Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 31, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

01:43:51

Trump Re-Gagged! Colorado Kangaroo Court! DeSantis BootGate! Canada Stuff AND MORE! Viva Frei Live

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The decisions that you've made today, the reprieve that you're offering a number of Canadians, including many rural ones, is not going to impact in any way the overall objectives that you've set out very specifically to reduce emissions.
	I think it will have a huge effect in three years' time when we have a critical mass of people in Atlantic Canada who have switched from home heating oil, which is far more polluting than heat pumps, and will save people a lot more money.
	And this gives us the opportunity to do that.
	The point is not, at the end of the day, scoring political points because you're consistent on this or whatever.
	The point has always been and should always be, we need to get people to start lowering emissions, even in the residential and domestic use, because all of that adds up to a lot.
	And if we can do that by making it affordable for people and getting rid of the upfront cost, we're off to the races.
	Let me just preface this.
	That's not Doogie Howser.
	That's not Neil Patrick Harris.
	His name is Seamus O 'Hagan?
	Hold on, what's his name again?
	Seamus O 'Reagan.
	He's a Canadian politician.
	He might very well be Neil Patrick Harris's brother from another mother, sister from another mister, the joke I just made in our locals community.
	That's a Canadian politician, a member of Justin Trudeau's Liberal government, explaining how they are pausing their carbon tax, we'll get to an article summarizing it, in the Maritimes, because cost of living in Canada...
	As elsewhere is getting to be so high that they can't continue to impose these policies that increase the cost of living.
	He posted this thinking it makes him look good.
	I just want to highlight one sentence that if you're astute or if you follow me on Twitter or in our vivabarneslaw.locals.com community, you know that I've already highlighted.
	The reprieve that you're offering a number of Canadians, including many rural ones, is not going to impact in any way the overall objectives that you've set out very specifically to reduce...
	The carbon tax.
	You know what the funny thing is?
	The carbon tax is not going to do anything overall to reduce emissions.
	You know why?
	Because even if you buy into the emissions argument that emissions are the be-all and end-all of climate change...
	Canada as a whole emits one and a quarter percent of global emissions.
	So you could shut off Canada entirely, not just carbon tax here and there in the Maritimes that cripples the cost of living in Canada.
	And it would do nothing.
	But hold on.
	They're offering a reprieve because the cost of their other policies of printing cash, massive immigration, that has its problems as well.
	They're offering a reprieve.
	Let's hear how the politician justifies his "vol de face" He
	posted that thinking that that makes him look good and not like a raging, raging hypocrite.
	Oh, look, the point here is not consistency.
	The point here is not logic and it's not following through on our promises because the world is literally going to end.
	Every now and again, it's good to be inconsistent.
	It's good to be a hypocrite.
	It's good to come back on your policies after all the doom and gloom.
	It's...
	Outrageously hilarious that he thought that makes him look good as opposed to looking like an absolute partisan hack buffoon.
	Yes, I'm using lots of mean words, but I'm backing them up with hard facts, people.
	This is it.
	Is this it?
	Is this the right article?
	Get that.
	Saskatchewan vows to stop collecting Canada's carbon tax on heating.
	I think this is the right article.
	The leader of the Canadian province Saskatchewan vowed to stop collecting carbon taxes on homes heated with natural gas from 2024.
	If Ottawa does not expand an exemption announced last week for the Atlantic provinces.
	You know, there's a sentiment in Canada that is supporting the WEXIT, which is the Western Brexit of Canada, the Western Canada breaking away from the country that is Canada, because a lot of people feel that Trudeau and his quasi-liberal government, they're actually fascist tyrants.
	We'll call them liberals just for the sake of it.
	Have had an all-out war on the Maritimes, not on the Maritimes, I'm sorry, on the Western provinces, the gas industry, and they take all of the wealth from the Western provinces, siphon it over to Quebec, Ontario on the Maritimes, and the West is pissed.
	And now Justin Trudeau, after crippling the West through all of his policies on...
	No more gas and pipelines in Canada.
	We're going to beg on our hands and knees for Saudi Arabian oil and Venezuela.
	After he's done doing all of that, he's giving an exemption to the Maritimes that apparently he has not extended to the Western provinces.
	Thursday, and I'll highlight this next paragraph as we go forward, and then I'm going to make sure that we're live everywhere that we should be.
	On Thursday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said he would pause the carbon levy.
	Oh, the carbon levy.
	It's like...
	It's like the episode of The Simpsons.
	We've got to find a word that doesn't sound like tax.
	How about colossal cash grab?
	No, you see, Milhouse, that's just as bad.
	It's a levy, people.
	It's a levy.
	It's not a tax.
	It's a levy.
	Let's just hear where this goes.
	On heating oil for Atlantic Canada to offset the high price of the fuel that is mainly used in the maritime provinces and help them counter cost of living expenses.
	I cannot accept the federal government giving an affordability break to people in one part of Canada, but not here, said the Prime Minister Mo.
	So that's the insanity coming out of Canada.
	Policies that drive up the cost of living.
	What just happened here?
	Let's close this down.
	Drive up the cost of living.
	And despite all the promises, the doom and gloom, we will die.
	The earth will end.
	How dare you steal the lives, the futures of children across Canada?
	No!
	To get some political points, because the policy is jacking up the cost of living.
	People out in the Maritimes, I mean, they're not rich provinces out in the Maritimes.
	I think they're among the most, I don't want to use the word impoverished, the least financially well-off provinces in Canada.
	So to offset that and the cost of their policies, they're going to give a little benefit here to the Atlantic provinces, but not to those rich, bad Western provinces.
	And then you got Seamus O 'Regan coming on Twitter, posting that on Twitter.
	The point is not consistency for policies, okay?
	The point is that we need to be able to do whatever we want, regardless of our policies, regardless of consistency, inconsistency, hypocrisy.
	And when we do it, we're virtuous for having done it.
	It's the liberal fascist way.
	Okay.
	Ah, deep breaths.
	We'll start off with something lighthearted.
	There will be no geopolitics discussed today.
	Today we're going to be discussing, I mean, is it the, it's not the fall of America because if I believed it were the fall of America, I would not have made a decision to temporarily short term, long term, who knows, relocate to Florida.
	What we are witnessing in real time is the absolute exposure, the un-pensure.
	It's so much you can't even count anymore.
	I posted a tweet earlier today, one of the consistent trolls in my Twitter feeds.
	Didn't even know which, you know, confusing the persecutions.
	Doesn't even know which one we're on yet.
	We're going to talk about the trial in Colorado to have Trump removed from the ballot for inciting the erection, to quote Chuck Schumer.
	We're going to talk about the New York Attorney General Leticia James' persecution of Trump and apparently calling his three kids as witnesses in the coming days.
	There was another Trump one that we're going to talk about.
	Oh, the D.C. case!
	The judge being re-gagged by Judge Chutkin, who gagged him.
	She temporarily reprieved her own gag so that she could hear the grounds of appeal of Trump.
	And then after having heard the grounds of appeal, said, no, you know what?
	I was right when I gagged him in the first place.
	I'm going to re-gag him pending the aggregate appeal, which this will go up to the appellate process through.
	So that's what's on the menu for today.
	Then we have some fun stuff.
	We're going to go.
	I might live stream the Colorado trial because it's being live streamed.
	I mean, for anybody who was watching Joe Nierman, good logic.
	Good logic out of New York.
	And I think his Twitter handle is now called The Following Program.
	The audio sucked.
	I mean, the audio for yesterday's hearing, it didn't just suck.
	It was useless.
	So live streaming that would be useless, frustrating, and counterproductive.
	I mean, short of just sitting in front of a camera all day to...
	You could barely hear the answers.
	You could only hear the questions, which gave you a decent gauge as to, you know, what the hell was going on.
	So we'll see if the audio's better today.
	Maybe I'll stream it after we talk about what we gots to talk about today.
	But maybe not.
	But I clipped some highlights yesterday because I watched it so that you don't have to.
	Much like the January 6th kangaroo court committee hearings, I watched it so that you didn't have to.
	And yesterday I watched it so you don't have to.
	And my one-sentence summary before we get into the subjects of the day, we're going to start with a light-hearted one.
	This is nothing but a rehashing.
	It's like the iteration 2.0, the crappy sequel to the crappy original of the Kangaroo Court January 6th Committee.
	And it's starring the same characters.
	I forget what the name of the Capitol Police officer.
	He's testifying again.
	Eric Swalwell was one of the witnesses yesterday.
	Mm-hmm.
	Mm-hmm.
	Okay, let me just make sure that we're live everywhere we're supposed to be.
	Okay, we're live on the Rumbles.
	We are live on vivabarneslaw.locals.com and we're live on YouTube.
	And what we're going to do is we're going to end on YouTube, I don't know, in a few minutes after we do a couple of subjects, go over to Rumble.
	And then depending on whether or not I cover the trial live, we will either continue that or I'll end and we'll have our after party at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	I'm going to flag this comment, not flag, I'm going to star this comment and come back to it later because I've got some thoughts on it.
	Alright, we're going to start with a light-hearted.
	Funny.
	What was the moment where, it was during a presidential campaign, someone had a moment and they said that was the end of the campaign.
	I have not seen the entire interview, but DeSantis was on Patrick Bet David and there's a video going around now going viral.
	I'm sure some people are going to say this is the moment that's going to end DeSantis' run for presidency.
	I will not say that because I think it all ended a long time ago and it has nothing to do with DeSantis in particular.
	Nobody's got a chance in that field against Trump.
	And one of my lingering thoughts is that anybody in that field who doesn't vehemently object to what's being done to Trump is implicitly, tacitly, or deliberately benefiting from the persecution for their own political goals and aspirations, which is problematic.
	DeSantis, I'm trying to find out how tall the dude is.
	Look, I will never judge anybody for being tall or short, for that matter.
	I always say that I'm 5 '5 and a half because 5 '6 is a respectable height.
	And if people find out that I lie to get to what I think is a respectable height, that would be mortifying.
	When I wear shoes, I'm obviously over 5 '6.
	I just got a pair of Asics.
	Kayano's yesterday?
	With those things, man, I'm five, six and a half.
	I'm living large.
	But people are accusing DeSantis of lying about his height as if it matters.
	I had an exchange with Ian Miles Chong on Twitter today.
	Jenna Ellis.
	There's an interesting thing.
	When people have humorous, lighthearted, clearly less than serious positions or tweets or comments to make about some people, those who get offended by it...
	Or those who are upset by it politically or whatever, always run off with the same, there's more important things to talk about than DeSantis decided.
	First of all, yeah, we can walk and chew gum at the same time, and nobody's taking this seriously except for the people who seem to be offended by it, which some are suggesting DeSantis is.
