Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 2, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

01:29:58

Don Jr. Testifies! Trumps Colorado Persecution Continues! Oral Sex Causes CANCER? Viva Frei

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Can you just look at that face?
	Not the reporter.
	The dude next to the reporter.
	Okay.
	Playing without comment.
	I'll make a little comment.
	I'm going to take my ugly face out of this.
	People listening on podcasts are going to have no idea what's going on.
	I'm sorry.
	It's the cutest thing on the face of the planet.
	Dog accidentally attends news interview.
	There's a reporter.
	I don't know what the context is.
	I don't know if this is a mashup.
	There's a dog de Bordeaux.
	I mean, it can't be a mashup.
	Look at the reporter.
	Look at that face.
	Look at that.
	I'm sorry.
	No, stop.
	Don't.
	Don't.
	I'm sorry.
	If anybody looks at that face and doesn't want to grab it by the muscular cheekbones and kiss him right on the tip of his...
	Mushy snout.
	And his face is cockeyed, no less.
	His muzzle.
	His nose is like one inch to the left.
	I want it.
	Oh.
	And the reporter.
	I mean, he's...
	The dog just ate him.
	The dog.
	Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
	Alright, that is my new go-to.
	Oh my goodness, that's my new go-to for a good laugh, a soul-cleansing laugh.
	Holy cows.
	So for those who don't know, that dog that you were just looking at, Turner and Hooch, Dog de Bordeaux, a French Mastiff.
	Oh, I grew up with Bull Mastiffs.
	We had one English Mastiff growing up, and we had a disgusting Airedale, who was a very nice, very smart dog.
	His name was Samson.
	Now that I remember this and how things have come full circle.
	We had an Airedale, an English Mastiff, and then a series of Bull Mastiffs.
	I love those dogs.
	I love their faces.
	That little part where the lips meet up under the nose of that bridge.
	Like, okay, Winston's cute.
	Look at these.
	Look at these.
	Hold on.
	Let me just clean my camera here.
	Like, my dogs are cute.
	They're cute.
	But they're no Bull Mastiff.
	They're no Dog de Bordeaux.
	They're no majestic, stupid dogs.
	Okay.
	Good day, everybody.
	Donald Hopp.
	We have to start with a laugh because it's all downhill from here, people.
	Let me see.
	Hi, Viva.
	Dark Star.
	And nobody wants to kiss those dogs on the face.
	I tell you this.
	I do not understand how someone looks at those dogs.
	Pugs.
	French Bulldogs, Mastiffs, and does not feel joy and happiness.
	I don't understand it.
	To each their own.
	I don't judge them for it.
	Good day, everyone.
	Indeed.
	All right.
	We're starting at an odd time.
	I'm trying to find the best time to go live that I can manage with my schedule.
	I'm on day two of solo parenting for the rest of the week because my wife is out of town.
	Holy cows, is parenting a two-person job?
	I'll say this over and over again.
	Parenting is a two-person job.
	Many of you know I was at the premier of Dinesh D'Souza's police state at Mar-a-Lago last night.
	I'll play a couple of clips in there because there's some fun stuff.
	One of our kids is old enough to babysit the other two, but my goodness, it's like, kids, I said it before, and I'll say it again.
	Kids are idiots.
	If it were up to kids, they wouldn't sleep, they wouldn't bathe, and they would eat candy all day long.
	So I had already seen Dinesh D'Souza's Police State.
	I got a sneak preview and did an interview with him in the local studio.
	It's a must-watch.
	It's exclusively on Rumble, and so everyone should be watching it there.
	It's a must-watch.
	It's an amazing documentary.
	It might not be as much news for those of us who have been paying attention.
	It might not be as much news for those of us who have been paying attention, because a lot of the stuff in it, you know, describing the degree to which we've become a police state where pro-life activists get raided by the FBI, January Sixers get locked up in jail, entrapment, all sorts of stuff.
	But for those who are not aware of it, it might be too much for them to handle.
	They're going to watch this and they're going to say, it has to be inaccurate, it has to be exaggerated.
	Oh, look at that, it's reenactments, it's not how it happened.
	It's a must-watch.
	So I went to Mar-a-Lago, left the kids with one baby sitting, and then I had to come back a little early, which is probably all for the better because nothing good happens after 10 o 'clock at night.
	And Wayne by the fire says, we've been in a police state for over a decade.
	You people are just waking up.
	Wayne, some people are going to look at you and say, we've been in a police state for two decades, and you only woke up a decade ago.
	I say that tongue-in-cheek.
	You're very right.
	I'm very wet behind the ears.
	My mild awakening began in 2015 to 2016, and it's been on steroids ever since.
	But even those who think that they have been awake for the last 10 years, those of us who were out there protesting the Patriot Act in 2001 were saying, welcome to the party, pal.
	Okay, so what's going to happen today?
	For those of you who are new to the channel, we are...
	Viva Fry?
	I go by the pronouns we, they, just because.
	I'm joking.
	I'm Viva Fry.
	We start off on YouTube, Rumble, and vivabarneslaw.locals.com, and I'm going to make sure that we're live there, which we are.
	Good.
	After a certain period of time, because I'm exclusive with Rumble, we end on YouTube and we all divert everyone over to Rumble.
	Not so that I can discuss stuff that I wouldn't discuss on YouTube, though every now and again it happens I did an interview with Jessica Rose, PhD, talking about the recent discovery of DNA materials in the Jibby Jab.
	I'm not taking it.
	I did an interview with Dr. Drew.
	I don't want to take a chance on YouTube saying, sorry, Dr. Drew, the medical professional, gave medical disinformation as dictated by non-medically licensed social media platform.
	I'm not messing around.
	But I put the entire stream up, by and large, the next day or later in the day on YouTube.
	Clips on Viva Clips.
	It goes on podcast 98% of the time.
	The podcast is on Podbean, and it goes to all the platforms called...
	Viva and Barnes Law for the People.
	And that's it.
	That's it.
	So today on the menu, we're going to go from kissing dog faces to apparently contracting cancer through oral sex.
	We're going to start off with the fun one.
	And this came from our vivabarneslaw.locals.com community yesterday in the exclusive after party after...
	The Rumble.
	So we go YouTube, end on YouTube, go exclusively to Rumble.
	Then we end the entire day's stream on Rumble and go to vivabarneslaw.locals.com for an exclusive afterparty, take questions, and interact with our Locals community.
	Did I give everyone the link to Rumble?
	It's the pinned comment, so go check it out.
	Yeah, it's the pinned comment.
	Hold on, now I'm hearing myself talk about the dog.
	So we're going to start off with the lighthearted stuff.
	Getting, apparently, throat cancer from oral sex.
	Just because if I wasn't already...
	Look, I'm a married man.
	These questions no longer apply to me.
	All you young people out there engaging in flippant oral copulists know what's out there.
	Diseases at every turn.
	Then we're going to go back to the Trumps.
	Stuff.
	The Trump trial in New York.
	Don Trump Jr. testifying.
	He wasn't able to, as far as I know, he didn't get to the Mar-a-Lago last night because he was up in New York testifying for Leticia James.
	The Colorado trial.
	A gong show of a kangaroo court of a sham Kafkaesque nonsense.
	I'm watching it so you don't have to.
	Joe Nierman, Good Logic, is covering it live so you can go do that with him if you're so inclined.
	And then there's some other stuff.
	What do I have on the backdrop here?
	Don Trump Jr.
	Wait a minute.
	Where are all my bookmarks?
	Oh, crap.
	Well, we've got some other stuff.
	We'll get to it.
	There's a super chat.
	I haven't given the disclaimers.
	Ever notice Judge Engron looks like Anthony Fauci started gender transitioning and just quit halfway?
	No, I notice that Judge Engron looks like the Fonz?
	Henry Winkler?
	Hold on.
	Let me see if I can pull this up while we're on the subject.
	Everybody out there, so you know.
	YouTube takes 30% of all Super Chats.
	And Rumble has their Rumble Rants equivalent.
	And they take 20%, except for the rest of the year, they take 0%.
	Best way to support the channel.
	Yeah, dude, I'm telling you this.
	Judge Engeron looks more like Henry Winkler.
	Or, yeah, Henry Winkler?
	Looks more like Henry Winkler.
	This particular picture.
	Okay, Henry Winkler, the Fonz.
	Oh my goodness, look what time does to you.
	Time does things to your face and body.
	That's Henry Winkler.
	And let's go with Arthur Engeron.
	Images.
	Dude, I'm telling you, he looks more like Henry Winkler than he does Anthony Fauci.
	All right, well, that's it.
	That's Judge Engeron.
	So, yes, Florida Dad, thank you very much for the super chat.
	All right, we're going to start with the lighthearted stuff before we go over to...
	To the YouTubes.
	Now, I'm really wondering, did I get the...
	Oh, yeah.
	Oh, here's all my links, people.
	Let's start off on something that children should know about.
	Young adults, people who are in the dating sphere.
	This is an article that was shared in our locals community yesterday, and I had a mild...
	I was taken a bit aback, and then I realized where it's going, and a lot of people who are smarter than me knew exactly where this was going before the...
	Sensationalist headline coming out of the New York Post.
	Oral sex is worse than smoking for throat cancer, doctor claims.
	It's a TikTok video, but everybody seemingly knew where this was going except for me because I've been out of the dating market for 25 years.
	HPV, human papillom virus.
	Okay, that's where this is going.
	And apparently men contract it.
	We'll read it.
	So there's a TikTok star, a young doctor.
	Says oral sex is a greater risk factor than smoking in the development of throat cancer.
