Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 19, 2024 - Viva & Barnes

01:27:00

Trump Derangement Syndrome HAS GONE PLAID! NY Bond to Wrap-Up Defamation! Viva Frei LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Looks like we're live.
	Okay, very cool.
	Everything looks like it's ready.
	I'm going to just play.
	It's a four-minute clip, and I'm going to play it while I make sure that I'm smooth and live across all platforms because I'm using Rumble Studio, and we're doing, I think, I think I'm the first person to try it today.
	It's their new patented technology system.
	It will revolutionize the way content creators I monetize their content on, I'd say on the internet, but on Rumble.
	It's called Rack, the Rumble Advertiser Center.
	So it looks like it's working.
	And I need to make sure that we're live on YouTube, vivabarneslaw.locals.com and everywhere else.
	So I'm going to play this clip.
	We're going to talk about it anyhow.
	And I'm going to make sure that we're good.
	And the audio is good because I'm not at home right now.
	So let me just go ahead and...
	Yeah, I'm going to have to go ahead and...
	Ask you to listen to this question.
	It's a good question from the closing arguments or from the oral arguments that the SCOTUS just heard yesterday in the Biden v Missouri case.
	So enjoy that while I just make sure that we are good everywhere.
	Now, from what I recall, you can still hear me, even though I'm no longer on the camera, so I'm going to make sure not to expel gas.
	Enjoy.
	Mr. Fletcher, when I read all of the...
	Emails exchanged between the White House and other federal officials and Facebook in particular, but also some of the other platforms.
	And I see that the White House and federal officials are repeatedly saying that Facebook and the federal government should be partners.
	We're on the same team.
	Officials are demanding answers.
	I want an answer.
	I want it right away.
	When they're unhappy, they curse them out.
	There are regular meetings.
	There is constant pestering of Facebook and some of the other platforms, and they want to have regular meetings, and they suggest rules that should be applied, and why don't you tell us everything that you're going to do so we can help you and we can look it over.
	And I thought, wow, I cannot imagine.
	Federal officials taking that approach to the print media, our representatives over there, if you did that to them, what do you think the reaction would be?
	And so I thought, you know, the only reason why this is taking place is because the federal government has got Section 230 and antitrust in its pocket.
	And it's, to mix my metaphors, and it's got these big clubs available to it.
	And so it's treating Facebook and these other platforms like their subordinates.
	Would you do that to the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal or the Associated Press or any other big newspaper or wire service?
	So there's a lot packed in there.
	We would.
	Hold on.
	Look at that in a second.
	First and then step back out to the broader context.
	So specifically you mentioned demanding an answer right away and cursing them out.
	The only time that happens is in an email that's about the president's own information Okay, we'll put that aside.
	There's all the rest.
	By the way, appreciate that and what you just witnessed there.
	The judge makes a number of very important points.
	And what does the lawyer do in massively ear gouging vocal fry is go for the weakest point.
	Forget all of the strong arguments.
	Can you imagine the federal government making similar demands on print media?
	Organizing meetings with print media.
	Hey, we didn't really like that article.
	Can you go ahead and change it?
	We don't really like that op-ed.
	Can you go ahead and take it down?
	Could you imagine that?
	Now, I'll play this out and then I'm going to tell you the irony of all of this.
	Operation Mockingbird.
	Meetings constant, emails.
	We want answers.
	We're partners.
	We're on the same team.
	Do you think that the print media regards themselves as being on the same team as the federal government, partners with the federal government?
	So potentially in the context of an effort to get Americans vaccinated during a once-in-a-life pandemic.
	I really think that piece of context, it doesn't change the First Amendment principles, but it's relevant to how they apply here.
	It would be totally inappropriate, but...
	It was a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic.
	It's important to understand that at this time, this was a time when thousands of Americans were still dying every week, and there was a hope that getting everyone vaccinated could stop the pandemic.
	And there was a concern that Americans were getting their news about the vaccine from these platforms, and the platforms were promoting, not just posting, but promoting bad information.
	I understand all that, and I know the objectives were good, but once again...