	He goes on Patrick Bet-David, and I'll show you the clip.
	It's hilarious.
	And, like, people are breaking this down on the internet, showing diagrams of, like, What must be going on in DeSantis' boots?
	It's the DeSantis boot gate.
	It's a boot gate.
	Check this out.
	Here we go.
	I'm sure your marketing team points out how they're trying to troll you in the marketplace.
	Okay, I'm sure they're doing that.
	Can you bring this one clip?
	I know you were on, what do you call it?
	On, what was it?
	Bill Maher.
	And Bill Maher talked about the boots.
	I've seen you walk with these boots.
	Go ahead and play this clip.
	This one on TikTok went viral.
	It doesn't have a million views.
	It doesn't have, you know, 10 million views.
	This thing's got 1.2 million likes.
	I'm not familiar enough with TikTok.
	If it's got 1.2 million likes, I presume that's like, it means it's got exponentially more views.
	Unless we can actually see how many views it's got there.
	We can't.
	Whatever.
	I don't care.
	Okay.
	Some people are wondering.
	I haven't seen that.
	They've not shown this to you.
	Okay, what they're trying to say with this is that in your boots, you have heels.
	Can you imagine?
	Dude, I don't think back in the day they put this much effort into determining the JFK assassination.
	This is like the aggregate knowledge of the interwebs.
	There's a word for it that I don't like using about the people on the internet who are so...
	Intelligent, focusing on minute details.
	There's a term for it, which I don't use.
	They're at work right now in graphing this out, and it's hilarious.
	Those are just standard, off-the-rack, Lucchese.
	How tall are you, Governor?
	5 '11".
	5 '11".
	Okay.
	There's some body language going on there.
	5 '11".
	Okay.
	I don't know Ron DeSantis at all.
	I've never met him in person.
	I wonder if he doesn't have that good of a sense, not good in an insulting sense, if he doesn't have a developed sense of humor for whatever the reason.
	And so people who don't have a sense of humor, not malicious people, but just people who are not endowed with a natural sense of humor.
	I have a natural endowed, well endowed sense of humor.
	I have no problem laughing at myself.
	In fact, I probably laugh at myself more than other people on the internet laugh at me.
	Doesn't look like DeSantis is getting the humor of the situation to make the requisite lightness of it.
	That would be so much more beneficial than taking it too seriously.
	Why don't you wear tennis shoes and dress shoes?
	I do wear tennis shoes when I work out.
	You do?
	Okay.
	I got a gift for you.
	I'd love for you to wear...
	Okay.
	I shop at Ferragamo.
	Oh, he shops at Ferragamo.
	Humble flex, PBD.
	You know, I shop at Dick's Sporting Goods.
	Okay, I'll get into it afterwards.
	I don't accept gifts.
	I can't accept it.
	Oh, God, he just needs to have the humor.
	First of all, he said Ferragamo.
	I thought he said Bruno Mali at first.
	There was a joke that I had that was not applicable anymore.
	I'm sorry.
	So he can't accept the gift, which is ethical, by the way.
	So in all the...
	Patent lack of innate humor.
	He's got a good...
	I mean, obviously he's got to be ethical because it's broadcast and he can't accept gifts without getting screwed.
	So he called them Lucchese.
	Lucchese boots, which I looked up.
	It seems like the entry-level Lucchese boots started $500.
	American!
	American.
	Which I found flabbergastingly expensive.
	But I think I'm an old, crotchety, out-of-date, like I used to be with it and now what's with it is not it and I'm no longer with it.
	Apparently, that's not egregious or outrageous.
	I remember being a kid.
	I mean, inflation is what it was, but I had to beg my parents for shoes that cost $100.
	Well, I guess that was maybe a lot back then.
	In fact, not maybe.
	It was a lot back then, but it doesn't seem like the shoes have gone up that much in terms of inflation.
	Either way, $500 for a pair of boots.
	And that's just the starting.
	I saw something like $1,000, $2,000.
	That's nuts.
	I think it's nuts.
	But, oh, Lucchese, how the company says it, Lucchese.
	Everything about this should have been humorous.
	It should be joking.
	It should be a lighthearted reprieve from the miseries of the world.
	So everyone taking it more seriously than they should.
	Lighten up.
	But I like the fact that DeSantis reflexively says, I cannot accept gifts because if I accept gifts, they will indict me.
	They will impeach me.
	They will lock me up and I won't be able to run for president anymore.
	Oh.
	Yeah, see, the only shoes I got as a kid were hand-me-downs.
	You see, it's the benefit of being the youngest of five.
	Like, hand-me-downs don't survive five kids, so I was able to, you know.
	That and I have bigger feet than my oldest brother, so there's that.
	That's the light-hearted stuff of the day.
	Lucchese boots I thought were expensive.
	They call it Bootgate because the question is, how tall is DeSantis?
	He said 5 '11".
	Jack Posobiec.
	Said, I smell exaggeration.
	Nobody who's...
	If you're 5 '11", you round it up to 6 feet.
	It's his logic.
	I say that's false because I'm 5 '5 and a half and I don't round it up to 5 '6".
	Even though my license says 1 meter 65. So that's it.
	Let's see here.
	Exactly.
	PBD were all heavy with Katie Hopkins, who is a comedian, so she shredded them.
	And then we got watching from Alberta, Canada.
	Well, you...
	Beulah?
	Beulah.
	You must be knowing exactly what's going on with Canadian politics and how Trudeau has waged war against the West, according to many.
	Okay, that's the lighthearted stuff of the day.
	We're going to do one Trump persecution over here.
	Which one do we do, people?
	Which one do we think that we want to do here?
	I'm going to go to all my footmarks.
	I think we need to save the Trump trial, the Colorado trial, for Rumble because it's going to last longer than 15 minutes and I don't want to break it up.
	I think we can...
	There's not much to report in the New York Leticia James persecution.
	I mean, let's just actually break this all down.
	We've got to itemize these persecutions because they have gotten too many to count.
	Okay, number one.
	You've got the state court...
	Hush money charges against Trump.
	Soros-funded Alvin Bragg coming out of New York.
	Okay, that's one.
	You've got your tax fraud from Soros-funded Attorney General.
	I've been told that there's indirect funding from Soros entities, yada yada.
	We'll give the benefit of the doubt and not throw in the Soros funding there.
	You've got Soros-funded Alvin Bragg, New York.
	That's the hush money payment.
	Okay, that one's ongoing.
	Number two out of New York State.
	Leticia James' fraud case against Trump in front of Judge Engeron, the man who says, I've got tools to do exactly whatever I want and create the results I want in law.
	That's two.
	You've got the Florida classified documents case that is currently pending.
	For whatever the reason, brought out of D.C., moved to Florida.
	You know, venue shopping.
	Doesn't matter.
	That's three.
	Four.
	You've got the D.C. case in front of Judge Chutkin.
	That is the January 6th insurrection case, if I'm not getting them confused myself now.
	The January 6th incitement of the mob case.
	That is the one in which there's a gag order, as there is in the Angeron case.
	What are we up to?
	Okay, two out of New York, Florida, D.C. Then we've got the Georgia case.
	That is Fannie Willis.
	We're not talking about that one right now.
	That's the one in which there have been a number of defendants pleading.
	That's number five.
	Number six now is the new one that we're going to start talking about a lot because that's the trial that's going on this week, is the Colorado lawsuit brought by an activist organization.
	Oh, sorry, no, by voters.
	Four of them are Republican to keep Trump off the ballot because of insurrection, which...
	There has been no adjudication of finding of anywhere.
	In fact, to the contrary, there was an acquittal on the second impeachment, which had to do with inciting the erection.
	So we're going to start with New York.
	Leticia James, abusing of the wholesale weaponization of the legal process.
	Quiet!
	We don't want to hear you yet.
	Abusing of the wholesale weaponization of the judicial process, the prosecutorial process.
	You will recall, Judge Engeron, I'm not going to play the clip again.
	Judge Arthur Engeron, who gave a speech eight, nine years ago, talking about all the tools that he has.
	It's a very controversial thing.
	I'm going to say it, even though I'm on camera.
	Juries get it wrong a lot.
	And I've got my tools to bypass jury verdict.
	It's called judgment notwithstanding a verdict.
	So if the jury comes down with a verdict that I don't like, I've got tools.
	It's controversial to say, I've done it twice.
	One time I was overturned, one time I wasn't.
	So I'm batting 50-50.
	Not bad on a controversial method of bypassing the judicial process.
	And I say that with the full degree of insight because in the Michael Flynn, his partner's case, who I can't remember his name.
	I won't remember it.
	I remember it's Armenian.
	The judge in that case used the judgment notwithstanding a verdict.
	To overturn the jury finding of Farrah violations.
	Anybody in the chat can remember what Flynn's business partner's name was?
	I want to be stubborn and I want to get it.
	Berkosian...
	What was his name?
	Michael Flynn's business partner who got convicted of Farrah violations and then the judge overturned the jury verdict.
	A. B. It starts with a C. Have I asked a question that the aggregate wisdoms of the interwebs are unable to find?
	Let me go to locals and see if they've got it.
	His name was...
	That's not his name.
	Well, I'll get his name in a second when the chat gets it.
	So there are times when a judge does it and I will say, oh, look at that.
	The verdict was so ridiculous that the judge had to exercise that power.
	It's case dependent.
	No basic rule to it.
	Janov in a civil trial to find liability?
	I don't think so.
	Sorry, I'll bring that up.
	Not saying it applies in this particular case.
	This was just the judge eight years ago talking about all the tools he has at his disposal to get around.
	His name was not Robert Paulson.
	So in this particular case out of New York, the judge, am I making the law or am I following the law?
	I don't know.
	It's hard for me to get past my own bias.
	And I have tools.
	Almost quoting him verbatim.
	Rafikian.
	Thank you very much.
	BN Rafikian.
	Excellent.
	That was Flynn's business partner.
	Was convicted of Favre violations by a jury as if they even knew what it was.
	The judge overturned.
	He did a jury.
	A judgment notwithstanding a verdict said there's no way anybody comes to.
	I know it was a fight club joke.
	The judge said no reasonable rational verdict.
	A jury comes to this finding based on this fact.
	Overturned it.
	It was one of the first beefs I had with LegalEagle, a substantive beef, where he said, in one of his videos, referred to the fact that Michael Flynn's business partner was found guilty by jury.
	Didn't mention the fact that the judge overturned that verdict.
	So, substantive omission, deliberate or neglect, who knows, outcome is the same.
	Okay, back to New York, Leticia James.