	Now, many people out there might have been saying, what in the heck is going on here?
	Dr. Daria Sadovskaya made the declaration in a viral TikTok video, despite the American Cancer Society citing tobacco use as the number one factor for the illness known as oropharyngeal cancer.
	So whether or not it's smoking or...
	Oral sex and the HPV virus that is communicated through the act.
	Get married young.
	Stay married.
	Keep your schmeckle in your pants.
	And...
	Yeah.
	Are you saying oral sex has proven to be the number one cause of throat cancer?
	Says one TikTok user asked Sarovskaya, who responded bluntly by saying, I said what I said.
	The American Cancer Society, however...
	Does cite oral sex as one potential cause of throat cancer?
	Given the HPV, commonly known as HPV, the human papillomavirus, papillomavirus, can be transmitted during the act.
	Things you don't think about.
	HPV is the most commonly sexually transmitted infection with an estimated 13 million new cases each year.
	Apparently, men get HPV through oral sex more than women because women can carry it.
	Not knowing it, and then men do things and then get it in their throats and it causes throat cancer.
	I've never heard of this stuff before.
	While HPV usually goes away on its own within two years, most people don't realize they have it, meaning they can unrelease...
	Okay, fine.
	We'll get to the punchline of this, which I, you know...
	Said yesterday in our locals community.
	Men are more likely to develop throat cancer performing oral sex on women as women are more likely to carry the HPV virus in their genitalia, Sadowskaya stated.
	Indeed, men were more significantly impacted by HPV-linked oropharyngeal cancer with diagnosis rates rising 2.8% annually from 2015 to 2019.
	Then we go down here and we see why is...
	Kirk Douglas.
	No, Michael Douglas, sorry.
	Why is Michael Douglas in this article?
	Here's why.
	The experts video clocked up 52,000 views, but one user said they weren't prepared to give up oral sex despite thrills.
	This won't stop me, they brazenly declared.
	Actor Michael Douglas told The Guardian back in 2013 that oral sex was the cause of his throat cancer.
	I made the joke yesterday that that's one heck of a humble flex.
	That's like, yep, I got throat cancer, and it was from performing too much cunnilingus on young, attractive women.
	That's what Michael Douglas said.
	Without getting too specific, this particular is caused by HIV, which actually comes about from cunnilingus, he stated at the time.
	And then we get into the stats.
	Oh, boy.
	According to data from the Center of Disease...
	Control and prevention.
	41% of teens from 15 to 19 participate in oral sex.
	Young people ages 15 to 24 were responsible for nearly half of the 26 million new STD infections in the United States in 2018.
	All right.
	I already told you I have an irrational fear of disease.
	Like, irrational?
	When I was interviewing Dr. Drew and he was talking about the trauma that the AIDS epidemic left on that generation.
	And I was brought up in the 80s with a neurotic mother.
	And I remember sitting on toilet seats in disgusting movie theaters thinking I might have just contracted something by sitting in someone's pee.
	Now we know that that's an exaggeration, although I think I have read at least one or two cases of something confirmed along those lines.
	That's the news, people.
	So do with it.
	Think you want to do with that useful piece of information?
	Oh, boy.
	The world is not safe in any way, shape, or form.
	Find out people fall into the local Florida ponds and they get brain-eating amoebas.
	Despising sushi is now justified.
	Jeremiah underscore dick...
	Dude, don't make me say that.
	You didn't make me say that.
	I know that I've never seen that.
	That name before, but Jeremiah's...
	Thank you.
	And good luck with the rest of that.
	So that's the lighthearted stuff of the day.
	Do we want to cover one idiotic case before we go over to Rumble?
	Or do we go over...
	No, I'll give a fair warning here.
	I'll give everybody the link to Rumble.
	And we'll cover...
	We'll cover the New York bullshit case.
	I'm sorry!
	I said I wasn't going to swear, but holy crap, the world has gone crazy.
	No, we're going to do all of the Trump stuff.
	Over on Rumble.
	What we're going to start with here is I'm going to play a clip from yesterday's event at Mar-a-Lago.
	I'm putting together a short video.
	It's going to be humorous, and I told our locals community.
	I don't know how well it's going to turn out because I didn't get to go around Mar-a-Lago as much as I wanted to.
	Apparently Secret Service was telling me not to go there.
	They didn't tell me that, but I wasn't taking any chances.
	Mar-a-Lago, I had never been there before.
	Stunningly beautiful.
	Beyond words, if you're into that type of stuff.
	I am a bit of an idiot.
	My grandfather always said it's better to be an hour early than a minute late.
	And I left well too early to have like an hour advance, you know, just in case.
	And I needed it because I didn't put in the address for Mar-a-Lago.
	I put in the Civic address, which is on South Ocean Boulevard.
	But there are two civic addresses with the same South Ocean Boulevard.
	One is in Delray Beach, and the other one is Mar-a-Lago.
	And I get to the one on Delray Beach, and I'm like, Mar-a-Lago doesn't look as good as everybody said it looked.
	All right.
	So it was beautiful.
	But before we go over to Rumble, where the party shall continue, we're going to talk about the Judge Engeron persecution, the Colorado latest.
	It's nonsense.
	And for everybody who's watching, I'm going to be hosting the Alex Jones show tomorrow, InfoWars, tomorrow from noon to two, Eastern Time.
	So that's making me a little stressed.
	I've never done that.
	I'm not used to the cues, the commercial countdowns, the pauses.
	I'm used to just rambling, doing whatever the hell I want.
	Tomorrow, noon to two, and I think we're going to co-stream it on my platform as well, but I'm going to host because I think Alex Jones is out of town.
	So, noon to two, InfoWars.com with Viva Frye.
	The premier, police state, Dinesh D'Souza.
	Chris Pawlowski gave an opening statement, and I don't know why I didn't record it.
	I thought I did, but I think it was on picture, because I had one picture instead of his opening speech.
	Chris Pawlowski comes out.
	He's been saying a lot lately.
	Could he have ever thought that this young...
	Innocent child from Ontario, Canada, would be at the forefront of a battle of information involving governments going after him and his company.
	Could he have ever anticipated that in 2012, 2013, when Rumble was a kitty and doggy, cute, viral platform?
	I doubt it.
	But he is there.
	Whether he likes it or not, and I think he likes it, and I think he's thriving off of it.
	But Bongino gave a great opening statement as well, as did Dinesh D'Souza.
	But we'll let Bongino's words of wisdom play, then we'll run on over to Rumble.
	Are we looking at the same screen?
	Yeah, we are.
	Okay, here we go.
	Enjoy.
	I have a few thank yous.
	I just want to thank Dinesh for thinking about this with this project.
	I've actually known Dinesh for a long time, and my career's come full circle.
	It's kind of a funny story.
	I met him at CPAC right before the Obama documentary, one of the largest grossing documentaries of all time came out.
	Dinesh asked me to be in the movies.
	You're a secret service guy?
	You even run for office?
	You know what happened?
	I forgot to return his email.
	This is...
	First of all, is there any more of a New York thing than "Paul, am I kidding?
	Come on!" I mean, it's beautiful.
	I love his accent.
	And I need to do an interview with...
	Bongino, because my goodness, does he have a history that is fascinating.
	Thank you for all you've done.
	I want to thank my beautiful wife.
	And by the way, Paula, as you can see, I married up.
	I did quite well.
	It's not often a 10 marries a 6, right?
	So I did okay.
	We averaged out.
	It's like an 8. But she takes chances on me all the time.
	Dinesh called and told me about the project.
	You know, my wife's kind of brains in the operation.
	I'm more the emotion.
	She was like, we're in.
	That was it.
	She knew how important it was.
	I also want to thank my good friend, Chris Pawlowski from Rumble.
	And I want you all to understand.
	If it wasn't for this guy and his idea to create a free speech, free expression platform on YouTube, you wouldn't be seeing this movie online.
	Take no mistake.
	This guy's got a lot of guts.
	You know, governments have come after him.
	That's not a conspiracy theory.
	He's real.
	And he'll call me up and he said, "I know what I gotta do." And he said, "We ain't taking that stuff now." And not just one government, a lot of them.
	Friends.
	movies in the city.
	I want to thank Kyle, Steve Friend, Marcus Allen, Garrett, George, and everyone else who had the guts to leave their job and walk away like that again.
	But I want It's not a table cloth.
	It's not a curtain.
	It's not a face napkin.
	I was supposed to stand for something.
	And that something's wiggling away.
	Because we're a country where you investigate crimes.
	Correct, Kyle?
	And you go and look for the people.
	No one ever walked in Kyle's FBI office and said, I want you to investigate jacked bag of donuts because I don't like them.
	That's not the way this works, man.
	I'll tell you something that's even more amazing.
	It's not even the way it works where they don't even have to say that.
	It's known.
	Who's our rival?
	Joe Biden's not saying go after him.
	It's known.
	It's part of the overall scheme.
	And we're going to see it with Trump.
	You don't investigate people.
	I didn't go look for a crime.
	You do in communist Russia.
	You do in fascist regimes.
	You do in police states.
	Show me the man.
	I'll show you the crime.
	I want you to keep that in mind as you're watching this movie.
	I've seen it a few times, and every single time it gets one.
	I hope you enjoy it.
	It's not an easy movie to watch, but it's a necessary one.
	I hope you enjoy the film.
	And that's the modest opera hall, or I forget what it was called, the ceremony hall of Mar-a-Lago.
	Just one of the many units on that one Florida unit block.
	18 to 27 million bucks.
	Amazing.