	I know the objectives were good.
	Oh, yeah.
	The objectives were the government needed to control the disinformation.
	And couldn't allow people to speak freely about it.
	It was a once-in-a-lifetime thing.
	The government will never again use an emergency as a pretext to suppress free speech.
	Oh, you know, they never use January 6th as a pretext to boot the president from a social media platform.
	They would never use, oh, I don't know, the climate crisis as a pretext to boot people.
	Oh, no, it was a once-in-a-lifetime thing.
	COVID.
	It will never happen again.
	Spoiler alert.
	It's happened before for other reasons, and it will happen again for other reasons.
	So getting their news from the print media and the broadcast media and cable media.
	And I just can't imagine the federal government doing that to them.
	But maybe I'm naive.
	Maybe that goes on behind the scenes.
	I don't know.
	But it struck me as, wow, this is not what I understand the relationship to be.
	That's all.
	But I do.
	I think this is important because I have the same.
	I can't stand the pseudo pretentious politeness.
	I can't stand it.
	The judges.
	We know what the judge is thinking.
	It's unacceptable.
	We know what this guy's thinking.
	Gosh darn it, would you just let us do it?
	Oh, I just went all the way back to the beginning.
	Where were we?
	We had a minute left in this thing here.
	Understand the relationship to be.
	That's all.
	But I do, I think this is important because I have the same reaction that you do, that these emails look unusual.
	I think the idea that there'd be back and forth between the government and the media isn't unusual at all.
	When the White House Press Secretary on July 16th is asked about this.
	I find these emails to be unusual, but the fact that there's back and forth between the federal government and the largest social media platforms on earth is not...
	No, of course not.
	Because Operation Mockingbird went from being an operation to being the status quo.
	I'll get to it.
	...by the press at the time.
	What she says is, of course we talk to the platforms just the way we talk to all of you, when we have concerns about what you're doing, when we have information that you might find helpful.
	Now, there's an intensity of the back and forth here, and there's an anger that I think is unusual, but the context for that, I think, is that these platforms were saying publicly, we want to help.
	We think we have a responsibility to give people accurate information and not bad information.
	We're doing everything we can to meet that goal.
	That's where this language of partnership comes from.
	It's not just from the White House.
	It's these platforms, which are powerful, sophisticated entities, saying we're doing the best we can.
	And the anger, I think really most of the anger when you read the emails, and I appreciate that you have, because I think you have to look at them in context.
	The anger is when the officials think that the platforms are not being transparent about the scope of the problem or aren't giving information that's available.
	You've got to look at the context when it's...
	When it's the federal government coercing, bullying, intimidating, extorting social media platforms to censor and suppress.
	Camera just go down?
	There the context is important.
	Trump bloodbath, when talking about auto manufacturing in China or Mexico, no context needed people.
	We know damn well what he meant, even if what he said in the context was something totally different.
	We know.
	Who appointed them God, says Brian Zuhai.
	Good question.
	Okay.
	Oh, I got one more clip.
	So for those of you who don't know, this is Biden v.
	Missouri.
	Supreme Court heard oral arguments yesterday.
	What the heck is going on?
	Is my camera bouncing around?
	Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday.
	I didn't get through the full three-hour hearing yet, but I've heard enough.
	I've heard enough to know that when CNN comes out and says, you know, the SCOTUS seems skeptical of Missouri's position of the, what do they call them?
	Attorney's general position, that that's probably not the accurate reflection of what transpired.
	For those of you who we've talked about this case, not ad nauseum, but many, many times on the channel, Sunday night with Vida Barnes, this is where you had the federal government coming in and basically shutting down specific accounts, telling social media companies, we don't like that post, we don't like this post, flag that post, be careful, something with Hunter Biden's coming, you might want to suppress it.
	And they argued First Amendment violation because I took notes of the coercive nature or the intimidating nature of the government involvement.
	Everybody's saying, okay, social media companies would have taken these posts down.
	They would have censored on their own and they're private companies.
	It's not First Amendment violative because they're not government entities.