	Angeron has used the tools at his disposal to come to a jury, no, sorry, no jury, to come to a finding, of fraud on the Mar-a-Lago assessment.
	No jury in this case.
	Summary motion comes to a summary judgment.
	Fraud.
	Moving on.
	There's no, there was no, summary judgment means there was no tribal issue of fact that required any further adjudication.
	Summary motion, yeah.
	It's a matter of fact that he overvalued fraudulently the Mar-a-Lago property.
	Okay, fine.
	Tool number one that Judge Engron has used to get to the outcome of his liking, of his bias, foregone conclusion liking.
	He gags Trump.
	There's no jury in Judge Engron's New York Leticia James fraud case.
	There's no jury.
	Gags Trump, orders him not to, what do you say, make disparaging remarks, attack, Members of his staff can't highlight the fact that Judge Engeron, it might have not included Engeron himself, can't highlight the fact that his top clerk is a partisan political hack who's chummy chummy with Chuck Schumer posting pictures all over the internet.
	Chuck Schumer, the guy who says, Trump had better be careful because the FBI's got six ways from Sunday of getting back at you if they don't like what you're doing.
	It's all irrelevant.
	It's nothing that the public would be interested in highlighting.
	So he says, here's your verdict.
	You're finding a fraud on summary judgment.
	And I'm also going to gag you.
	You can't point out the political bias of the members of my staff.
	Trump allegedly violates that order once.
	Bam!
	$5,000 fine.
	Judge allegedly violates that order a second time by truthing out on Truth Social the clearly biased person sitting next to the judge.
	Judge Engeron takes that to mean his top clerk.
	You know, methinks thou dost protestest too much.
	When Trump says, I was only talking about Michael Cohen, who was on the stand sitting next to you, judge, totally biased, discredited himself in testimony.
	The judge says, this is horrible.
	You violated my gag order a second time when making statements in the hallway.
	Come before me and tell me what you meant when you referred to the biased person sitting next to me.
	I think you meant my politically biased chief clerk.
	Trump says, no, I meant Michael Cohen.
	Judge says, I don't believe you.
	$10,000.
	It's like when Bart Simpson is mouthing off to Principal Skinner and he's like, two days detention.
	Oh, well, why stop there?
	One week detention.
	Oh, maybe I should just shut my big mouth.
	Well, Trump's not going to shut his mouth anger on.
	$10,000 fine and the judge says, these are going to be increasing sanctions in severity.
	Okay, so he's been under a gag order.
	He can't talk about certain things.
	The judge says, it's not the end of the world.
	You can talk about some stuff.
	You just can't talk about the corruption of my potential bias of my staff.
	All the while, what is sweet Letitia James doing in all of this?
	She's taking to Twitter daily to post the most Orwellian, Kafkaesque, Vonnegutian, idiocracy summaries in her view of what's going on in court during the day.
	Listen to this one.
	This one's yesterday, right?
	Again and again, Donald Trump inflated the value of his properties to increase his net worth.
	But here's the thing.
	When you engage in fraud, eventually you're going to face consequences.
	Not when you allegedly engage in fraud.
	When you engage in fraud.
	I mean, I know there's all sorts of immunity issues, but she's not making an allegation.
	She's accusing someone of a crime while they're prosecuting, while they're in court, on a civil matter, no less.
	Well, is it civil or is it not?
	It's not, it's commercial.
	Okay, scratch that whatever I just said there.
	When you engage in fraud, not when you allegedly, and there's people going to be out there who are going to say, well, her job as Attorney General is to prosecute.
	No!
	The job of an Attorney General is not to prosecute and it's not to get conviction.
	It's to pursue justice.
	But in this case, justice is about as blind as Leticia James' politics.
	Listen to this.
	Today we began the fifth week of our trial against Donald Trump, the Trump Organization, and other defendants.
	We heard testimony from three witnesses, including a former Trump Organization executive.
	That executive was involved in fraudulently inflating the value of Donald Trump's assets.
	Not allegedly.
	Involved in.
	On Christmas Eve in 2020, he received a voicemail from defendant and former Trump Organization controller Jeffrey McConney.
	Mr. McConney asked him to come up with reasons to justify a higher value for their Nike Town property.
	God forbid.
	Because their accountant at Mazar's needed more information.
	Just three days later, Oh, I'm sorry.
	Eve, this is such a flagrant misrepresentation, even based on her own words from a few seconds ago.
	He didn't say go and misrepresent.
	Even what she just said.
	He said find some, find, what did she say?
	We need, find some more.
	We need more information.
	Here, hold on a second.
	Come up with reasons to justify a higher value.
	...for their Nike Town property because their accountant at Mazar's needed more information.
	Did as he was told.
	And changed.
	Oh, that's not even what you said he said.
	Oh, boy.
	This former executive was also involved in conversations about the value Yeah, it's worth $18 million.
	Yeah.
	Mar-a-Lago was legally registered as a social club rather than a private residence for tax and ownership purposes.
	This executive testified that he knew that it was a club and that Trump paid lower taxes on it as a club rather than as a private residence.
	He also testified that he knew the property was worth much less than it would have been if it were Donald Trump's private home.
	Let's not even get into it.
	It could be a raised, empty lot and be worth hundreds of millions.
	Oh, and by the way, Dinesh D'Souza's premier of police state is at Mar-a-Lago tomorrow, and I'll be attending that.
	I'll tell you if it looks like an $18 million.
	Oh, sorry, $18 to $27 million property.
	Oh, and then, by the way, Judge Angeron never said it was worth that.
	He just came to the conclusion of finding a fraud as a matter of fact because he went with the Broward County City Appraisers estimate of the property.
	The county appraisal, not market value.
	18 million to 20. Okay, put it on the market and have it be a public bidding.
	Let's see what it goes for.
	However, when it came time to prepare the statements of financial condition, the Trumps continued to value Mar-a-Lago as a private residence.
	In 2021, Mar-a-Lago was assessed at approximately $28 million.
	By a county appraiser.
	$612 million.
	There's an empty lot that's selling for $100.
	And again.
	And again.
	Donald Trump tried to double dip.
	But here's the thing with the law.
	Oh, here's the thing with the law.
	Tell me.
	You can't have it both ways.
	This is the propaganda that Leticia James is putting out daily while Trump is gagged.
	She accuses him of crimes.
	No alleging, no qualification.
	While the trial is ongoing, I dare say...
	This misrepresents the testimony that's being adjuiced in court in real time while Trump is being gagged and fined at exponentially higher levels per alleged infraction while this trial goes on.
	Make it make sense.
	There's no way to make it make sense.
	And now the latest development in that because the trial is a load of poo-poo.
	Danica Patrick, what are you doing here?
	Get out of here.
	This is Trump.
	Three of his kids will testify in New York fraud trial in early November.
	From what I understand, Ivanka might be making a motion to quash.
	As far as my understanding goes, they can be subpoenaed to testify, and I think they can make a motion to quash the subpoena.
	We'll see if this article talks about it.
	And either way, because I know the limits of my own knowledge, I'm going to discuss this with Barnes on Sunday and ask the questions that I'm still hitherto uncertain of.
	After more than four weeks of testimony in former Donald Trump's New York civil fraud at trial...
	Good, so it was civil.
	Okay, good.
	He and three of his adult kids...
	What a bizarre way to say it.
	He and three of his adult kids will soon be called to court to testify, Letitia James said on Friday.
	She's long indicated.
	Oh yeah, Letitia, remember, she campaigned off going after Trump.
	Remember that.
	I posted some of the amazing highlights from prior interviews and speeches that she gave.
	2018 campaigned off of persecuting an individual.
	Trump.
	James'team has long indicated Trump, Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Ivanka Trump would be questioned on the stand on Friday.
	An attorney for James said it will rest its case after they testify.
	James'office expects to call Donald Trump Jr. to the stand Wednesday, November 1. Eric Trump, November 2. Ivanka Trump, November 8. Why?
	Skips the date.
	Okay, but her testimony was pushed back.
	The court said yada, yada.
	Okay, fine.
	Assuming the revised schedule holds, Donald Trump will be called to testify under oath.
	On Monday, November 6th.
	You think they're not going to try to go after some fabricated, fraudulent, horse crap perjury charges?
	Like what they did with Michael Flynn when he was testifying.
	Who's it, Flynn?
	I'm getting mixed up between all of the fabricated perjury.
	That was lying to investigators.
	You think they're not going to go after anything he says?
	Let me see here.
	A senior campaign advisor said it's unlikely Trump will travel to New York for his children's testimony since he is going to be in Texas for much of the week.
	The advisor said Trump is likely to go to New York for his own testimony but hasn't finalized his plans yet.
	Trump with their account.
	They've already been found liable.
	It's amazing, eh?
	They've Alex Jones'd Donald Trump.
	The Trumps and their company have already been found liable for fraud in the case, but the trial has proceeded on allegations related to falsification of business records, insurance fraud, and conspiracy.
	The state is seeking at least $250 million in what it calls ill-gotten gains.
	And harsh penalties that would severely restrict, as it is now, they've frozen his business licenses in New York, threatened to dispose of his assets.
	They're accused of misrepresenting the Trump of values properties.
	In order to obtain favorable loans and insurance, the poor itty-bitty banks didn't get their increased rates of interest, but they got paid back in full and made like $40 million, I think was the last number I heard.
	And the insurance companies, insurance, I mean, again, we don't get to see the trial in real time.
	If you overvalue the value of your properties, your insurance goes up.
	As typically, if you're insuring, I mean, I don't know what type of insurance it is, but, you know, typically if you're insuring a property that you say is worth $400 million, the insurance won't be as cheap as it would be if it were only $18 million.
	But who knows what type of insurance, whatever.
	Okay.
	Defendants have all denied the allegations, yada, yada, yada.
	Trump has repeatedly stood just outside the courtroom doors, lashing out at James and the judge, accusing them of being unfair and biased against him.
	That's not an accusation.
	It is a matter of demonstrable fact.
	When you have campaign interviews, campaign speeches of Leticia James saying, I'm going to prosecute Donald Trump if elected, when you have a judge admitting that he's got the tools to carry to fruition his internal biases, it's not, what are the words they said?
	An accusation.
	It's a demonstrable, verifiable fact.
	Period.
	That anger has occasionally earned the ire of Justice Arthur Engron, who has twice fined Trump for violating a limited gag order.
	Do you see the framing here?
	It's earned the ire, so it was justified.
	The limited gag order, I guess it's limited if he can say anything.
	If he's allowed to say anything, I'm hungry.
	It's a limited gag order.
	Wednesday, Engron even put Trump on the stand to question him about his comment that Engron ultimately concluded was about the clerk.