	And that's it.
	Alright, I'm going to go take a seat right now.
	Who is that?
	Alright, that's it.
	That's it.
	So that was the Bongino's opening.
	Then they played the movie.
	I ducked out a little early to apparently get back because some kid wouldn't go to bed without me.
	And then by the time we get back...
	Oh, no!
	Candy!
	Wrappers everywhere.
	The dog threw up a candy wrapper.
	Okay.
	I don't know why the number continues to go up on YouTube.
	It should be going down on YouTube.
	Link to Rumble.
	Yeah, looking good.
	Well, it was a black tie.
	They said black tie optional.
	And my understanding was when Mar-a-Lago says black tie optional, don't show up in merch shirts.
	Although Luke Rudkowski was wearing his shirts, he's got cojones.
	But, like, I have a black suit.
	I have a black tie.
	I just didn't have a white shirt.
	I got that stupid Simon's shirt.
	Okay, ending it now.
	Come on over to Rumble.
	No, no, the number's got to go down.
	Police date.
	Show me the man.
	I'll show you the crime.
	Fabricate a crime.
	Fabricate a fraud.
	Fabricate an insurrection.
	Fabricate everything so that you can get what you want in the end.
	The ends justify the means, even if it means burning down the institutions and ruling over the ashes.
	We'll get into it.
	Ending on YouTube in 3, 2, 1, now.
	We Viva le Viva.
	Okay, I'll take that.
	Now let's make sure that we're good here.
	And let's see if the number is looking right over here.
	Okay, good.
	And there's one Rumble rant, which we'll look at before we get started.
	Oh, man.
	I'm not saying I'm having chest pains because it's not in the chest.
	I've been having muscular pectoral pains.
	Don't know if it's from all those curls I've been doing.
	I did a thousand.
	I don't know if you heard me.
	Off-topic, Viva.
	How can I change my name on Rumble?
	If it's from all those...
	Stop that.
	I don't know how it got changed.
	I'm Sharon.
	Let me screen grab that because I've got two questions for Chris.
	People wanted also to order their subscriptions in alphabetical order.
	Okay.
	Let's start with New York.
	Trump.
	The latest.
	There will be no meaningful update until this trial is over.
	This trial, I mean, he's already been found guilty of fraud.
	That's what the media is running with because it's true to some extent, fraud on the Mar-a-Lago.
	He's been Alex Jones, the Alex Jones, Donald Trump.
	They found him guilty on summary judgment of fraud.
	No need for any, you know, trial.
	It's a matter of fact.
	I think it's a matter of law.
	As a matter of law, there were no tribal issues of fact.
	Guilty on the Mar-a-Lago fraud.
	That's where the Judge Engeron, whose backtracking defense was, I never said the property was worth $18 million.
	No, you relied on the county appraisal of Mar-a-Lago, which had it appraised at $18 to $27 million for different reasons, as the basis to say Trump fraudulently inflated the market value of the property.
	Okay.
	So there's going to be no meaningful news in this because it's a sham of a trial.
	Leticia James exploiting the gag order that Engeron has imposed on Trump and sanctioned him twice for.
	Leticia James takes to Twitter daily with her Orwellian summaries of what did or did not actually happen during the day.
	The latest developments in this trial are that the, I want to say prosecution, but it's a civil matter, the...
	Attorney General's office has subpoenaed Ivanka, Eric, and Don Trump Jr. to testify.
	Ivanka, as far as I understood, sought to quash her subpoena.
	And the judge dismissed the quashing of her subpoena.
	Ivanka Trump quashed subpoena Engron.
	And I'm fairly certain...
	Yeah, here, look at this.
	I'm fairly certain it was Judge Engron who refused to quash...
	The subpoena to compel Ivanka and others to testify.
	Donald Trump Jr. will testify in fraud trial on November.
	Oh, Donald.
	That's Don Trump.
	Okay, hold on.
	Ivanka.
	Let's see.
	She should be in here.
	Judge Artur Engelon found that Ivanka Trump is still intertwined with her father's businesses and must take the witness stand.
	Okay, let's get rid of that now.
	This is from six days ago, so this is not the latest.
	October 27th.
	Donald Trump is slated to testify in a civil trial file.
	Fine, we knew that.
	Let's see here.
	The news comes just days after Donald Trump was forced to the witness stand for his impromptu hearing on whether or not he violated the gag order.
	We talked about that.
	On Friday morning, Engeron ruled that Ivanka Trump will still have to testify in her father's civil fraud trial, despite her lawyer's effort to quash the subpoena requiring her to do so.
	Engeron sided with the Attorney General's office.
	What a surprise!
	You have all the tools in your, uh...
	Arsenal to carry out whatever bias he happened to have in this trial, one of which is compelling the daughter to testify, not against the father, but effectively against the father.
	Engeron sided with the Attorney General's office in finding that Ivanka Trump is still entangled in Donald Trump's businesses because she was dismissed as a defendant over the summer.
	He noted that Ivanka will have the opportunity to appeal his decision, however, as she wouldn't be taking the witness stand before next week.
	Last week, Ivanka Trump's lawyers filed a 12-paid letter asking the court to strike down her subpoena to testify on the grounds that she's no longer a defendant.
	Trial subpoenas are not a means for parties to get discovery, which they failed to obtain during pretrial proceedings.
	That's a very, very decent argument.
	You could have deposed her before the trial.
	At least, I mean, look, in my limited understanding of whatever procedure they're describing here, because I'm only a Quebec-trained certified...
	Well, I'm only a Quebec-trained attorney.
	No longer practicing.
	The New York Attorney General, which never deposed Ms. Trump, is effectively trying to force her back into this case from which she was dismissed.
	Then they file a station remains...
	The memo notes that despite her apparent efforts to distance herself from the Trump organization and her family, she continues to benefit from her proximity to them.
	She still uses the company to purchase insurance for her and her businesses, oversees her personal staff, and its credit card bills.
	Oh my goodness, terrible.
	So she'll be compelled to testify.
	As it stands now, Don Trump Jr. took the stand.
	Nothing much happened.
	And Eric, as of the time, as we're going live now, is on the stand.
	And I have been following, I'm going to forget his name, Adam Classfeld.
	I have been following Adam Classfeld's real-time, what do we call it?
	Tweet scripts?
	I've been following him real-time.
	He's doing amazing stuff.
	Basically, I mean, there's two people, and I forget the other name, and I know that Robert Gavea also constantly cites him, who are doing real-time tweeting of this, so you can get as much of a glimpse as to what's going on in the courtroom as humanly possible.
	Don Trump Jr. testified.
	We'll pull up a few of his tweets later, but I wanted to pull this one up because this is what happened yesterday, I want to say?
	November 1st.
	Yes, this is what happened yesterday.
	Oh, this is amazing.
	So they had an expert.
	Let me see this.
	I'm going to read.
	This is Adam Classfeld.
	The quote, Trump Organization's fraudulent statements.
	Oh, this is why I brought it up.
	This is the basis of Attorney General Leticia James' claim of fraud here.
	I'm going to explain it in a bit.
	People are saying, well, where's the fraud?
	I mean, this is the question.
	Like that old ad from the 80s, where's the beef?
	Where's the fraud?
	Trump overvalued assets, and the claim is he defrauded the state of New York.
	How?
	Okay.
	One aspect of the fraud, and we're seeing it right now, is that the banks didn't collect as much interest as they would have had he properly valued his assets.
	Because the argument goes, he says, look, my properties are worthless.
	Give round numbers.
	They're not accurate numbers.
	A billion.
	Okay, well, they're worth a billion.
	We're going to lend you a ton of money.
	And because we're lending you, let's just say, a billion dollars, well, we'll charge you 3.5% interest instead of 4.5% interest, which is what we would have charged you if you were borrowing a lesser amount, say, 100 million.
	So the argument goes that by...
	Fraudulently inflating the values of his properties, he got a preferential, a beneficial interest rate that the bank wouldn't have afforded had he properly evaluated his assets at their actual, allegedly, value.
	Okay.
	Quote from Adam Klasfeld's tweet.
	Trump Organization's fraudulent statements cost banks $168 million in interest.
	Attorney General's financial expert testifies, end quote.
	And then they provide a chart.
	Here is the expert's chart on what the banks charged versus what they would have had they known Trump's true wealth.
	And then we got this here.
	And we're going to bring this up.
	I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to see this in real time.
	What they charged versus what they would have charged.
	How am I going to see this?
	Oh, so here I guess.
	Okay, so the interest delta.
	So that's what they charged, and they didn't get as much money as they would have.
	I'm not even sure I understand how this works out, but let's just take it at face value.
	They did not get $168 million in interest that they would have gotten had he told them the truth, and I'm putting that in quotes for anybody who's listening, about the actual, in quotes, value of his assets.
	My question to that would be, the idea here is, we'll lend you a billion at 3.5% interest or 500 million at 4.5% interest because we would never have lent you a billion at 3.5% interest.
	We would have charged you 4.5%.
	Who's to say he would have borrowed the same amount of money for that delta to have ever been achieved in the first place?
	The idea is, like, a bank will say to you, you need money to buy a house.
	We'll lend you a million bucks at...
	3.5% interest because your wealth is X and we feel reasonably assured you'll pay us back.
	Oh, well, we would have charged you 4.5% had we known the reality.
	So you would have owed us that.
	Well, I might not have borrowed the million if I was going to pay 4.5% instead of 3.5%.
	So the hypothetical is on what they allegedly would have charged you by way of interest and the hypothetical that he would have still taken the loan at that rate.
	It's preposterous.