	Except unless when you are acting under the coercion or the extortion or the Intimidation or the...
	What's a little bit stronger than persuasion?
	Of the federal government.
	They got an injunction, which has been stayed.
	The injunction is basically saying the federal government cannot...
	The exact word was directly or indirectly coerce, compel, or...
	I don't want to say persuade, but cannot coerce or compel the social media platforms to do anything.
	They can't interact with them.
	Injunction was stayed, so there's no immediate prejudice to the government.
	But the question is whether or not the government overstepped the bounds of not doing indirectly what you cannot do directly by compelling private actors to do what the government itself could not do itself.
	So that's where it's at.
	They had their hearing yesterday.
	I wanted to play one more clip.
	And it's another classic when you understand what they were doing.
	Remember when crazy old Joe Biden came out and said it's going to be a winter of death and sorrow if you don't get the jibby jab?
	That wasn't problematic speech.
	When Joe Biden came out and said it's going to be a winter of death and despair for the unvaccinated because of the vaccine, no one ever said it prevented contracting.
	No one ever said it was safe.
	When Joe Biden said that, no problem.
	When Facebook refused to or did not take down posts in a timely manner, Joe Biden came out and said they are literally, what did he say, responsible for killing people?
	Here, listen to this.
	How about saying you're killing people?
	Could that be coercion in some circumstances?
	That if you don't change your moderation policies, you're responsible for killing people.
	So I think that one is much harder.
	That's a statement that President Biden made off the cuff.
	Maybe he should stay on the cuff.
	Maybe that's why they don't let him take questions anymore.
	It's a statement he made off the cuff because he's a demented old fool who says idiotic, stupid things that are factually incorrect.
	And if you want to talk about censoring disinformation and misinformation, you might have to put a muzzle on good old POTUS.
	By the way, a metaphorical political muzzle.
	I'm not actually suggesting to forcibly put a muzzle.
	On the president.
	Take it out of context.
	Context doesn't matter when it's the right, if you put me on the right.
	But context always matters for the left.
	Hillary Clinton not getting charged for deleting hard drives.
	Yeah, Comey looked into it.
	There's some damning information there, but not going to do it under the circumstances.
	Joe Biden does it.
	Yeah, he certainly broke the law.
	He mishandled classified information, but no jury would convict.
	He gets off free.
	But Donald Trump indictment, Steve Bannon jail, Peter Navarro jail.
	Context only matters for them.
	Bloodbath, no context.
	I'm talking about the context-specific issues, and I understand you have arguments there, but could that in some circumstances, an accusation by a government official that unless you change your policies, you're responsible for killing people, could that be coercion?
	Could the threat of criminal prosecution be coercion?
	Or the intimation of criminal prosecution be coercion?
	When Big Fanny Willis suggested to Jocelyn Wade that she might be involved in interference with an ongoing prosecution, could that be unlawful intimidation?
	No.
	Why?
	Because, you know...
	Come on!
	Come on!
	So I find it hard to imagine a situation where that sort of public statement could be.
	I'll acknowledge, as you say, context matters a ton, and so I don't want to say it's impossible.
	All I'm saying is it didn't happen here.
	The president said this to the public in the middle of the pandemic.
	And then three days later, I think this is important.
	He clarified.
	He said, I'm not saying Facebook is killing people.
	I'm saying the people spreading misinformation are.
	And he was asked, will you hold the platforms accountable?
	He's explicitly asked this.
	Will you hold them accountable if they don't do better?
	He said, I'm not looking to hold anyone accountable.
	I just want everyone to look in their mirror and look in the mirror and imagine what would happen if this misinformation was going to their loved ones.
	I think it's clear that this was exhortation, not threat.
	Exhortation, not a thread.
	Exhortation sounds a lot like extortion, if I may say so myself.
	So those were the oral arguments.
	I want to get through it for the sake of it, maybe put together a video of montages while I'm sitting here fishing at night.
	There are no gators where I'm at right now, so nobody has to worry about that.
	Maybe I'll put together the highlights of the oral hearings, but that's the oral hearings in Biden v.
	Missouri.