	Ivanka was initially named in the lawsuit when it was filed in 2022, but this summer she successfully moved the appellate court to dismiss the allegations against her.
	The court found the allegations related to her involvement in loans of the Trump Organization were outside the statute of limitations.
	Still, Leticia James, pursuer of justice, subpoenaed her to appear in the case.
	Ivana contested the subpoena, but Engron ruled against her on Friday.
	Oh, didn't hear that.
	Quelle surprise, as we say en français, tabarnouche.
	Oh.
	It's outrageous.
	Okay, we've done enough on the rumbles.
	Let me go get the link.
	The judge has got all the tools in his world.
	He refused to quash the subpoena.
	Quash means not to squash, but it's basically to cancel the subpoena that Ivanka challenged.
	What a surprise.
	I'm surprised he didn't find her guilty by summary judgment as well.
	All right, everybody.
	Mosey your tuchuses over on to the Rumbles.
	We're at 557 on YouTube.
	Let's see that number go down radically before we go out there.
	And on the Rumbles...
	Well, first I'm going to go check to see if this trial is being broadcast live today, if the audio levels are better.
	And then we're going to talk about the big one, that trial.
	And then the other one.
	What was the other one?
	Oh, the re-gag.
	Trump re-gagged.
	Okay, I wanted to refresh and I just want to see the number go from 556 down.
	What do Joy...
	Can I read this?
	Oh.
	Okay, I'm not reading that.
	540.
	All right, good.
	We're done.
	I just noticed that there's some trends in terms of who the Soros entity seeks to finance and get elected.
	There seem to be some...
	Similarities.
	Okay, we are going to end on YouTube in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. Come on over to Rumble.
	The link is in the pinned comment if everybody's watching this afterwards.
	Done.
	Alrighty then.
	Alrighty then.
	Let's see what's going on here.
	Chet Chisholm is in the house.
	Before we get started, I'm going to read a Rumble rant.
	I didn't give the disclaimers this morning.
	A little tired.
	Okay, what do we got?
	Chet Chisholm.
	Here's some more fun from the Maritimes.
	The Nova Scotia government are having a contest for healthcare workers to submit solutions to the failing system for a chance to win $100.
	More fun from the Maritimes.
	The Nova Scotia government are having a contest for healthcare workers to submit solutions to the failing system for a chance to win $100.
	Who's talking right now?
	More fun from the Maritimes.
	The Nova Scotia government are having a contest for healthcare workers to submit solutions.
	When am I going to start?
	Who said that?
	Okay, I'm stopping.
	Sorry, that joke is over.
	Oh, yeah, I wonder what happened, eh?
	It's amazing, eh?
	They don't have firefighters, eh, to go fight fires.
	Maybe it had something to do with, like, you know, forced termination of employment for refusing the job.
	Oh, the healthcare system is failing.
	It was failing before COVID, eh?
	But maybe firing healthcare workers who refused to get the job wasn't the best thing to do, eh?
	All right, God, we've done it.
	We've destroyed the country and we're all out of ideas.
	All right.
	Good.
	I need an add-on dork reader, says Katamine.
	Viva the Neocon.
	Oh yeah, there you go.
	Sambo420 has known me my whole life.
	Trying to gag Trump is like trying to escape the event horizon 360 attic 70. You know what the funniest thing in the world was?
	Literally.
	This morning?
	Was it this morning or yesterday?
	I was trying to explain black holes to my kid.
	Because we just watched Interstellar.
	And I read the book, was it Isaac Asimov, Black Holes and the Universe?
	I was just explaining the idea of the event horizon.
	The idea that a black hole, in order to have infinite mass, to be so gravitationally strong that light does not escape, has to have an infinite depth and basically be bottomless.
	But then how can something be bottomless?
	It's an absolute conundrum of a query of a quagmire.
	Okay.
	Let me see what I got in the backdrop here in terms of the next ones.
	I got a lot of highlights from the trial yesterday.
	Let's do the Judge Chutkin reimposing the limited gag order.
	The catchphrases are everywhere.
	First of all, I don't know how Trump puts up with it.
	I don't know how he does it.
	No one knows what they would do until they're put into those situations.
	When I interviewed Roger Stone, and just the idea that I don't know.
	I don't think they would rather be playing golf, but the idea that the better part of their golden years are spent fighting a corrupt system, I mean, maybe that's not a level of achievement.
	Maybe that is the purpose, and they take pride in that purpose of their lives.
	Instead of being able to waste away playing golf, getting frustrated at a stupid game that nobody should care about, unless you're a pro, they are forced to...
	Be victims of a system, and that's where they'll derive the meaning of their life.
	I mean, not at this point.
	I see determination in those eyes, but maybe I'm just projecting.
	A federal judge reimposes a limited gag order in Trump's 2020 election.
	Okay, Judge Chutkin.
	Robert Barnes has expressed his opinion of Judge Chutkin.
	This is a judge who is judicially corrupt, biased beyond words.
	She already adjudicated on the recusal as well.
	There was a motion to recuse.
	She says, no, no, no.
	I'm good.
	I'm not biased.
	I'm staying.
	You know, even though other judges sat in the courtroom while Trump came in.
	Oh, unheard of.
	Anyhow, she imposed because, you know, being the next domino in the dominoes of...
	Stupid decisions, stupid prosecutions.
	Well, that's the basis now for new stupid ones in other states.
	Ours isn't so bad.
	I mean, they did it in New York.
	All right, well, you know, we went from the New York hush money payment thing to D.C., to Florida, to Georgia indictments.
	They set the bar.
	They broke the emergency glass, to quote Robert Goveo, with that bullcrap hush money indictment out of New York.
	Well, they've broken the emergency glass on gag orders.
	Now they're just going to be par for the course.
	Forget your First Amendment rights.
	You thought you get to be accused and then defend yourself in the court of public opinion?
	Alex Jones can tell you a little something about that.
	Who was it?
	It was Steve Bannon, I believe.
	And Brian Colfage from Build the Wall.
	We build the wall.
	Basically, we're gagged.
	I have to refresh my memory on the details.
	I'm pretty sure they were gagged as well, or at least attempted to be gagged.
	We're going to persecute you, prosecute you, and you cannot wage a war in the court of public opinion.
	Sounds fair.
	Sounds very Stalin-esque.
	Get that out of here.
	I don't want to educate my inbox.
	Don't tell me what to do.
	So the judge who issued her gag order.
	Trump appealed it.
	She says, I'm going to administratively stay my gag order until I hear what your arguments for the appeal are going to be.
	I've heard your arguments for the appeal.
	I've heard your arguments for the appeal.
	And now I'm saying, yeah, I agree with myself.
	The judge reimposes a limited gag order in Trump's 2020 election interference case.
	Federal judge overseeing Donald Trump's case in the 2020 election interference case.
	Remember this?
	He hasn't even been found guilty of election interference, but they want to take him off the ballot for insurrection, for which he was already acquitted in impeachment.
	And people don't seem to appreciate that that's a quasi-criminal proceeding.
	She's reimposed a...
	It's a narrow gag order.
	Oh yes, it's just very narrow.
	It's so narrow it applies to potential witnesses.
	Barring him from making public comments targeting prosecutors, court staff, and potential witnesses.
	The words narrow and potential are mutually incompatible.
	It's a very narrow gag order.
	It just prevents you from intimidating, targeting undisclosed number of people.
	I mean, this is Orwellian newspeak.
	It's a very narrow gag order.
	It just applies to all potential witnesses.
	You want me to tell you who they are?
	How the hell am I supposed to know?
	U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkin is presiding over the federal case charging Trump with plotting to overturn his 2020 election loss.
	She had temporarily lifted the gag order.
	As she considered the Republican former president's request to keep it on hold while he challenges the restrictions to higher courts.
	But Chutkin on Sunday, can you listen to this?
	She agreed with herself.
	She agreed to reinstate the gag order after prosecutors cited Trump's recent social media comments about his former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, and said that they said represented an attempt to influence or intimidate a likely key witness.
	The statement would almost certainly violate the court order under any reasonable definition of targeting.
	Do tell us what targeting means.
	A reasonable definition of targeting potential witnesses.
	What did they say here?
	It's very narrow.
	The order is a fresh reminder that Trump's penchant for...
	Is this poetry or is this news?
	The Order is a fresh reminder that Trump's penchant for incendiary and bitter rants.
	Oh, he can no longer engage in bitter rants.
	Sorry about the legal troubles he's facing, though politically beneficial.
	Oh, well, thank you for saying the quiet part out loud.
	In rallying his supporters as he speaks to reclaim the White House, carry practical consequences in the court.
	Thank you for explaining how this is election interference in real time.
	You don't understand what you just said, much like that Time article magazine doesn't understand that they described election interference.
	This is the description and the definition of Judicial election interference.
	Yeah, though it's politically beneficial, it would rally his supporters.
	It'll carry consequences in the court, so you can't do it anymore.
	So the court has prevented free speech that would be politically beneficial in the context of perhaps the most monumental, important elections in American history.
	Totally cool, dude.
	Two judges have now imposed gag orders.
	That's it, you know.
	Stupidity leaves marks.
	Two judges have now imposed orders mandating that he rein in his speech, with the jurist presiding over a civil fraud issuing a mandatory fine line.
	I'm sorry, with the jurist?
	That's not one way to describe a judge anger on.
	A request for comment was sent out to the Trump attorney, Todd Blanche.
	Trump, in a social media post late Sunday, acknowledged that the gag order was back in place, calling it not constitutional.
	Is that targeting potential witnesses?
	Is that a...
	Hold on, if we go back up here.
	Is that targeting prosecutors?
	I mean, look, if he's saying it's not constitutional, he's accusing the prosecutor and the judge of engaging in unconstitutional conduct.
	He's targeting the judge.
	I love Big Brother.
	Say it, Winston.
	Two plus two is five.
	There are four lights.
	Say it.
	Oh, you said it, but we don't think you meant it.
	Trump's lawyers have said they will seek an emergency stay of the U.S. order.
	Defense is entitled to criticize prosecutors and speak truth to oppression.
	Though Chutkin reinstated the gag order, she denied a request from special counsel's team to make compliance with that order a condition for Trump's release.
	Oh, she's so not objective.
	She's so not biased and so objective that she allowed Trump to be free pending his trial.
	Even assuming that request is procedurally proper, the court concludes that granting it is not necessary to effectively enforce the gag order at this time.
	It might be later on.
	Chutkin wrote, she did not elaborate on how the order might be enforced.
	Trump has denied any wrongdoing.
	The case made central.
	Prosecutors said Trump's verbal attacks threatened to undermine the integrity of the case and risk inspiring his supporters to violence.