	And when you understand that at the end of the day, what you have here...
	Is the Attorney General fighting for the itty-bitty banks who didn't collect enough interest from Donald Trump's loans?
	That's what's going on here.
	That's the fraud.
	The other argument is that, flip it around, he would have paid $168 million more so he would have been impoverished to the tune of $168 million had he paid the interest that the banks would have charged him that we presuppose he would have paid had he told him the truth about his assets.
	It's bullshit of the highest order.
	Sorry to swear.
	That's the expert.
	Had he told the truth, we would have charged him an inflated interest rate and he would have paid it.
	That's what it means.
	That's what it's predicated on.
	I don't think they understand that.
	Oh, that was actually what I said in this tweet.
	But would he have borrowed the same amount?
	Okay, whatever.
	I sufficiently made the point.
	Okay, that's the crux of the argument of the Crown.
	Okay.
	Then Don Jr. gets on the stand.
	Hold on, where are the tweets of Don Jr.?
	Oh, I don't think there's many, there's not many tweets from Don Jr. that I have here in the back, but let's just summarize Klasfeld's summary of Don Jr.'s tweets.
	He gets on the stand, and they're basically trying to get Don Jr. to say, you signed off on this, and you knew that the values were not proper.
	I mean, it didn't even last that long, is the ultimate point of it.
	You knew that the numbers were wrong.
	You signed off on this.
	And he's saying, well, I was relying on the advice of accountants.
	And that's it.
	And they said at one point, you've got to read this.
	Trump will likely testify.
	Oh, where is it?
	They talked about a subsequent sale of, or subsequent transfer of one of the golf courses to Bali's entertainment, one of Trump's golf courses.
	They said that transfer was predicated on the inaccurate assessments of the value of that golf course.
	It is so backwards in that they're basically saying we're determining what the fair market value is based on our own numbers and disregarding what consenting adults and massive corporations and banks agree to among themselves.
	The idea that the banks did not do their own internal evaluations is preposterous.
	The idea that Bally's was fraudulently induced into...
	The transfer of the property based on Don Jr.'s own assessment to fair market, and not his own, but that which his accountant has provided, is preposterous.
	But I'm making the prediction now, and I do hope to be wrong.
	Part of me, the ever-increasing cynic in all of this, has a feeling that part and parcel of the reason for which they're getting the children to testify is to try to find some reason to hold them, I don't know, in perjury.
	They're going to go through this testimony and they're going to try to find another basis to go after any one of the kids after this is done.
	That's my prediction.
	We'll see if it occurs or if it doesn't occur.
	And so Eric Jr., Eric Trump is on the stand today.
	We'll see where that goes.
	Actually, let's just see.
	In real time, if we can see what the Klassfeld's...
	Where are we?
	What's going on here?
	Can't find my...
	Can't find my Twitter timeline.
	Okay, here we go.
	Let's get Adam Klosfeld.
	See, like, we go like this here, you see?
	It's fantastic.
	You know, the next best thing to getting a camera in the courtroom is Klosfeld in real-time tweeting.
	So we got here.
	Eric Trump's sworn denials take a hit in civil fraud trial after Don Jr.'s testimony wraps.
	Eric Trump claims he had nothing to do with the docs at the heart of the case.
	Emails suggest otherwise.
	Lunch recess more soon.
	Okay, well, that's it.
	Earlier, Eric Trump flatly denied having, quote, anything to do with his father's statements of financial condition.
	Amer confronts him with then-Trump or controller Jeff McConnell's August 2023 email to him.
	I'm working on your dad's annual financial statement.
	Another email.
	I'm working on notes from Mr. Trump's annual financial statements, and I'd like to include any major construction work that was started, completed, etc., etc.
	Ah, can you imagine?
	Someone says semantics.
	It's a witch hunt.
	Nothing short, nothing less.
	It's a witch hunt.
	So Leticia James will take to Twitter later on today, fully exploiting that gag order, and she'll give her version of the events.
	While the trial is going on, without using words like alleged fraud, she'll use words like fraud.
	And she'll be allowed to do so because Engron, on summary judgment, has already concluded an element of fraud as relates to Mar-a-Lago.
	The value of which, as per the appraiser, $18-27 million.
	And if you go there, for anybody who's had to redo windows of a house or a roof of a house, I think it would be $18-20 million to re-shingle, to re-clay tile all of the roofs on that property.
	To rebuild it?
	Forget about it.
	Okay.
	That's that.
	That's the latest from New York.
	Let's just go see what we got in the chat.
	Chrissy Kingdom says, it's also corrupt upside of the down.
	If you had any doubts, you don't know.
	We got Snoopy the dog said, he's my favorite fiction.
	That's a Lily Tomlin quote, says 251 Omega.
	Yes, no matter how cynical you get, it's tough to keep up.
	It's in my Twitter bio.
	Description.
	The whole thing is a railroad job.
	Yeah, well, there's a video circulating which doesn't necessarily say what some people are suggesting it says of DeSantis seemingly to not be categorically opposed to the idea that if Trump gets convicted, he should still be on the ballot.
	I don't think it goes quite so far as to say that he suggests he should be taken off the ballot on the primaries if he is convicted.
	But DeSantis categorically saying if Trump is convicted, he's got no chance that the general...
	Which I think is wrong.
	I think it's a wildly inaccurate prediction assessment.
	I think it's actually probably the inverted, the inverse.
	Thereafter, they just want a conviction.
	They just want a conviction.
	They just need one.
	It's going to be one little hit of that conviction.
	You know what's going to happen?
	Prediction number two.
	See how many I can get right today.
	Although they might not go to trial in time.
	Inasmuch as I predicted that the New York hush money payment indictment was not going to be the one-off.
	The only one they needed and they'll be happy with.
	It was going to be the small domino pushing all the others over.
	And it led to what it's led to.
	Now, six indictments.
	New York, New York, D.C., Florida, Georgia, and Colorado's not an indictment.
	But they're going to get one conviction after another to the extent any of these go to trial.
	I've qualified my prediction, so if it doesn't go to trial, I'll be right.
	Because it was, they'll get convictions if it goes to trial.
	They just want one lick of that sweet, sweet conviction.
	And despite the fact that they don't even have one, they're still moving on removing Trump from the ballot for insurrection.
	Even there, there has been no conviction of insurrection, no charge of insurrection.
	And all there has been, making a gesture that someone's going to use, is an acquittal on an impeachment for inciting an insurrection.
	They have an acquittal on the charge.
	No charge and no conviction in a criminal court.
	That's enough for them to remove him from the ballot in Colorado, which is where we're going right now.
	Okay.
	Oh, deep breaths, cleansing air, down to the diaphragm.
	Joe Nierman.
	Oh, I got to pull this up.
	I don't think I put this in my backdrop.
	But Joe Nierman, good logic, the following program on Twitter, has been doing a live stream commentary of this.
	I find it too painful to do.
	The audio from the court in Colorado sucks.
	This is the civil case to have Trump removed from the ballot by six concerned voting citizens, four of whom are Republican, allegedly.
	They want to have Trump removed from the ballot.
	The trial is being streamed, which is where some of this confusion comes from.
	I should say, the trial is being broadcast on the interwebs.
	The audio sucks.
	Impossible to hear.
	Impossible to follow.
	Very unpleasant to actually do a live commentary.
	Joe's doing it.
	And kudos to him.
	Yesterday...
	And this brings back a memory for me, but this is what happened yesterday as Joe is livestream commentating on the Colorado trial.
	And who did they have on...
	Well, we'll get to it later.
	Here, listen.
	I'm not going to play the whole five-minute clip, but you'll see the look of terror in Joe's face in a second.
	Your honor, while we're waiting.
	There's one issue.
	We've been informed that somebody is live streaming the court proceedings on the internet without permission to record it and do commentary as it goes beyond the scope of who's there.
	I don't know how to get in touch with them, but maybe an admonition.
	Look at Joe's face.
	I know exactly what Joe's feeling right now.
	Once upon a time in Canada, there was a case and they said specifically No rebroadcast of the video or audio.
	No taking pictures.
	No publishing pictures inside the courtroom.
	I was like, okay, good.
	I had the brilliant idea.
	What I'm going to do for my crowd, it was fairly certain it was Tamara Leach's trial, one of the hearings.
	I said, I'm going to listen to it in my ear, and I'm just going to say what's happening in real time.
	I'm not broadcasting audio.
	I'm not broadcasting video.
	And nobody's preventing me from live tweeting summaries of what's going on, as other journalists were doing.
	And so I was doing it.
	I was listening and talking.
	And then in court, I hear them say, it's been brought to our attention that someone's live streaming this trial.
	Exact same thing.
	And my heart sank.
	And I'm like, that's it.
	I'm going to get disbarred.
	I'm going to get sanctioned.
	My life is going to be ruined.
	It wasn't me because I wasn't actually breaking the rules.
	It was another guy, but it doesn't matter.
	This is what's going on in Joe's head right now.
	Look at that.
	That's like, oh shit.
	It was at that moment that Joe knew.
	He didn't screw up at all, by the way.
	And we know that they're not part of the expanded media coverage?
	They're not part of the expanded media coverage?
	This is on the internet, Madam Justice.
	Yes.
	Look at Justin.
	You get busted.
	Is this me?
	Are you talking to me?
	Do we know what organization it is?
	It appears to be an individual, Your Honor, but there were like 7,000 people watching them.
	So not Joe, but I want to know who this person is.
	7,000?
	I'm 1,900.
	Turning in fourth, it's now 8,600.
	Okay, good.