	Yeah, it's what it is.
	We'll see where it goes.
	I'm not going to stop making predictions because it's like making a prediction puts a little skin in the game.
	But I've told you all from way back in the day, I'm notoriously bad at predictions.
	When I watch UFC, if I bet on a fighter, bet on the opposite fighter.
	If I make a prediction, more often than not, I tend to be wrong.
	Why is that?
	I don't know.
	Too optimistic?
	I don't know.
	When I'm listening to Dershowitz talk about Fannie Willis and he's saying, you know, he calls it like he thinks it's going to happen, not like he wants it to happen.
	I can wholeheartedly accept that maybe, in my mind, what I think should happen and what I think will happen tend to overlap because I tend to think people are honest, intellectually uncompromised and will follow justice and the clarity of the law and the clarity of the evidence.
	I started off thinking that Chauvin, Was guiltier than sin.
	And then I watched the entire trial.
	And then at the end, I was like, yeah, if I'm a jury member, prosecution, the defense has certainly raised a reasonable doubt.
	And I went and changed my initial assessment that he's going to get convicted to.
	I was wrong.
	That being said...
	There's always appeals.
	And I was wrong at one point in time on Nicholas Salmon.
	I ended up being right because it got reversed.
	I might be wrong now on Fannie Willis.
	Might end up being right after a judge of the court's appeals sees the evidence and issues the ruling that ought to have come down.
	Oh.
	Okay, so by the way, so that's it.
	So that's what we're going to see what happens here.
	To me, it's an absolute no-brainer that what the federal government was doing was a violation of First Amendment rights.
	Going to...
	Social media companies pressuring, intimidating, working with, collaborating.
	There was no distinction.
	I don't know that they raised the argument of there being no substantial difference between the social media company and the federal government.
	They were using the power of coercion, the power of intimidation, the power of bribery to some extent, and they were also infiltrating the social media companies.
	Such that it could hardly be said that there was any difference between the social media companies and the federal government.
	You got members of the FBI, ex-members of the FBI, working as executives at Twitter, controlling the information while simultaneously spreading disinformation to provide the groundwork for the wrap-up disinformation campaign on social media.
	There can hardly be said to be a difference in the way that some of these social media companies were working and the federal government itself.
	State agent, thank you very much, Tucker.
	Look at this.
	Everything is working so well here now.
	You see that?
	State agent.
	Absolutely.
	And now, because Rumble Studio and the team at Rumble have taken into consideration my recommendations for how to make this more user-friendly for us, boom, it's gone.
	You can take it away like that.
	Look at this.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	Here, I want to bring up this comment.
	Ultra, Chase513, not just you, that was the Twitter files.
	Absolutely.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	Bring it down.
	And check this out!
	Because I asked Rumble and the team designing Rumble Studio, make a separate column so that I can see all donations after the fact so that I can bring them up like this.
	Pin!
	Bada bing, bada boom!
	Crash Bandit!
	Are we seeing Operation Mockingbird on MK...
	or I think you mean or MKUltra?
	Dude, what we're seeing right now is we're seeing Operation Mockingbird in the media and we're seeing Operation MKUltra among the population.
	We're going to get to that one too during this stream because...
	What we're seeing with the Trump derangement syndrome, the bloodbath, I'm thoroughly convinced, by the way, I got bitten up, like left, right, and center here.
	There's some bugs out here that are destroying me.
	We're seeing Operation Mockingbird in print media and social media, and we're seeing MKUltra.
	Look, it sounds crazy to say mind control.
	Once you understand that MKUltra was a thing, happened in Montreal at the Allen Memorial Mental Institution, once you understand that they're real things...
	You don't have to feel or fear being called crazy for stating reality.
	But we're seeing it right now in real time.
	I think it actually goes back to the initial inflicting of Trump Derangement Syndrome in 2016 and to what we're seeing right now.
	Okay.
	Is gator kosher?
	Hold on a second here.
	Let's just get this one.
	I can answer that question.
	No, gator is most certainly not kosher.
	Can I get one with bacon and cheese and extra pickles?