	I'm not going through the pleadings the way Gouveia does.
	But this was the argument raised by the prosecution.
	The risk of his words might be interpreted by someone to maybe potentially mean something to cause them to potentially do something violent.
	So Trump, while being persecuted, prosecuted, fined, has to have his speech suppressed during the election cycle.
	And of course he's going to start his trial on the Monday before the Super Tuesday.
	Let's see here.
	Smith's team said Trump took advantage of the recent lifting of the guy to send an unmistakable and threatening message to Meadows, who was reported by ABC needs to have received immunity.
	And he was also reported to have worn a wire, which we now know was a rumor.
	Don't repeat it for anybody who may have already done that.
	Trump mused on social media about the possibility that Meadows would give testimony to Smith in exchange for immunity.
	One part of the post said, Some people would make that deal, but they are weaklings and cowards and so bad for the future of our failing nation.
	I don't think that Mark Meadows is one of them, but who really knows?
	That is the most threatening thing I've ever heard in my life.
	I'm literally shaking right now.
	And how dare he?
	He should be locked up immediately.
	This is a threat to democracy.
	The First Amendment, the way he viciously targeted a potential witness.
	To say that I don't think he's one of the ones, but who really knows?
	That was intimidation.
	Oh my god, I'm sure Meadows also is equally quaking in his seal for rubber baby boots.
	That's from Megamind, if anybody doesn't get the reference.
	Chutkin wrote that the Post almost certainly would have violated her quarter because it signals out a witness.
	Characterizes potentially unfavorable testimony as a lie.
	But Leticia James can get up there and say fraud.
	And suggests only a weakling or coward would make those statements to prosecutors.
	Oh, where's the threat?
	Where's the intimidation?
	The judge said such an, quote, attack could, quote, readily be interpreted as an attempt to influence or prevent the witness's participation in the case.
	Holy shiat, they're crazy.
	They're crazy.
	She drew a contrast between some of his posts earlier that she says were compliant with the gag order, yada, yada, yada.
	And in a separate case, oh yeah, he was fine by the New York judge.
	Okay, so that's Judge Chutkin out of D.C. Totally nothing abnormal about anything that's going on.
	If you think there is, that's on you.
	You're crazy.
	Oh, let's see here.
	Okay, we got that.
	I'm reading some of the chats.
	There's an expression that a zealot is someone who never changes their mind and never changes the conversation.
	Let that sink in for some people.
	You post something and then, oh, I'm going to be so funny and just put a random response that has nothing to do with that particular subject because I'm obsessed with something else and want to continually distract from any meaningful online discourse.
	With Zealotry.
	Let's see here.
	Okay.
	Okay, so that's it.
	Okay, that's it.
	All right, so I think that's it for DC.
	Let me see something, if there wasn't anything more for the DC.
	Oh, we got a funny one that we're going to do afterwards at Locals, I think.
	Okay, so I got...
	Now I think I'm looking at only highlights from the Colorado case.
	Yep.
	Okay, good.
	Colorado judge will recuse himself.
	Okay, good.
	Before we get into the next one, we've got to cleanse our palates with a little proverbial sorbet.
	Do you guys all know that, like, I want to say this, but then I don't want to get fact-checked.
	Sorbet Palate Cleanser.
	Let me see here.
	Sorbet is the most frequent palate cleanser and one of the most adapted worldwide.
	Okay, so yes, sorbet is used to cleanse Juan's palate.
	So we're going to cleanse our palate from the Chutkin DC corruption to the Colorado corruption with a video that is hilarious and I actually made a comment that ended up being very funny.
	Everyone will be able to relate to this because I don't think even Democrats like...
	Hillary Clinton.
	So for all the Dems in the crowd right now...
	Okay, so that might have been too loud.
	Sexy and singing
	What are they...
	What are they chanting?
	Are they chanting cheater?
	I love this.
	This is passive-aggressive resistance.
	What do they say?
	Are they chanting Sheila?
	Anyhow, just watch how this guy passive, what is it called?
	Passive resistance?
	Nonviolent resistance.
	They drag him out.
	He's, you know, they would have had an easier time dragging me out.
	I love it like a baby.
	Drag him.
	Is this really necessary?
	Is this really necessary, guys?
	Thumbs up, I love it.
	Okay, so...
	...more like just endless government spending.
	I mean, she's giving more money to white people in Ukraine than you freaking idiots in Houston.
	You can't vote for her.
	Watch out, watch out.
	Endless money to Ukraine.
	Endless money for Israel.
	She's not anti-establishment.
	You guys have the same shit over and over again.
	Same crime.
	She's gonna be just like Chicago.
	Looks like Chicago.
	You guys love this shit.
	You have a blessed day, sir.
	You have a blessed day, sir.
	So I made the joke.
	I tweeted this out.
	I said, this guy's got to hook up with Alex Stein.
	And then Alex Stein, primetime 99, pimp on a blimp, replied and said, dude, I know that guy.
	We've done stuff together before.
	That wasn't his first rodeo, and you could tell, but that was funny.
	So now that we've cleansed, Mel Belfort says, thank you for this.
	Yes, we have to cleanse our palates.
	Of the endless institutionalized judicial...
	I mean, I'm calling it...
	This is institutionalized election interference.
	There is no other way to go about it.
	Serenity, prayer.
	God, give me the strength to change the things I can.
	The courage, the wisdom...
	I'm going to remember it one of these days.
	Lord, give me the strength...
	To change the things I can, accept the things I can't, and the wisdom to know the difference.
	That's close enough, peeps?
	No, no, no.
	We're doing it now.
	The serenity prayer.
	You know what?
	If I ever get a tattoo, maybe it's going to be, God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.
	Yep.
	You know what?
	I'm not saying I'm going to get a tattoo, but if I ever did, that would be it.
	Okay, I've got a dog here who's wiggling herself off the...
	Viva being...
	That's not nice.
	Okay, not that I have any problem with that, but okay, let's move on.
	Colorado.
	This one is mind-blowing.
	Oh, shoot.
	Not a big deal.
	Not a big deal.
	Just make sure I didn't break my phone.
	Print it out.
	I like that quote.
	It's the Serenity Prayer.
	My mother had it on a mug growing up.
	And I remember going into the bathroom.
	Because we shared a bathroom.
	And I would remember seeing that little mug.
	And it was the weirdest thing.
	It was a mug.
	And it had like a ceramic lid on it.
	I guess to keep stuff hot.
	Bizarre.
	Bizarre.
	But it was on a mug that my mother had growing up.
	Okay, now that we've found Serenity.
	Serenity, my ass.
	Okay.
	Colorado.
	For those of you who don't know, I should just pull up a summary of this.
	I forget who.
	In Colorado, a suit has been filed by four Republican, allegedly Republican voters, it's like an activist group, to keep Trump off the ballot because Article 14, Paragraph 3, insurrection.
	Let's get that one out.
	Article 14, Section 3. Here.
	We'll read it.
	They want to keep Trump off...
	And the way they describe it is because you have to describe your lawless actions lawfully.
	They want to protect the rights of voters.
	They want to make sure that every vote counts and that every voter's vote is respected.
	And in order to do that, they've got to keep ineligible names off the ballot.
	So that people don't waste their vote voting for an ineligible candidate, thus their vote not counting.
	So they're doing this, you idiots.
	If you thought they were doing this to interfere with elections, out of corruption, maliciousness, you're wrong.
	Just say that you love Big Brother and you understand what they're doing.
	They're doing it to protect your vote.
	Because they don't want you wasting your vote on an ineligible candidate.
	Article 14, Section 3. No person shall be a senator or a representative in Congress or elector of President and Vice President or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States or any other statute who, having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress or as a member of any state legislature, yada, yada, yada, To support the congregation.
	Shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.
	Shall have engaged in insurrection.
	Don't forget those words.
	Or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
	But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each house, remove such disability.
	Okay.
	Let me just make sure I get the word again.
	Shall have engaged in insurrection.
	They're saying Trump engaged in insurrection.
	There's been no court finding.
	There's been no impeachment, no culpability, no criminal finding yet.
	I mean, maybe they should have waited or pushed up that DC case a little bit.
	They're saying, as a matter of fact, he's done it and he should be removed from the ballot.
	That's what's going on in Colorado.
	You've got a judge who might just be a little bit...
	There might be reasons to question the judge's objectivity.
	Why?
	Let's get into an article about it, shall we?
	Close.
	Oh, no.
	Don't you do that.
	Go back.
	Okay.
	Close.
	What the flip is going on?
	No...
	No thanks.
	Okay, I'm not...
	Okay, there we go.
	Are you skeptical of headlines and what you see on social media?
	God, this is annoying.
	We are too.
	Stop.
	Okay.
	There was a motion to recuse.
	This will give you...
	This will outline the potential...
	The potential bias of the judge, just if you're nervous.
	Judge overseeing Trump disqualification case in Colorado rejects recusal request over political contribution.
	Donald Trump's attorney took issue with the donation the judge made before taking the bench to a group that likened the January 6th attack to an insurrection.
	It's a small amount.
	It's a hundred bucks that she made while she presumably knew that she was going to be named judge at some point because it was like a few days before her actual appointment, but they don't just pull these things out of a hat.
	So she knew she was going to become a judge.
	She made a measly $100 donation.
	And we're going to see what that entity had to say.
	On the first morning of a week-long hearing to determine if Donald Trump is constitutionally eligible.
	Can you imagine?
	A state judge is deciding whether or not, forget that he's a former president, a candidate is constitutionally eligible to be president after that person had already been acquitted.
	Of impeachment on the very same basis.
	Imagine that.
	It's an amazing thing.
	Forget impeachment.
	It means nothing now.
	You can get your rogue activists out of the state level, rogue judges at a state level, to dictate federal politics.
	To basically override the Constitution.
	To appear on Colorado's 2024 presidential primary ballot.
	Oh, this is the presidential primary ballot.
	The judge overseeing the case rejected Trump's request to recuse himself of a $100 donation.
	Okay, let's...
	Oh.
	Prior to taking the bench.
	Yeah, she made the donation prior to taking the bench, but not prior to knowing that she was going to be taking the bench.
	Okay, the Trump reluctantly filed a motion Saturday seeking to disqualify the judge.
	Gessler indicated he only learned on October that prior to her appointment as judge, Wallace made a $100 donation to the Colorado Turnout Project.
	I want to open that up in the backdrop.
	Okay, we'll get there in a second because we need to.
	Oh, this is annoying.
	Its website proudly proclaims that the group was formed shortly after Colorado Republicans refused to condemn the political extremists who stormed the United States Capitol on January 6th, Gessler wrote.