	Ashley Epps.
	Ashley Epps.
	That's what I want to see.
	So I want to see who, because Ashley Epps.
	Let's see.
	Ashley Epps.
	We found Ashley.
	Ashley Epps.
	I don't think it could be this.
	Ashley Epps.
	And we're going to say Trump trial.
	I don't know who the person is.
	There was a typo there.
	So I'm not sure that we know.
	I don't know who it is yet.
	If anybody in the chat knows who the individual is, Ashley Epp, Trump Trump.
	So if anybody knows who it is, do let me know.
	Because when I heard the name Ashley Epp, then a number of other flags.
	So Joe did not get in trouble.
	He went to broadcast the C-SPAN hearing, which...
	Inconceivable to me that commentating on the C-SPAN broadcast, which is...
	I would be the one erring on the side of not getting disbarred, but I'm no longer...
	I'm not a member of a Florida bar.
	But anyway, that's it.
	So Joe's life flashed before his eyes right there.
	It was kind of fun to watch in real time.
	Now, some of the highlights from yesterday.
	I've watched enough of this trial.
	It's a flipping gong show.
	It's a joke of a trial.
	In the sickest, saddest possible ways.
	They literally, in opening statements, I'll just do a little bit of the summary.
	In the opening statements, they literally said that when Trump used the word peacefully, it was a dog whistle, plausible deniability.
	That when he used the word peacefully to describe the protests that he was encouraging others to engage upon.
	That he only used the word peacefully because he meant violence.
	And so in using the word peaceful, other than it being plausible deniability, other than it being plausible deniability, the only reason he had to use that word is because he knew that he was inciting violence.
	Because if he wasn't inciting violence, he wouldn't have had to use the word peacefully to qualify the protest that he was encouraging.
	I'm not joking.
	Verbatim.
	Summarize.
	Paraphrase.
	They had an expert come on to testify on right-wing extremism and saying, basically, it's motivated reasoning, arguing from conclusions and towards them.
	Basically, whatever Trump says is inciting right-wing extremism because I take the overall context, history, and yada, yada, yada.
	Therefore, whenever someone who's not Trump would have hypothetically said it, it wouldn't have been or I would need more details.
	They had an expert come and testify that Trump's method, his pattern of speech, was intended to incite right-wing extremism.
	Okay.
	Today, let me see this here.
	Oh, yeah, here.
	Today, this is just, you know, one piece of evidence that, or this was from yesterday.
	So I'm catching up from yesterday.
	I'm catching up from yesterday.
	And I just don't know.
	It's probably too late for any team to see this.
	This was one of the...
	Now, there was...
	If anybody thought that January 6th was not an inside job to some extent, either...
	What do they have?
	Lee Hop?
	Let it happen on purpose?
	Or Me Hop?
	Made it happen on purpose?
	Anybody who thinks that it was not a Lee Hop or Me Hop, you should go have breakfast at an I Hop.
	And that's...
	I happen on...
	That's International House of Pancakes.
	Okay.
	Anybody who does not thoroughly and firmly believe that it was a Lee Hop, Me Hop, or just an outright...
	Set up.
	I'll present to you this exhibit right here.
	Now, there was nothing preventing President Trump from sending out a tweet between 1:21 p.m. and 4:17 p.m. telling supporters who were at the Capitol to go home.
	Was there?
	Who was he asking this question to?
	I forget.
	Was this Cash Potos?
	Oh, crap.
	I forget if he was asking Kash Patel this question.
	Kash Patel was the witness from yesterday, and he was amazing.
	It's amazing seeing a witness who's smarter than the lawyer.
	And I say that with no judgment to the lawyer's intelligence.
	He might be very smart.
	But a witness who does not get fooled by answers.
	But he gave some great answers.
	But here, hold on.
	Objection, foundation.
	Rephrase the question.
	I'll rephrase.
	There's no authority that you're aware of, sir, that would have prevented President Trump from sending out a tweet between 1.21 p.m.
	and 4.17 p.m.
	telling the people to go home from the Capitol.
	So, There's nothing that would have prevented Trump from sending out a tweet within the three hours of insurrection, because insurrections last three hours.
	Insurrections are unarmed, last three hours, and end with the certification that was allegedly insurrected against.
	Yeah, that's insurrection.
	The only problem?
	Does everyone, like, do they not?
	Do they not know things?
	Now, there was nothing preventing President Trump from sending out a tweet.
	What time?
	Between 1.21 p.m. and 4.17 p.m. telling supporters who were at the Capitol to go home.
	Was there?
	What was that?
	What was that time again?
	I couldn't hear.
	I couldn't hear.
	17 p.m.
	1.17.
	Hold on.
	1.17.
	What was it?
	1.15.
	21 p.m. and 4.17 p.m.
	1 p.m. to 4 p.m.
	Nothing preventing him from sending out a tweet telling people to go home.
	No, but there were two tweets within those three hours, that time frame.
	And I'll quote it because it seems that people couldn't really see these tweets after they suspended Trump's Twitter account on January 8th.
	Everybody remember the reason for which they suspended his account?
	We'll go to that in a second just to refresh our memories.
	Quoting Donald J. Trump at Real Donald Trump, January 6th, 2021.
	2.38pm squarely within the 1-4pm timeframe.
	Please support our Capitol Police and law enforcement.
	They are truly on the side of our country.
	Stay peaceful.
	But everybody knows, everybody knows, that when he said that, it's right-wing doublespeak to incite extremists.
	It's an insurrectionist thing to say right there.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Between 1.21pm and 4.17pm.
	Telling supporters who are at the Capitol to go home.
	Oh, he didn't tell them to go home.
	So it's insurrection because all he asked them to do within that time frame, Mr. Lawyer, quote, tweet number two from Donald J. Trump.
	I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful.
	Remain peaceful.
	Double speak.
	No violence.
	Double speak.
	Insurrectionist.
	Remember, we are the party of law and order.
	Respect the law and our great men and women in blue.
	Thank you.
	What's the time on that?
	I can't see too good, Bill.
	Was there?
	Oh, what's the time on that?
	Yeah.
	3.13.
	Zoom in, Dave.
	3.13 p.m.
	January 6, 2021.
	This is a...
	It's a joke sham of a trial.
	It's a setup.
	It was a setup.
	Either a lie hop, let it happen on purpose, or me hop, made it happen on purpose.
	And we know that.
	And I had Tarek Johnson on, who even though we're not...
	You know, we don't see totally eye to eye on all of it.
	Was quite clear that he believes it was a LeeHop or MeHop.
	He just thinks other players were involved or other actors were responsible.
	And what a convenient thing it was, by the way.
	Look at this.
	This is another one.
	I think this is...
	Let me see here.
	This was all during Kash Patel's testimony.
	He was fantastic.
	Listen to this.
	Okay.
	This is the retweet.
	Hold on.
	Let's just go to the original tweet.
	No, let's just open up the video here.
	Listen to this.
	And so just to close this out, to your knowledge, Did any senior DOJ leader ever state in words or substance that they felt they needed more or different authorization from President Trump before they could deploy National Guard troops to keep the peace on January 6th?
	No.
	Okay, so Department of Defense, DOD, based on what you're telling us, felt they had authority to use National Guard troops and President Trump had been clear that he wanted DOD to do what was necessary to protect the American people.
	So why didn't we have 10,000 National Guard troops suited up and armed guarding the Capitol in the morning of January 6th?
	Remember, everybody, this was a very key, if you live through it in real time, backwards.
	Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards.
	At the time, we all remember hearing a point being made.
	It wasn't Trump who could deploy the National Guard.
	That's under Nancy Pelosi's authority.
	And then there was some dispute as to whether or not it's Nancy Pelosi or, and I forget the chief policewoman who Tarek Johnson was referencing constantly, but everyone acted at the time like it was a bald-faced lie and that only Trump and Trump only could unilaterally decide to call in the National Guard.
	Hmm.
	let's just hear what's coming out as evidence during this trial there's a multitude of reasons but mainly under the law as the department of defense operated under So he says the audio is terrible, but this is Kash Patel via web testimony saying there's a number of laws...
	Hold on, let me start again.
	I forget what he said.
	Under the law.
	under the Office of General Counsel and the White House and Council's Office, and probably the last 100 years of National Guard authorities.
	Step one was a Commander-in-Chief's authorization Okay, so he's saying under the law of the Department of Defense and the last hundred years of American history, there's multiple steps.
	Step one is the authorization from the commander-in-chief, Trump.
	What's step two, Kash Patel, who served as, I forget his function now, but within the Department of Defense, I think for a bit, I'll get his title clearly in a second.
	What's step two?
	Step two was a request by the governing body, the local governing body.
	He's the governor, but in this instance, it's the mayor, since it's Washington, D.C., and or the heads of the Capitol Police Bureau, because we're talking about the Capitol.
	Step two was a request.
	So step one is authorization.
	Step two is a request because it's not because the president, commander in chief, authorizes it, that the local jurisdiction is requesting it.
	And what would it be?
	If the commander-in-chief sent in the National Guard or a militarized force without the local jurisdiction requesting it, well, I'll come back to Tim Pool's tweet in a second.
	Absent the request.
	We were under advisement that we could not activate the National Guard.
	We could and did everything we could up to the legal limit to try to begin the processes of getting these folks ready in case that request came in.
	This is another fantastically good point that I think will make good evidence to a judge if the judge is listening.
	She looks like she's listening.
	Who knows?
	Maybe she'll come down with the right decision.
	The National Guard has to be mobilized and deployed.
	And they're not just sitting around.