	Well, you're violating a number of rules there, sir.
	Gator is not kosher, but it's delicious.
	It's a very boring life for those who keep kosher.
	Only animals out of the sea that you can eat have to have scales.
	No crustaceans.
	There's nothing.
	I was going to make another joke?
	Take it out of context?
	Can't do it.
	Okay, so that's the intro.
	Thank you very much for Supreme Court for hearing oral arguments.
	For those of you who don't know, I'm on spring break with the kids, and we are up in like northwestern Florida.
	Yesterday...
	I spent the day gallivanting around with Adam Johnson, the lectern guy, and his wife, my family.
	We went kayaking down a river that was crystal clear.
	You could see fish in the river, spotted gar that looked like carp.
	It looked like I was seeing a snook at some times.
	We saw turtles.
	We didn't see any manatees with the lectern guy.
	But lectern guy and I are like, first of all, we have a lot more in common.
	Than I initially knew.
	And I think we're kindred spirits.
	We both love red meat.
	And we both have an affinity for fine scotch.
	But we spent the day yesterday gallivanting around Florida.
	We got here.
	Weather was terrible.
	Our boat launch was postponed.
	So we went to a...
	Someone's going to remember what this was.
	It's sort of like a museum gift shop in the middle of where we are.
	It's got a petting zoo in the back.
	You go out behind this store.
	It looks like just a, you know, a dépanneur, as we say in Quebec.
	Or a convenience store.
	You walk in.
	It turns out it's a museum for the family who's owned it since 1865.
	You go out in the back.
	They had a zoo.
	They had zebras, spiders.
	I mean, I felt like I was in an episode of The Tiger King.
	And then, what else did they have that was great?
	A lot of candy for the kids.
	So we did that.
	Then we went to do the kayaking.
	Hold on.
	I was going to say this.
	Yeah, there's a lot of echo.
	The room is acoustically hot.
	Yeah, I mean, I'm not home, so I don't have the good mic, and I didn't bring the good mic, so sorry about the echo, but substance over form every day of the week.
	So stay tuned.
	I'll put out the vlog of our day on vivabarneslaw.locals.com, but we're up here.
	Then, after spending the day with Adam, with a lectern guy, we come and I saw a manatee in the river, and then I saw a mama manatee and a baby manatee.
	In the river.
	And it's flipping gorgeous.
	The only problem is there's these little bugs that they call no-seams or something.
	Can you see that?
	They're getting bitten everywhere.
	So I'm on the road.
	No good mic.
	I got the good camera.
	And at least I have some quiet to do this stream.
	Good evening, everybody.
	20 minutes in.
	And I didn't do the standard intro.
	For those of you who don't know who I am.
	Viva Frye.
	Montreal litigator turned.
	Former Montreal litigator.
	Gotta say that.
	No longer a licensed attorney in Quebec.
	Paying $3,000 a year so people can file bullshit ethics complaints because they don't like my tweets taking jabs at Justin Trudeau.
	The hell was I saying?
	Yeah, so then we start off on YouTube, Rumble, and vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	We're going to end on YouTube at some point and then move over to Rumble and vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	And then we're going to end on Rumble when the stream is over and go over for our exclusive.
	It'll be supporters only at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	What was I about to say?
	Man, it's like you take a day off.
	Internet connection has been shoddy.
	I've been with the family, so I can't spend all day on my phone, but I can spend a certain portion of the day on my phone.
	Try to keep up with the news.
	The bloodbath thing has not ended yet.
	We're going to get back to that.
	Trump is suing George Stephanopoulos, from what I understand, for defamation.
	I don't yet have a copy of the lawsuit, but this is the news.
	But there's a broader discussion there because I'll get a copy of the lawsuit and do a summary when I can get it.
	But there's a broader discussion there.
	And what else are we going to talk about?
	We're going to talk about Fannie Willis update.
	Amazing stuff.
	And by the way, Phil Holloway is going live tonight, if I'm not mistaken, at 7.30.
	So when you're done here, go check out Phil Holloway.