	A contribution to the Colorado Turner Project shows support for the view that January 6th, 2021, constituted, unquote, insurrection.
	One of the key issues in the case is whether Trump is disqualified from seeking the presidency under the 14th Amendment, which bars federal and state officials from holding office if they engaged in insurrection against the United States.
	That's all we got there?
	Okay, whatever.
	But let's just go to that website, shall we?
	Boom, shakalaka.
	Look at this.
	Yeah, there you go.
	Colorado Blue.
	Look at this.
	The Colorado Turnout Project.
	Our story.
	Fighting for what we believe in together.
	The Colorado Turnout Project is a coalition of Colorado students, activists, veterans, and Coloradans.
	I would have said Coloradians.
	Coloradites?
	Coloradoganians, whatever.
	From all walks of life who are fed up with the complicity of Colorado's Republican representatives in our nation's venomous...
	Political atmosphere.
	We formed shortly after Republicans refused to condemn the political extremists.
	Call them mega extremists.
	Why don't you just pull a Hakeem Jeffries, who stormed the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.
	In fact, Republican Representative Lauren Boebert, CO3.
	Colorado 3 even encouraged the violence.
	The Colorado Turnout Project aims to prevent violent insurrectionists by addressing this problem at its source.
	If we vote out pariahs, like Boebert, we can turn Colorado blue once and for all.
	I'm sorry, didn't they say that this was Republicans?
	Okay, maybe...
	We formed shortly after Colorado Republic...
	Oh, fine, so no, this is Democrats, okay.
	That's the Colorado project.
	The turnout project.
	And in order to make sure people turn out, in order to protect the turnout, they've got to eliminate from the ballot.
	That's like, war is peace, ignorance is strength, freedom is slavery.
	In order to protect the turnout, we've got to exclude people from the ballot.
	Done.
	Alright, so that's the judge.
	She said, yeah, I'm not biased and carry on with the trial, because the trial is going to be amazing.
	I'm just going to pull it a few times.
	The opening statements of the plaintiff's attorney.
	It's like listening to the Coles notes of the January 6th committee.
	Beyond that, it is insane beyond words.
	I'll play one highlight.
	Is this it?
	Is this it?
	Yes, this is it.
	This is it.
	They've referenced...
	I mean, just imagine, just take the January 6th committee, those kangaroo court hearings.
	They're highly produced, edited videos.
	They're carefully selected tweets.
	They're carefully selected excluded tweets.
	The lead attorney in opening statements literally said that when Trump said peacefully, that was literally the call to violence because that was the dog whistle.
	Because he only said peacefully once.
	I think he said it more, but who cares?
	He only said peacefully once, but he said fight multiple times.
	So that peacefully was actually a dog whistle, plausible deniability.
	When he said it, that was an indication of his violent tendencies because if he had no violent intention, he would never have had to say peacefully in the first place.
	And if you think I'm joking, I'm not.
	And listen to this.
	Where are we?
	Hold on.
	Did I lose my screen?
	No, I didn't.
	I'm right there.
	Okay.
	Let's move the screen back up.
	If you think I'm joking, you get ready for...
	I'll say it aloud if you can't hear what he's saying because the audio was crap.
	So, let's walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.
	I want to thank you all.
	God bless you.
	And God bless...
	Sorry, I should have prefaced this also.
	In their opening statements...
	They're looping in videos of police fighting with protesters.
	They're looping in video evidence, Trump's speech.
	And so they played this video, it was a longer portion of his speech, and then on with opening statements.
	Two important features of that speech we just saw.
	Two important features.
	First is his focus of the crowd on the actions of Mike Pence that were shortly to happen in the Senate chamber.
	And second, his repeated reference to fight.
	Fight.
	Wait until we'll bring up what they did with Eric Swalwell.
	And urging his supporters to fight.
	Now, I'm sure that Trump will claim that because he used the words, quote, peacefully and patriotically later in that speech, that he did not, therefore, engage in insurrection.
	Yeah, that's a pretty good argument, you delusional nincompoop.
	That claim is wrong at every level.
	Every level, not just wrong.
	He used fight 20 times in that speech, peaceful only once.
	Professor Simi explains how leaders use language like that, like the peacefully comment.
	They've got an expert who's going to testify.
	I mean, it would be funny if it weren't so bloody tragic.
	Hold on a second.
	I should highlight here.
	When I said bloody tragic, I meant politically.
	I mean, I meant metaphorically.
	Maybe I have to say that.
	I'll just make sure I don't want anyone like, you know, viva incited insurrection.
	To create plausible deniability that is just filter.
	To create plausible deniability that is just filter.
	To fight 20 times in that speech, peaceful only once.
	Professor Simi explains how leaders use language like that, like the peacefully comment, to create plausible deniability.
	That is just filter.
	Trump well knew how his reporters would respond.
	He saw what happened when he told the Proud Boys to stand back and stand by.
	What happened?
	Absolutely nothing.
	How they treated that as an endorsement.
	How they treated that as an endorsement.
	And when that neo-Nazi thing, his name is David Duke, comes out and says, I endorse Hillary Clinton.
	Well, then they say it doesn't mean anything.
	It's not double standards.
	It's not hierarchy.
	It's lawlessness.
	In fact, his use of peaceful in the rally, and again, use in this proceeding, highlights that he knew the power of his other words.
	If you don't think people are going to engage in violence after what you told them, or that your words will provoke violence, you don't need to say be peaceful.
	They already will be.
	This guy actually, this is his opening statement.
	When he said to do it peacefully and patriotically, that was the dog whistle for violence.
	Because if you don't think people are going to get violent, you don't need to say peacefully.
	And if you don't say peacefully, you damn well didn't mean peacefully.
	This is insanity.
	It's insanity.
	But that speech that we just saw got the crowd worked up and headed to the Capitol.
	Oh my goodness.
	I'm going to give everybody that video.
	You cannot believe that this is reality.
	Oh my, wow, stupidity, says GingerDog55.
	So that's the tenor.
	That's the tenor of the quality of the arguments.
	So they have, what's his face?
	I'm going to forget his name.
	They have one of the Capitol Police officers who was involved in a violent kerfuffle.
	No question about that.
	The same one who testified during the January 6th committees.
	And he's coming up there saying, look at this, I got into fights with protesters, I got hit in the head, I got a bloody lip, I got a concussion, even though under Cross, I think he testifies that he didn't actually go get any formal diagnosis for his concussion.
	I hurt my hand, so Trump's an insurrectionist.
	Okay.
	During the opening statements, so this is hilarious.
	This is the judge, by the way, who refused to recuse herself.
	In the opening statement of Trump's attorney, for whatever the reason, they seem to be near either a police station, a fire station, or a hospital.
	There's sirens that are going off in the background that are, for whatever the reason, they're more audible than Swalwell's testimony.
	This is what she happened to say during a moment where Trump's attorney, in opening, had to take a pause because of the noise.
	You tell me if you hear what I think I heard.
	By the way, Trump's attorney is far superior in terms of logic, delivery, but it's also probably because he's defending the defensible position in all this.
	But listen to what happened during his opening statement, and you tell me if you heard what I think I heard.
	And on January 6th, he called for peace, and he used the word peace at least four times in his speech at the Ellipse and two tweets and a video message.
	So he asked for peace.
	I want to highlight something afterwards.
	The petitioners have played a couple videos.
	I've been here before, Your Honor.
	I'm assuming your clerks are not taking time against me when the sirens go by.
	Stop that timer, please.
	He actually sounded quite serious there.
	What did the judge say?
	He stops because the sirens are noisy.
	Looks a little frustrated.
	Sighs.
	I'm gonna wait.
	She does say the cards are stacked against you, I guess.
	I know it's a joke.
	I know it's in response to him having to pause because of the noise and it's not a broader statement about the case overall.
	What a bizarre thing to say.
	Such an objective, unbiased judge that she refuses to recuse herself after having donated to an entity that exists for the purposes of ensuring that an insurrection doesn't happen again, after having refused her own recusal, still has it in the back of her mind to say when he gets interrupted in his opening, well, the cards are stacked against you, I guess.
	Ha ha ha!
	Truth in jest, madam!
	There's an old expression.
	When I was in high school, by the way, We started a band, and we called it Truth In Jest.
	But it was ingest.
	I-N-G-E-S-T.
	Like, you ingest truth.
	But the expression is truth ingest.
	Like, you make jokes.
	The only thing that makes the jokes funny is the element of truth to it.
	If it's an absurd joke, if it's an absurd comment detached from reality, there will be no humor to it.
	I guess the cards are stacked against you, I guess.
	Yeah!
	Well, thanks for saying the quiet part out loud, but let's bring it back here to another important part.
	That people need to understand.
	And on January 6th, he called for peace.
	And he used the word peace at least four times.
	Well, hold on a second.
	You said four times, sir.
	The other lawyer said only once.
	Care to explain?
	In his speech at the ellipse.
	In his speech at the ellipse.
	Two tweets and a video.
	Two tweets and a video.
	Hmm.
	When did they shut down?
	When did they take Trump off social media?
	Hmm.
	Could it be that they actually, when they took Trump off social media, took down the videos where he called for people to go home, be peaceful, etc., were the side of law and order?
	So this lawyer knows damn well that Trump used the word peacefully, iterations of it, I think at least four times.
	The other lawyer...
	Thanking social media for having deplatformed Trump bank on the fact that most people don't know that he used peace multiple times.
	He called for the protesters to go home.
	He called for them to be law-abiding.
	We're on the side of the blue, back the blue, law and order, etc.
	But they took him off the platforms.
	They deplatformed Trump, sitting president of the United States of America, for inciting violence when in reality the videos that they prevented the world from seeing were ones calling for going home, being peaceful.
	Message.
	So he asked for peace.
	Now...
	Okay, we can stop there.
	It's an amazing thing.
	They deplatformed for inciting violence when in reality they took down the evidence that he called for de-escalation and peace.
	Call me a partisan hack for observing the obvious.
	Jack Dorsey is complicit in all of this.
	Yeah, Jack Dorsey, that's Katamine.
	Jack Dorsey was CEO at the time.
	Facebook, Zuckerberg, remember?
	Zuckerberg, the one they silenced, they suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story.
	Twitter and Facebook.
	Twitter and Facebook yeet Trump from the platform so that nobody could actually see the video messages and tweets that he put out.
	Hold on, we're going to do this.
	We're going to do this in real time.
	Trump.
	Let me go here.
	Why can't I?
	I want to find...
	Hold on.
	Real Donald Trump.
	I want to get his account.
	We have to see what the account looked like.
	Looked like at the time.
	Here, check this out.
	Real Donald Trump.