	As Kash Patel, who was, incidentally, by the way, his official title once upon a time was, he served as the former chief of staff to acting secretary of defense Christopher Miller.
	And is responsible for the...
	Okay, there we go.
	I'll read that in a second.
	But let's hear what he has to say.
	So you get the authorization from the president.
	It requires a request from the local jurisdiction.
	Why?
	Absent the request, the need, they couldn't.
	Did they ever get the request?
	Oh, they got it after it was over.
	But now I'm not...
	Oh, come on.
	I want to see what was...
	Oh, no, no, no, don't do that.
	Come on, refresh.
	Something went wrong.
	Yeah, because I screwed up.
	And Tim Poole astutely notes...
	They were going to get him one way or the other.
	Send in the National Guard or send in a militarized police without the request?
	That would be the declaration of martial law.
	That would be an impeachable offense.
	Don't send in the National Guard because they didn't request it?
	Oh, you are passively inciting an insurrection.
	If Trump activated National Guard without a request from local officials, they'd have called it a military coup attempt.
	And With which I say it was a damned if you do, damned if you don't, because they want to damn him.
	That's the bottom line in all of this.
	And I think Tim is 100% right.
	Remember at the time, one of the concerns was he's going to go rogue, he's going to invoke whatever that...
	Yeah.
	Had he gone in with a police force, a militarized force, a National Guard, that wasn't requested by the jurisdiction, it would have been a coup.
	And he doesn't do it, not because he didn't do it, but because they didn't request it after he had authorized it?
	It's an insurrection.
	Make it make sense, except for the fact that it's just corruption top to bottom.
	Was there any...
	there were a couple of other ones um cash patel's testimony was was was phenomenal in any event i don't know what they think they got out of him there was one part where uh i don't know if i shared the highlight yet but where he's you know they're they're trying to fault cash patel for not immediately taking offense to the contents of a variety magazine article that was written about cash patel that he's saying contain some
	You didn't immediately get, you know, you didn't do anything when...
	Variety's magazine that contains inaccurate information about you came out.
	He's like, dude, I'm a busy man.
	We're focusing on important issues.
	And I wasn't one of those issues.
	But that's it.
	I think that's what happened yesterday in the trial.
	And it's getting worse and worse.
	It's getting worse and worse because it's not going anywhere.
	And Joe Nierman highlighted a very relevant point.
	And people need to appreciate this.
	I think I'm going to take credit for having called it first.
	Haha, it's a joke.
	Anybody with half a brain can see the problem here.
	They want to remove him from the ballot for insurrection in a civil trial, in the absence of any criminal charges, short of what we're seeing in D.C., which has not been conviction yet, in the absence of any conviction, and only in the face of an acquittal on the impeachment for inciting the insurrection.
	And they want to apply a civil standard of burden of proof, preponderance of the evidence, which is not the criminal standard, which presumably would be required for a criminal conviction.
	Not presumably, which would be required for a criminal conviction.
	So they want to remove them from the ballot based on the civil balance of probabilities, which is a lesser balance than a criminal conviction.
	And they want to get them off on that.
	Bypassing entirely any criminal conviction that hasn't even yet occurred.
	That's what they're trying to do here.
	It's corruption.
	Institutionalized corruption, intellectual, election interference in real time.
	And it's too boring.
	It's too complicated for anybody to care about.
	And so you go from people not watching it whatsoever to the Neermans of the world live streaming it, which is going to be too long, too boring, and too complicated, to me attempting to summarize it and make digestible synopses.
	Two people just not caring, they're going to read the news.
	Oh my goodness.
	A police officer was beaten at the January 6th events, the Dowling or whatever the guy's testimony was.
	Trump should be removed from the ballot.
	Oh, does everybody remember the justification for removing Trump from Twitter at the time?
	I mean, we've read this a little while ago, but it's worth repeating.
	That lawyer might not be aware of those two tweets within that three-hour time frame.
	Stay peaceful.
	Law and order.
	Respect the police officers.
	All doublespeak.
	But he might not even be aware of them because Trump had been banned on the 8th.
	So nobody could see those tweets as of the 8th.
	Nobody could see the exculpatory, exonerating evidence until they reinstated him how many years later?
	Read the justification of it at the time.
	Permanent suspension already Orwellian because that's just a ban.
	Permanent suspension.
	It's like calling death permanent sleep of Donald Trump.
	After close review of the tweets from the real Donald Trump, remember, the two, including the two that we just looked at, the two that said, stay peaceful, we're on the side of law and order.
	After close review of recent tweets from the real Donald Trump account and the context around them, I wonder if they have the same expert that's testifying at the trial, specifically how they are being received and interpreted.
	On and off Twitter.
	This is not written by a 12-year-old high school student.
	This is the biggest, well, one of the biggest social media platforms in the world.
	Removing from the platform the sitting president of the United States of America.
	January 6th.
	Well, was he still the sitting president?
	That was the insurrection.
	That's right, because when was the inauguration?
	Whatever.
	We're, after reviewing the context around them, including how they are being received, being interpreted, on and off the platform, we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence.
	In the context around horrific events this week, we made it clear on...
	Do you know who still has Twitter accounts?
	I won't mention any hyperbolic names that have accounts on Twitter currently.
	Hyperbolic people, organizations that are up to no good.
	In the context of horrific events this week, we made it clear on Wednesday that additional violations of the Twitter rules would potentially result into this very course of action.
	Our public interest framework.
	Oh yeah, public interest.
	Is that working with the Election Integrity Partnership?
	I want to look at that in a second.
	It exists to enable the public to hear from elected officials and world leaders directly.
	It's built on a principle that people have a right to hold power to account in the open.
	However, we made it clear going back years that these accounts are not above our rules entirely and cannot use Twitter to incite violence peacefully, patriotically, law and order.
	Stay peaceful.
	Respect the officers.
	Violence, among other things.
	We will continue to be transparent.
	Bullshit around our policies and their enforcement.
	Bullshit.
	The below is a comprehensive analysis of our policy and enforcement.
	Okay, so we got...
	Let me see here.
	Let me see here.
	Is peaceful...
	Oh, it's funny.
	The word peaceful is not in the tweets that they're talking about.
	Oh my goodness.
	Okay, those are the tweets.
	Here, I'll give this to everybody because everybody should remember this.
	But I wanted to see one thing here.
	Our public interest framework.
	What is this Orwellian rubbish?
	Unreal.
	Here, there's the link.
	Let me just go see what this world leaders on Twitter principles as an approach.
	Do we want to do this?
	I don't think I can do this right now.
	I can't do this in real time.
	I'll do that later and come back to you with anything if it's important.
	All right.
	So that's the latest out of Colorado.
	I think that's the latest.
	I'm doing my best to listen to all of it and then just bring you the absolute essential highlights.
	It certainly seems like January 6th security failures were.
	Isn't that convenient?
	That's the same audio.
	Okay, so that's the same clip that we just watched.
	And that's that.
	Uh-oh.
	I hope I didn't just close myself down.
	Did I?
	Nope, I'm still here.
	Okay.
	That's the latest out of there.
	Let's see what's going on here in the chat.
	Been 13 years straight of heavy gaslighting, says Fart Whiff, whose name is very apropos his comment.
	My name goes here, says playing both sides to cover up the money laundering and outright grifting.
	I'm not sure what that's in response to.
	Honor 234 says Elon Musk, why do you support Iran?
	Nothing but gaslighting sense, says Ben Almond.
	Oh, and Spam Squirrel says the USA is playing both sides of the field.
	No question.
	So is Canada, in the most grotesque way.
	And then we got Jabril308 says, What in the hell?
	Glorification of violence?
	And I think he's talking about the justification to...
	Honor two, three, four.
	Wrap your minds around that.
	Okay, so I don't know.
	Not knowing exactly what the context is for all of the chat, I'm not going to read all of it to read something out of context and get myself into trouble.
	All right.
	An article, by the way.
	This is the summary.
	For those of you who only get your news from the mainstream media, let me just see if this...
	I always have the inclination that The Hill...
	Is decent.
	And then I read the articles and I realize it ain't decent.
	This is from Halloween, October 31st, so two days ago.
	Just summarizing the trial up until Halloween.
	Trump signaled to extremist groups on January 6th.
	Experts testify in Colorado 14th Amendment case.
	Okay.
	Let's just hear the tenor in which this is described.
	Is this reporting done in a way to mock And humiliate whoever says such things or to affirm and ratify what they've said.
	The attorneys attempting to paint former President Trump as an insurrectionist in order to get him banned from the ballot in Colorado focused their case on signals he sent to extremist groups who stormed the Capitol on January.
	Which extremist groups?
	What is this talk?
	It's just everything.
	Has the conclusion baked into the premises?
	Attorney Eric Olson, representing the plaintiffs, relied on expert testimony from an extremism expert during the second day of the trial that centers on whether or not Trump should be disqualified.
	Fine.
	Chapman University professor Pete Simi.
	Look, you see me.
	There's also another joke there I won't make.
	He studies political violence and extremism, argued that Trump cultivated a far-right following for seven years, oh, sorry, for years, even before running for president, creating a relationship he took advantage of in his attempts to overturn his 2020 election loss.
	He said he was very confident that Trump led the events of January 6th.
	Can you believe that this is reality, according to people who...
	A, are not watching it.
	B, are but know that their audience is not.
	And they can frame it in a way of pure political fiction.
	From my years of studying how far-right extremists perceive communication.
	Dude is telling people.
	I'm telling you, this guy had to have had a hand in writing that.
	That Twitter justification.
