on doing what you're doing, David.
Your shows are always incredible.
Thank you.
Hoppity Hooper, thank you very much.
It was fantastic catching up with Ian again.
Oh, he's in the screen right there.
I forgot.
It was fantastic catching up at the end again.
We're going to do it next time.
I don't know when I'm going back to California.
I think I've been traumatized of Zombieland.
Okay, come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com, everybody.
Thank you for being here.
What day is it today?
So it's Wednesday today?
Oh, Thursday.
There is someone coming on tomorrow.
I don't remember who it is, I think.
I have to go check my DMs now and see what is for tomorrow.
And Friday, Gouveia is going to come on sooner than later, so we're just trying to find a time that works because everybody's busy and then you mix in time zones and it's crazy.
So everybody, if you're not coming over to vivabarneslaw.com, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
I'm rusty.
If you don't want to get some merch at vivafry.com, I will see you on the Rumbles tomorrow.
Certainly sooner than later.
Thank you all for being here.
But come on over to VivaBarnesLaw.com for the after party.
I want to talk about two things that I did not mention here.
One of which is a young woman crying about the fact that a 9-to-5 job sucks rubbish.
And I'm going to have a bit of a different and predictably more forgiving angle than some.
I'm not going to make fun of her entirely.
She raises some good points.
Come on over to VivaBarnesLaw.com.
Thank you very much.
Everybody, see you tomorrow.
Peace.
Now we're already too late.
Everybody.
Let's see who we got here.
I gave the link out, so everybody's got it.
Bob Loblaw's Loblog is Finboy.
It's like these people want mo' money and a chance to live forever, says MMay14.
Humpday says Mighty...
Oh, Mighty P says Humpday.
If I were a millionaire, I would go further into the woods and not even own a mirror or care what I looked like.
Mr. Entry required.
Export Selection