	His only post since coming back.
	Mugshot.
	January 8th.
	To all those who have asked, I will not be going to the inauguration.
	That wasn't the January 8th.
	The 75 million Americans who voted.
	We'll have a giant voice along in the future.
	They will not be disrespected.
	January 6th.
	I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful.
	No violence.
	Remember, we are the party of law and order.
	Respect the law and our great men and women.
	You know what?
	I've never liked this one.
	Let's go ahead and do that.
	Please support our Capitol Police and law enforcement.
	They are truly on the side of our country.
	Stay peaceful.
	January 6th.
	But the time, it was already after the damage had been done.
	They took him off so that nobody could see that.
	The same people that took him off so that nobody could see that suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story, which in and of itself, on its own, as a standalone act, not only interfered with the outcome of the election, but affected the outcome of the election.
	Maybe that's the same way of saying the same thing.
	They know exactly what they did.
	All right, so that's the judge.
	Now, what were we saying here?
	So that was a very interesting remark that she made in opening statements in response to the lawyer's opening statement.
	I'm not good with names, so I can't remember it.
	Then we had Swalwell testifying, and I made a funny.
	Well, hold on.
	What was this one before?
	This one is not related to Swalwell's testimony, I don't think.
	Hold on.
	What do we got here?
	Okay, so this is another one.
	If I brought it up for a reason, if I brought it up, there is a reason.
	Minimize and let's press play on this.
	What did I want with this one?
	Let's pause the video at 14.03.20.
	Yeah.
	Officer Hodges, did you hear what the man said in the video?
	Oh, this is the officer.
	Okay.
	I did.
	What did he say?
	I did.
	He wanted to get me out of there.
	He asked me what he could do to help.
	Asked what he could do to help.
	Told him to leave.
	He said that ain't going to happen.
	It's going to turn bad.
	And what did you understand those words to mean?
	Oh yeah, that's why I brought this up.
	The rules of evidence.
	Look, again, it's not my jurisdiction.
	Typically when someone says, what did you understand the words of someone else to mean?
	Objection.
	His understanding is irrelevant.
	Speculative.
	Lacks foundation.
	Overruled.
	He can testify on what somebody said to him on what he thought it meant.
	Doesn't mean that's what they meant.
	That's what he thought they meant.
	That's why hearsay is typically not allowed.
	Objection overruled.
	Okay.
	By the way, he said...
	The guy tried to help him.
	One of these violent insurrectionists tried to help him.
	And he said, what can I do to help you?
	And the police officer said, go home.
	He's like, oh, I'm sorry.
	What can I do to help you?
	Forget your constitutional right to protest.
	Oh, okay.
	I understood the words he told me were very concerning.
	Very concerning, the words.
	He said that it was going to turn bad, which means that he didn't think it was bad yet and it was going to get worse.
	He said that the others were coming up from the back.
	This indicated to me that there was pre-planning coordination.
	Oh my goodness.
	He said the others are...
	This indicated to me that there was pre-planning coordination.
	And that they were intentionally encircling the United States Capitol.
	And when the man asked what he could do to help, you said leave.
	Is that right?
	That's correct.
	Why did you say that?
	Because aside from convincing other people to leave as well, that is the only thing you can do to help.
	Oh, that's the only thing you can do to help.
	The crisis there was the biggest problem to us that he was a part of the mob and the mob wasn't there.
	The biggest problem was he was part of the mob and the mob and the mob and the mob.
	Do you know how many times they said the word mob?
	There was actually an objection on the characterization of the crowd as a mob and the judge said, no, keep calling them a mob.
	Just call them insurrectionists.
	Just get to the punchline already.
	The insurrectionists.
	Objection.
	You're calling them the insurrectionists, which presupposes the conclusion.
	Overruled.
	That didn't happen, but we're not far from it.
	Can you tell me what you thought he thought he meant when he said it's going to get bad?
	Well, to me, it meant coordination.
	It meant seditious conspiracy and insurrection that Trump was instigating, inciting through his tweets and some other back channels, and therefore Trump should be removed from the ballot.
	That's where we're going with that.
	So that police officer, Capitol Police officer, said nothing new, nothing that we haven't already seen.
	And then we had Swalwell.
	Swalwell was virtually, virtually inaudible.
	I don't know if you can hear this.
	Pull out a gas mask.
	Be ready to put it on.
	In case they had to use tear gas.
	And also be ready to move through evacuation.
	Had you ever had to put a gas mask on in the Capitol House chamber before?
	That actually happened.
	It didn't happen.
	I added the fart at the end because, you know, that's...
	I couldn't...
	Hold on, let's just do that one.
	Oh, yeah.
	Have you ever...
	Have you ever had to put a gas mask on in the Capitol House chamber before?
	Pretty damn funny.
	So that's the most ridiculous question that you...
	Have you ever had to put on a gas mask in the Capitol chambers before?
	Only when I farted, ma 'am.
	No.
	Swalwell's testimony was to the effect that in Chief, it was scary.
	They had to put on gas masks.
	Never been done before.
	They were scared, terrified, yada, yada.
	And then I think the most important points were scored in cross-examination when they brought up a number of tweets from Swalwell.
	Let me just see if I can get one offhand.
	Swalwell, and if I put in the word, fight.
	It's so, it's so amazing.
	I have to put in Eric Swalwell or Rep Swalwell.
	They were going after Rep Swalwell.
	I won't be able to find any offhand, but for anybody who knows how to use the search function better on Twitter, they said, okay, so Trump said fights, you know, he said it 20 times.
	Does that mean insurrection?
	Well, I mean, it depends on the...
	Oh, Mr. Swalwell, is this you here saying that we have to fight?
	Our lives depend on it in respect of women's rights?
	Yes.
	Is this a tweet from you where you're saying we've got to fight for whatever?
	And he's like, oh yeah, well that one was hashtag vote blue.
	So you said the word fight.
	If I show you another 15 tweets, I don't remember how many they had from Swalwell, in which he said, we have to fight.
	And in some cases he said, we have to fight like our lives depend on it.
	You don't mean insurrection.
	No, you don't mean violence.
	No, well, I'd have to assess the overall context when other people say it.
	So they got him on that.
	I mean, the amount of tweets using the word fight because it's a political term.
	And, you know, unless there's some strong indication that it's meaning we've got to go in to the Capitol building, like Ray Epps said, and fight our way to the Capitol and fight our way to the podium.
	It's an expression that every politician out there has used, some actually more than others.
	Get in their faces and harass them, I think was what Maxine Waters said.
	Take the fight to the streets, I think is what AOC said, which I think is actually much more literal.
	So they got him on that.
	Then they get swallowed on the fact that he wasn't injured during the January 6th insurrection.
	He wasn't injured.
	And yet, he's suing Donald Trump for personal injury.
	Swalwell suing Trump for injury.
	Let me see here.
	Yeah, he sues Capitol over in the second major election lawsuit.
	Uh, da-da-da.
	What does it say here?
	He has a civil suit against Trump.
	And the cross-examination was to the effect of...
	Well, if Trump gets removed from the ballot here for insurrection, that would help you in your case against Trump, wouldn't it?
	Oh, yeah.
	You weren't injured on January 6th, were you?
	Oh, no.
	So you've got basically a vested interest in ensuring a certain outcome here that might affect your objectivity.
	If anybody had any lingering doubts about the lack of political bias of this individual, Eric Swalwell, yeah.
	And that's where it ended.
	What else happened yesterday that was noteworthy?
	I think that's about it.
	It's an absolute...
	A gong show of a trial.
	An absolute joke in the sickest, saddest way.
	And it's going to carry on.
	And it's almost like a foregone conclusion.
	Where you have a judge who's...
	I mean, who knows?
	Maybe things can, you know, be righted.
	Who knows?
	Maybe the judge will come to the right conclusion that this is an absolute joke.
	But if that were the case, then it might have ought to have...
	You know, been summarily dismissed if ever there's a reason for a summary dismissal anywhere.
	Rumble Rants.
	Finboy Slick says, I don't mask the gas, Your Honor.
	I release the gas.
	Swalwell.
	Finboy Slick says, Speaking of big tech power on elections, if you haven't spoken to Dr. Robert Epstein yet, he would be a very important guest.
	Yeah, I can screen grab that.
	I'll reach out to him.
	Oh, now the question is this.
	I'm going to go to the chat and see what's going on there.
	Is the trial on now?
	Holy cow, did I have to go back to the bottom?
	Oh, it started an hour or so ago?
	Do we want to turn it on and just see what's going on?
	We could start from the beginning and then see if it's interesting.
	Hold on.
	YouTube?
	Well, hold on.
	Actually, let's just go to Rumble and see if anybody's live-streaming it.
	Charlie Kirk is live.
	I probably should not have gone live at the same time as Bongino.
	Although maybe now the, let's see, Bongino was live.
	I think quartering is going to start soon.
	Let's see if I can get Trump Trial Live.
	And it doesn't seem to be, okay, so I'm going to go find the link here.
	Not sure if anybody's streaming.
	Ooh, no, that's, get my own videos up there.
	Let's see if we can't find the trial.
	Trump Trial Live.
	Donald Trump live at the Republican Coalition.
	That's 23 hours ago.
	Okay, so I think CNN 18. Oh my goodness.
	Let's see if they have the same trigger warning that they had yesterday.
	Yeah.
	Okay, I'll bring it up just for two seconds.
	I don't know what the heck they're doing with the audio there.
	Trigger warning.
	Expletives seen, heard in recordings from January 6th.
	Oh my goodness!
	Expletives!
	Over the course of the day, how did the crowd attack you?
	So I don't know if this is live.
	They were having live replays, which really made everything different.
	So we're not going to do this, people, because it's inaudible.
	And the evidence is going to consist of officers who were assaulted, people who were scared, some politicians who were crying, and then they're going to say Trump did all of this because of his tweets.
	I'm going to take this off.
	It's unwatchable.
	Unwatchable, and some might say deliberately so, if one wants to think conspiratorially.
	Conspiratorially.
	I've got some funny thing in the background.
	Anyhow, we're going to have something fun to watch.
	Oh, Good Logic is streaming it live, so let me see if I can find Good Logic.
	Anybody who wants to watch it there, maybe I'll try to pop on later.
	It's Halloween.
	I've got to start getting set up for Halloween.
	Oh, maybe I was watching it from yesterday.
	And yeah, if anybody wants to go watch...
	Hey, let's do a little stream-ception here.
	I see you, Joe.
	Hey, Joe.
	How confident are you in your conclusion that Donald Trump...
	Look at the exhibit.
	They're making a little graph.
	Played a central role, led these events.
	Central role, led the events.