	I'm saying this in real time and making connections in real time.
	I'm going to double check that afterwards.
	The relationship that they developed with Donald Trump over multiple years.
	The various signals.
	Promoting or endorsing violence.
	Things done over social media that aligned with many of the things that Trump said over the years, Simi said.
	That relationship.
	That was established and built, I think, really underscores how much influence he has for far-right extremists and how much they perceived him as essentially one of their side or one of them.
	One of us.
	Well, Sini argued that Trump's far-right courting began in 2012 election cycle with his promotion of the birtherism conspiracy theory.
	The more they call it a conspiracy theory, the more I'm starting to believe it was actually always true.
	Clip it and run with it, Internet.
	Let me see something here.
	Go ahead and clip that.
	The more they claim that that was a conspiracy theory, the more I am inclined to believe that it was actually true all along.
	It centers around former President Obama.
	That gave Trump clout in far-right spaces, CB said, which he reinforced when he launched four years later his campaign with inflammatory rhetoric about Mexican people.
	I'm pretty sure he was only talking about Mexican criminals.
	And despite what everyone wants to pretend out there, there are criminals of every race, religion, creed, and nationality out there.
	Anyone who says otherwise is lying.
	He wasn't calling Mexican people names.
	He was calling Mexican criminals names who we know and now definitively know have been crossing the border.
	Unchecked and unsupervised.
	Oh my goodness.
	He pointed to Trump's reaction to the Charlottesville, Virginia white supremacy rally where he said there were good people on both sides.
	So the hill is regurgitating disproven disinformation.
	Oh my God.
	Then during the debates with now President 2020, he told right-wing groups of power boys to stand back and stand by when asked to denounce them.
	To this day, I have no idea.
	I just think that was a flub of a response.
	Anyhow, he simply argued pre-right speech calling on patriots to fight.
	You're losing our country.
	Despite requests for them to be peaceful, should be considered as true calls to violence.
	Simi apparently has no idea about the Brandenburg test.
	For extremists, this is fiction.
	Under cross-examination, Simi was asked if Trump had any intent to signal to the extremists.
	I can say he expressed a consistent pattern of messages over time.
	By the way...
	If you had played the pattern drinking game where you take a shot every time they say pattern, you would have been dead in five minutes.
	Patterns of messages over time.
	He expressed messages over time that endorse violence, and that's very, I think, in clear terms, part of this pattern.
	Pattern.
	This is how the hill is.
	Okay, well, the hill is garbage.
	It's a hill made by Democrats, yada, yada, yada.
	This quick case is going to fail.
	Similar cases are being considered in Minnesota and Michigan.
	The latter of which is notably a key swing state.
	It is likely one of these cases will land before the Supreme Court, which has never ruled on the 14th Amendment Insurrection Clause.
	Yeah, typically, I would imagine, in order for them to rule on the 14th Amendment Insurrection Clause, it would have taken a conviction of insurrection.
	That might be one of the indications it's a bullcrap case to begin with.
	Three of the current sitting justices were appointed by Trump during his first term.
	All right, well, the Hill is garbage.
	So we have that.
	Oh my goodness.
	Has the Hill always been garbage?
	Because I'm like, I still consider myself relatively new to this entire sphere.
	Has the Hill always been pure garbage?
	I always thought the Hill was like what they called right-leaning, conservative.
	But I mean, maybe I just said that as an ignorant Canadian.
	All right, Rumble Rants, Sign of Jonah.
	A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.
	Well, I'm going to have to Google this and see what that's all about.
	All right, and we got Stephen Sun's book, Courage Under Fire, was well worth the read.
	He breaks down...
	All the behind-the-scenes security the Capitol Police were privy to and how they were hung out to dry.
	Highly recommend.
	That's from Sammy.
	And then we got Drury SM says, off-topic, how can I change my name on Rumble?
	I'll get to that.
	Yeah, what was the memo?
	The internal memo that Tarek Johnson mentioned for us live?
	There was an internal memo circulating days before saying, there's a risk of this.
	There's people online talking about that.
	Everything about it, the word is not incredulous.
	I always use that word wrong.
	It's preposterous.
	It's implausible.
	They had infiltrated the Proud Boys for the seditious conspiracy.
	They had infiltrated the Oath Keepers for the seditious conspiracy.
	And they were caught with their pants down on January 6th.
	You have to be an idiot to believe that.
	And not an idiot as in a mean-spirited person.
	Like the definition of an idiot, IQ below 65. Is that what the definition is?
	Hold on.
	Definition.
	Idiots.
	IQ.
	A person of low intelligence, but I thought there was an actual criteria.
	Oh yeah, here we go.
	It was...
	Look at this.
	You have to be an actual, by the definition, of the term idiot.
	It originally referred to people of the second order in a former discarded classification of intellectual disability with a mental age of 3 to 7 years and an IQ of 25 to 50. Above idiot.
	And below, moron.
	What is this imbecile?
	Hold on one second.
	The term imbecile was used by psychiatrists to denote the category of people with moderate to severe intellectual disability, as well as a type of criminal.
	The word arises from the Latin imbecilis, meaning weak or weak-minded, originally referred to people of the second order in a former and discarded classification of intellectual disability.
	With a mental age of 3 to 7 years and an IQ of 25 to 50, above idiot, IQ below 25, and below moron, 51 to 70. Who would have thunk that there's a clinical history to the terms imbecile, idiot, and moron?
	I think we should probably maybe re-adopt some of those criteria.
	So you have to be an absolute imbecile, moron, or idiot.
	To think that the FBI had informants that had infiltrated the seditious conspiracy plot of the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys months before January 6th and somehow had no idea what was allegedly going to go down on January 6th such that that information was not shared with authorities.
	It was.
	They didn't know what to do.
	They did.
	And they declined the National Guard.
	Until after the events had taken place conveniently so that they could use this as an absolute setup and frame job on Donald Trump.
	Anybody who believes otherwise is an idiot, imbecile, or moron.
	There, I said it.
	Okay, well I think that covers it for those issues.
	Let's go back to the chat and see if I've missed anything.
	Let's go back to the chat.
	The Americans were set up and framed, says Alexandros Werewolf.
	Oh, Bucklebrush Jones says, Want a good white pill?
	Watch my dog with the GoPro.
	Says Bucklebrush Pro.
	The white pill is going to be that dog de bordeaux, which we're going to go back to.
	Veto1327 says, Three days prior, Trump asked about having enough National Guards.
	Absolutely.
	That was Kash Patel's testimony.
	He had already said...
	And then in Redirector of the Cross, they go...
	The plaintiff's attorney says, well, where in the documentation do you see him saying that there were 10,000 National Guards that he had offered?
	He's like, dude, it's everywhere.
	And he's like, well, we don't see...
	He was like, that's your documents.
	It was discussed internally everywhere.
	I want to find the...
	I wanted to find that.
	According to cash, says veto 13th to 27th.
	Absolutely.
	Three days prior...
	Oh, we got that.
	So that's it.
	It's the white pill.
	Oh, I just lost all of the chat.
	The white pill has to be the Doug de Bordeaux sitting down for that interview.
	Cash smashed them hard, says Vito37.
	Honor234 says Trudeau, shame on us thrice.
	Yep, well, Trudeau's going down.
	It's just a matter of time now.
	It's the only problem.
	He's going down, but he's taking Canada down with him.
	C130Herc66 says, Fool us once, shame on the government.
	Next time we'll be twice, then shame on us.
	We're beyond that now.
	All right, we're going to do one more thing here before we head on over to the locals after party.
	I see some chat there, some tips and some questions.
	We're going to have the wrap up there.
	Oh, hold on one second.
	I should have to keep my phone on here.
	Okay.
	Let me just make sure I didn't miss anything there.
	All right.
	The link to locals.
	Get over here.
	Locals.
	You know you want to do it.
	Everybody's above average.
	Viva, you need to have Jason Levine and Donald Best on for an update.
	Plenty of things happening.
	Take care, brother.
	Says...
	A thousand percent.
	So for those who don't know, Jason Levine has been on multiple times.
	Donald Best has never been on.
	Donald Best is covering the Detective Gru trial.
	She's a RCMP officer.
	I'm going to get some of the details mixed up, but she was basically, she's an RCMP officer.
	She was looking into SIDS, sudden infant death syndrome, a lot of increased cases, and began looking into a certain question as to a potential jibby jab that might be correlated between An uptick in sudden infant death syndrome that she was investigating and the sudden infant deaths, which were on the uptick.
	She got disciplined for looking into that question as to whether or not the mothers had had the jibby jab.
	And I think she's taken her sanction to court.
	And I'm not sure about the full context other than that, but Donald Best, who's on Twitter, and let me just share his...
	It seems that anybody covering it on YouTube is getting nailed.
	Donald Best.
	Yeah, here we go.
	We follow each other.
	Donald Best is covering it.
	Here's his Twitter handle.
	Jason Levine is covering it, among the other things that Jason Levine is covering.
	So that's well worth, and I'll get him on.
	Guaranteed.
	No problem.
	I'm not avoiding him for any reason whatsoever for anybody who thinks it's not enough time in the day to talk to everybody.
	But he'll come on and give us the update on that.
	So that's that.
	All right.
	And on the subject of the jibby jab and, you know, whatever the hell else is going on here, I think I had this one on the back burner yesterday and then never got around to it.
	Chat, did I get around to this yesterday?
	I'm so bloody senile.
	Oh, let me crack my back.
	And now this was a headline that was making the rounds about a connection, gain-of-function research, potentially, if that's what we want to call it, being done in North America, in Montana, to the knowledge of Fauci.