	Slide back.
	Very good.
	It's in the evidence from my years of studying how far right extremists Oh, they've got an expert on the stand.
	Let's see if Joe knows that I'm watching him.
	They've got a far-right extremist expert on the stand now testifying as to how Trump led this with his words.
	Peaceful.
	Everybody knows.
	Everybody knows.
	When you say peaceful, it means violence.
	Okay, so we're not going to do that.
	I'll go watch it and then keep up and just, you know, maybe do a summary tomorrow.
	Tomorrow, by the way, I got Christine Anderson coming on at noon.
	And I'm going to see if I can get another guest.
	But Christine Anderson, the Member of European Parliament, she's coming on.
	We're going to talk.
	And I'll watch the trial today and just give you the summary.
	Because it's painful to watch.
	It's not even an entertaining trial.
	The audio makes it almost impossible to follow.
	And it doesn't make for good live reaction, live stuff.
	But I'll clip and snip and share and then we'll talk about it tomorrow.
	Now!
	In funny news.
	Funny news-ish.
	We're not listening to this whole thing.
	Actually, I'll read the tweet first.
	Because I had to make sure the tweet was mildly accurate.
	I think it is.
	This is James Fishback, who is Incubate Debate, head of Macro Greenlight.
	I don't know what this is.
	Chief Investment Officer, Arizona.
	Oh, no.
	Azoria founder.
	Okay.
	He tweets out, I mean, I guess it's an easy way of getting out of a topic that you absolutely don't understand.
	Because trans people are being genocided by MAGA Republicans, and that is way more important than debating the IMF.
	Okay.
	I won't play the whole thing, but I'll play some of it.
	And I double-checked.
	It was, in fact, the legit debating tournament from 2001.
	I actually judged at the public...
	Speaking competition in Arizona over the summer.
	I'm not sure that you're even allowed props in the debate like audio clips.
	I'm not sure.
	Maybe the rules are different.
	I was trying to actually look up the rules of this particular debate to see if it would be a disqualifiable offense to actually rely on a prop.
	I didn't get an answer to that, but I have that question.
	But regardless, okay, they're playing a clip.
	I've done everything.
	I've called everybody.
	I've got appointments with everybody.
	I've got to come to City Hall and state my case.
	We're dying.
	I don't know that man's name, but I know a little of the hopelessness and the horrible sinking fear in his voice.
	Here's how I prepped for the TOC.
	I woke up a week before and learned that 28 instead of 27 states wanted to kill me.
	The clip I played is from the 1987 act of protest in New York City.
	It was not the first and certainly not the last demonstration of its kind.
	It joins a tradition of trans and queer protest against institutions and to reform communities that are violent and exclusive.
	Setting aside all of the substance, this is a...
	Sorry.
	When we were judging, we were told don't use words like bad or don't use negative words.
	Use like the inverse quality like excellent.
	Great, not as great.
	This presentation requires a lot of improvement for a debate.
	Doing it digitally, Zoom, it's all not easy, not intuitive.
	Eye contact means making contact with the camera, not with your computer, but reading your speech is never a good method of public debate, but whatever, I'm being a little harsh.
	We are here to join this tradition in our own small way, so...
	Welcome to the protest.
	We are tired of how debate treats trans people.
	More than that, we are tired of the way that their treatment is normalized.
	How it is treated as a necessary byproduct of having good discourse.
	When a nationally ranked team...
	The judge is taking notes over here.
	...make trans people uncomfortable in front of an 11-person panel and not be called out for it, something needs to change.
	When a trans kid can go three years in debate believing being misgendered was simply something he needed to take in order to win ballots, something needs to change.
	when almost every trans person quits debate or considers quitting several times a month, several times a week, several times a day, something needs to change.
	First, the framework.
	Status quo political discourse remains fixated on the notion of the child, symbol of a future society we Okay, I think we've...
	I mean, this is...
	I took out the wrong camera.
	Oh, then the counter team then went on to say...
	We concede.
	Victory!
	Everything about this is wrong.
	The coddling of children, the search for victimhood, the valorization of victimhood, the deriving of meaning and social importance through victimhood and not through accomplishments.
	If I were a judge, I'm sure I would have been able to disqualify them for the rules because you have to debate the subject.
	For poetry, that's good.
	I'm not saying that to be demeaning.
	If it were in these oratory competitions, you have debate, you have speech and debate, you have parliamentary debate, two-on-two, one-on-one policy issues, but then you have performance.
	You have interpretation.
	You have one where you use a prop, like anything, and you use it as a prop to symbolize as you go through your speech.
	There are other...
	The methods of getting that message out there without hijacking and bypassing the actual debate.
	Instant disqualification.
	But beyond that, first of all, also not knowing the history of the AIDS epidemic.
	They should read the real Anthony Fauci.
	They might not be necessarily supporting some of the policies that they're doing now.
	They're like Zoom meetings.
	But the constant deriving of importance, value, social status.
	Through victimhood.
	It's astonishing.
	I want to just bring up...
	I didn't have this one on the menu to end with, but we'll do it now anyhow because it's going to be apropos to pull out a little bit of the French.
	A prime example of deriving a sense of self-importance through manufactured victimhood.
	This individual right here.
	Always coming through libs of TikTok, man.
	I don't know how they...
	She's got to have a good network of moles out there that just find these videos and filter them her way.
	This individual...
	I'll play.
	It looks like he's having a nice fist.
	She, her.
	It's okay.
	It's all good.
	It's all good.
	Can you imagine this guy actually just, by the looks of it...
	Set up his camera and asked the chef to explain what he's eating at the restaurant.
	Setting it up, knowing damn well what nine, well, maybe not even 90% of the world would do, but what most people would think, okay, it's not because someone is dressed up effeminately or like a woman that they're not a man.
	I mean, there could be a lot of things going on here.
	Sets it up and asks him, tell the camera what I'm doing, and when the guy does exactly what he knows is going to happen, he then gets offended at being misgendered.
	Looks like he's having a nice feast.
	I mean, it's got to be a gag to get the montage so they can put it on Twitter, but who knows?
	But it was not all good.
	I use she-her pronouns.
	I'm not sir.
	It's like a knife in the heart.
	I did specifically ask ahead of time not to be called sir.
	Yeah, I'm just going to go.
	It's got to be...
	Deliberate to create a gag.
	It's always like a knife.
	It always hurts.
	Every single time.
	I was wondering if there's a manager I could talk to about something that happened?
	Yeah, I was called sir.
	It just really sucks every time it happens.
	I don't need to be called ma 'am.
	I just need to not be called sir.
	I don't need you to follow my specific commands as to what words you will use, but you need to follow my specific commands as to what words you will not use.
	And if you don't, I become a victim.
	I attain social status through that victim, but not through any accomplishments of anything.
	I don't know, maybe the food reviews that he does are actually good.
	But I attain social status, importance, and obedience not through any achievement of my own.
	But only through my victimhood.
	Rubbish is what that is.
	All right, now, let me see what we've got going on here.
	Let's take a little bit of the chat before we come on over to the VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com afterparty.
	The link is there.
	Come join.
	Let's see what's going on in the chat here.
	I'm going to have to read them first.
	Rob A says, Sir, sue them.
	Sigh.
	SGT Justice says, Stupid parents having stupid kids.
	I'm just trying to think.
	When I was a kid, I looked for attention in a variety of ways.
	In the way I dressed, in the color of my hair.
	This is just...
	But, I mean, that's the whole point, actually.
	Kids are stupid.
	I've got three of them.
	They're stupid.
	Some are less stupid than others.
	They look for attention in whatever is the trending, rebellious way of the day.
	And so all that this highlights is that it is a social contagion, period.
	There's nothing about fundamental rights, intrinsic, essential who I am.
	It's a trend.
	And as such, fine, do whatever the hell you want.
	To the extent you're not doing permanent damage, when the permanent damage comes into play, that's when it becomes an issue.
	What color was my hair?
	says Prick and Morton's.
	It was...
	Orange at one point.
	Then it was like this, but streak blonde at another point.
	I think I put together a picture of the various hairs of Viva Frye.
	It's in the locals community.
	I know Talix, our meme master, put something together.
	At one point, I dyed it pink for a day, and then I cut it.
	It didn't look very good.
	Okay, what else have we got in the chat here?
	Alex Stein needs a video like this.
	Microplastics No Bueno says Canadian Picker.
	I've actually heard people talk about endocrine disruptors.
	Dude, um...
	Okay, I don't know if this...
	I'm not going to read it.
	Joe56984.
	Hold on.
	Joe56984.
	Oh, let's see this here.
	Greta...
	It can't be true.
	Okay, it's not true.
	Jeez, Louise.
	I was going to read it out loud and then someone's going to quote me as having spread disinformation.
	I can just hear Mama Fry Kvetchy.
	That's from Megaland Marco.
	Okay, so that's it.
	Everybody, I haven't missed any Rumble Rants.
	We're going to go over to Locals, do our after-party, then I'm going to go start getting ready for Halloween.
	Oh, I seem to have missed a chat here.
	Okay, that's it.
	So let's go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Everyone, go enjoy Halloween.
	The torturous Halloween where kids start eating candy, compulsively feel sick, don't sleep well, and then they wake up the next morning, give me candy.
	It'll be good.
	So go, enjoy the day.
	I'm heading over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Tomorrow, I'll either go live at 11.30 or noon, but either way, Christine Anderson, that extremist, she's coming on my channel again.
	We're going to talk for a bit, so I'm either going to go live at 11.30, do a little intro, then have Christine on for max one hour, I think.
	And then maybe I'll just do another synopsis of today of the trial and see whatever else is going on.
	I Like Fish says, haha, Viva got tired of this gloriously toxic chat.
	Dude, everywhere.
	It's everywhere.
	It's not rumble.
	YouTube chat is toxic.
	Twitter replies toxic.
	It'll blow over.
	It's just like now it's just...
	It makes discussion virtually impossible.
	So all that to say, I will see you all tomorrow if you're not coming over to VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	Thank you for being here.
	Go check out Nierman live coverage.
	Quartering.
	Bongino, go watch what he did this morning, this afternoon.
	It's endless live streaming information.
	Broaden your horizon.
	Understand the world.
	And try to laugh where laughter is still humanly possible in this world of ever darkness.
	But it's always darkest before the dawn or before the full blackout.
	Go enjoy the day if you're not coming over to Locals.
	Peace out, everybody.
	See you soon.
	Did I do it?
	Yeah, I did.
	Okay.
	Locals.
	Oh, did he say...
	What is going to be obnoxious?
	Okay, we got Mighty Pay.
	All right, everybody.
	Good to see you.

▲