	When is this from?
	October 31st.
	Revealed.
	This is from the Daily Mail.
	Anthony Fauci, run lab in Montana, experimented with coronavirus strain.
	In from Wuhan.
	Shipped in from Wuhan a year before the COVID pandemic.
	They're not saying it originated in Montana.
	I don't think they're even saying that this strain is the same, but it certainly puts a bit of a bigger damper on Fauci's claims that he had nothing to do with gain-of-function research, didn't know what was going on in Wuhan, wasn't directly or indirectly financing it through the EcoHealth Alliance, whatever the hell that was called.
	National Health Institute infected 12 bats with the SARS-like coronavirus in 2018.
	The virus was shipped from Wuhan to an NIH lab in Montana.
	Read more.
	U.S. taxpayer money was used to experiment with coronaviruses from the Chinese lab thought to be the source of COVID pandemic more than a year before the global outbreak was found.
	The question is, how does that fit in with his testimony that they were not involved in gain-of-function research?
	Because it had been outlawed, I think, as far as I understood, under Obama.
	The National Health Institute, NIH, under Anthony Fauci leadership, infected 12 Egyptian fruit bats with a SARS-like virus called the Weavey, Weave 1, whatever, in a lab in Montana, 2018.
	That virus was shipped from the Wuhan lab, the FBI believes caused the pandemic in China.
	Okay, fine.
	And was tested on bats acquired from a roadside Maryland zoo.
	You know how I know we didn't cover this yet?
	I would have remembered these details.
	They tested it on bats from a zoo?
	Oh my good God.
	I mean, I guess Fauci ran out of beagles.
	The research revealed a week before a campaign group determined the novel virus could not cause a robust infection.
	I guess maybe they hadn't tinkered with it enough.
	I still don't understand the...
	What's the Cleve?
	The Norman Cleve site?
	I understand roughly what it is.
	I still don't understand the mechanism.
	But, oh, I guess it couldn't cause a robust infection.
	Maybe it means they've got to work harder on that.
	But the research is more evidence of ties between the U.S. government and the Wuhan lab, as well as funding of dangerous virus research across the globe.
	And look at that scary graphic.
	A bunch of them.
	All right, it says, it was published in 2018.
	The study was first flagged by Drastic, a group of internet activists who investigate the origins of the COVID-19 lab leak theory.
	The group White Coat...
	Waste Project is now using the Freedom of Information Act to request more details about the experiment.
	White Coast Project is a watchdog that has been fighting to stop sending American tax dollars overseas to fund dangerous virus research.
	Well, it's been doing it here.
	The 2018 experiment was carried out at the NIH Rocky Mountain Laboratories in Montana, which was overseen by Fauci, the former director of NIAID, National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
	Let's see what we go.
	Scientists obtained 12 Egyptian bats from the Maryland Zoo, inoculated them with the virus, couldn't cause robust infection on day...
	Okay, so whatever.
	Research determined it did not cause a robust infection and observed very limited evidence of virus replication.
	Well, they gotta work harder.
	The bats had been sent from the roadside Maryland Zoo to the Montana facility alleged by the zoo's curator and director of animal health, who had previously worked at the in-house animal testing labs at the NIH from 2003 to 2012.
	Wow.
	it.
	Wow.
	RFK talks about this in his book.
	Just like a revolving door.
	Hey, you go here, you come here, we all know each other and I direct funding.
	Fauci, who controls the purse strings of billions of dollars.
	Who gets what?
	Depends on who plays ball.
	Located in Thermont, Maryland, less than 15 minutes from Camp David, the Catoctin Wildlife Preserve has a history of animal welfare violations and was fined $12,000 in 2012 for poor and animal for inadequate housing and care.
	How gross.
	Records show the preserve confined 523 federally regulated animals.
	As of 2023, including 241 bats, one of which were Egyptian fruit bats.
	And I think people said it was a disgusting place.
	It's not a preserve.
	It's where animals were sent to suffer and be on display for humans.
	Disgusting, despite lack of transmission in the bats.
	Similar dangerous research on the viruses could spark another bat.
	Okay, then we go on.
	Everyone's, go read the full thing, but bottom line, it's not the source of, at least.
	It's not saying it was directly related to, but it certainly contradicts.
	Liar, liar, pants on fire, Fauci statements that they were not funding gain-of-function research, that they had no reason to believe this originated in a lab in Wuhan, China.
	He's a flipping liar.
	Fauci lied, people died.
	Period.
	Anybody who says otherwise is an imbecile, idiot, or moron.
	In the clinical IQ designation sense.
	Alright, I'm kind of joking, but not really.
	Drury SM has another rumble rant.
	Let's read this one before we end and head on over to our locals after pot hay.
	Drury SM says, SIDS, please keep Kathleen Fulbig in Australia pardoned.
	Please see Kathleen Fulbig in Australia pardoned after 20 years in jail.
	Definitely have a look at that.
	All right, and we'll take some more chat, and then we're going to head out and head on over.
	Oh, there's another chat that just came in.
	First of all, come on over to Locals.
	Let's see how many people...
	Oh, we're at 237 people.
	That's very good.
	Here.
	Locals above average community.
	There's a typo and two typos, but come on over.
	I'll read this rant, and I'll read the chat, and then we're going to go over there.
	So we got...
	Hold on.
	Where am I at here?
	E-Grab 4, or E-Grab 4. Says, Ash Epp is a journalist with Badlands Media on Twitter X who lives in Colorado and who has been targeted by the attorney, Eric Olson, in unrelated litigation.
	Interesting.
	But I call outright bullshiser that they can't rebroadcast with commentary that which is being broadcast on C-SPAN.
	CNN.
	It's being broadcast on a number of outlets.
	To say that you can't rebroadcast with their broadcasting with your commentary, I mean, that's nonsense.
	But what do I know?
	Don't take my word for it.
	Hashtag no legal advice.
	Hashtag Viva's an idiot.
	All right, let's go into the chat and just see what else there is in the real-time chat.
	Viva Fry, Eric Olson called her out.
	Well, I mean, the judge seemed to be on board with that.
	So, I mean, if the judge says it, it doesn't matter what the prosecutor says, but it's all ridiculous.
	Veto says, okay, no, no, no, no.
	The Douche Lawyer claimed it was a personal broadcast, even though it was under the Broadcast Media logo.
	Oh, the Badlands Media logo.
	I see what you're saying in terms of the lie.
	Okay, interesting.
	R. Hrodi, they did say they were not part of the broader media.
	Um, authorization.
	Interesting.
	Okay.
	But I know nothing of this.
	I'm repeating a chat and I'm not affirming it or denying it, but I'm saying that makes sense.
	If it's true.
	Um, seems like the share.
	Okay.
	Judge is a commie.
	She doesn't approve of free speech.
	Says Afritz12345.
	Using her last name, which wasn't easily available.
	Bonesmama1.
	Well, and it's very interesting because her last name is Ep.
	Which is going to definitely trigger some conspiracy theories.
	Connecting dots that actually do not connect between ep and eps.
	They don't connect because they're not the same names.
	Well, I'm going to go and have a look at that for sure because I want to follow her.
	Oh, here.
	Hold on a second.
	A-Shine America on X. I hate the new name.
	I'm calling it Twitter forever.
	A-Shine...
	America follows me.
	Is that her?
	Yeah, there we go.
	She follows me.
	Okay, well, now I'm following her back.
	And we might be getting an interview.
	I'm going to reach out to...
	Now I need to remember her name.
	Ash.
	I like that name.
	All right.
	Everybody.
	You know what we're going to do to satisfy my neuroses?
	I'm going to try to end this at one hour and 30 minutes and zero seconds.
	And until then, just answer a couple more.
	Answer a couple more chats.
	Fauci is a mad scientist and should be imprisoned for crimes against humanity, says photogirl516.
	I was watching Badlands when the judge was advised, says drought torrent.
	Ash in America.
	Viva Ash in America.
	Yeah, no, no, that's who I got who's following me.
	Ash in America follows me and I follow her now.
	Writer, Badlands media contributor, your government is lying to you.
	Testify.
	We got 90 more seconds.
	90 more seconds of reading the chat.
	Take two.
	I'm not reading that.
	Douche Lawyer, never seen those words together before.
	LOLs.
	That's from Jabbery308.
	E-Rios Phoenix.
	I pray people wake up fast.
	The ones who didn't...
	I'm not reading the second part of that.
	Broader media authorization.
	Huh?
	That just sounds like more violation of rights of the people.
	Shocker, says Chrissy Kingdom.
	I don't even know what it means.
	Like, is there a list?
	Do they issue a list of accredited media that can rebroadcast?
	I mean, bullcrap.
	Once it's on C-SPAN, I would even be inclined to determine whether or not C-SPAN is public domain once it's on C-SPAN.
	Bullshit.
	I mean, it's just...
	Can't end on a swear word.
	Why did I do that?
	Did I cover who Ashley is?
	Not...
	Well, I just did, I think.
	That's from...
	Hold on.
	That was from J.B. Rowell.
	Okay.
	So with that said, everybody, I'd like to thank you all for being here.
	If you're not inclined to come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com, go over to Viva Fry and get the best merch ever, vivafry.com.
	Everybody enjoy the rest of the day while I try to time this perfectly.
	It's not gonna happen now.
	I go, oh gosh, I'm running out of time.
	How much time do I have left?
	Eight, seven, six, five.
	Come on over to Rumble.
	Four, three, two, one.
	Did we do it?
	Did we do it?

▲