	He's got the lawyer who's running against Fannie Willis, I think.
	Let me just make sure that I'm not mistaking this.
	Oh, okay.
	Maybe I just got a text that his guest can't make it.
	Maybe I can.
	We'll see, Phil.
	The wife might kill me.
	Okay, so that's it.
	Before we get into the subject matter of the day, I'm also testing for the first time ever Rumble's new system called REC.
	It's their Rumble Advertiser Center.
	And I'm telling you, this is not because I'm exclusive with Rumble.
	I am.
	But amazing is amazing.
	And they have a system now where content creators who are monetized Who don't want to have agents, who want to monetize their content and do ad reads, but don't want the headache of anything.
	The system, Rumble Advertiser Center Rack, basically offers to the content creators, in real time, ads that are being offered for them to read during their stream.
	And you can click on it, and it will give you the CPM or whatever, you know, the price per view.
	And the content creator can choose to do an ad read.
	Or not choose.
	Decline to do an ad read if they don't want to.
	And it's in real-time.
	You can see the ads and you can sort of glance them over to see what you want to think of doing, what you don't want to.
	It's an amazing thing.
	It's almost like a real-time auction for AdSense.
	It's going to revolutionize the way content creators can monetize their content in terms of simplicity, in terms of authenticity.
	Overall, it's mind-blowing.
	So we're going to do that.
	This is the first time it's ever been done.
	And I love it, and I think everyone's going to love it.
	Now, before we get there...
	Okay, people, hold on a second.
	What do we want to talk about?
	Do we do the Fannie Willis update?
	Phil Holloway, if you don't follow him on Twitter, is amazing.
	The decision came down.
	The defendants have already filed motions for immediate review.
	Basically asking Scott McAfee, do I need to go over the...
	Go over all of it.
	I don't need to go over all of it.
	Scott McAfee declined to boot Fannie Willis from the file, even though his court ruling, and I predicted this and, you know, some of my predictions when they're substantive and they come to fruition, you know, make me smarter than just making predictions on outcomes.
	His court ruling in which he said that Fannie Willis, her behavior on the stand was egregiously unprofessional, was not forthright.
	The odor of mendacity.
	I mean, that term now has gone viral for the best possible reasons.
	People are jokingly saying Fanny Willis should make a perfume.
	Call it the odor of mendacity.
	I forget who originally said that joke.
	It wasn't me.
	So whoever said it, congrats.
	His entire ruling was nothing but a factual and legal condemnation of Fannie Willis' conduct in the context of that prosecution, and yet he somehow came to the conclusion that despite the odor of mendacity, which is the odor of dishonesty, despite the legally improper speech that she gave before the church, that didn't mention by name but included defendant Roman, that notwithstanding that legally improper speech that targeted one of the defendants, they weren't prejudiced.
	She was basically dishonest and unprofessional on the stand.
	Nonetheless, she didn't get disqualified from the case, but Nathan Wade had to go or Fannie Willis had to go.
	So he gave her the ultimatum.
	Kick off Nathan Wade from the file or withdraw yourself and your entire office.
	Nathan Wade didn't have to even wait until the end of the day before submitting a resignation letter that he did not draft that Fannie Willis swiftly accepted.
	And I said, reading this decision, A, it's an affront to intellectual judicial honesty because the judge knew what he had to do, but for some reason couldn't do it.
	Maybe he set it up for the court of appeal to do.
	Put out all the factual basis for the court of appeal to say, we disagree with your conclusion in law, but relying on your facts, we therefore dismiss her from the case, kick her off the case.
	I did also say this was going to lead to ethics complaints because this lays the groundwork.
	That the judge found, as a matter of fact, after hearing the evidence, unethical conduct, legally improper statements.
	Phil Holloway's reporting there are already ethics complaints that have been refiled against Fannie Willis, mutatis mutatis, following up on the other two, from what I understand, that were dismissed because whatever ethics committee it was that these complaints were filed in didn't have jurisdiction over Fannie.
	So she's got ethics complaints that have been refiled.
	The defendants have all made a motion for immediate review.
	And Scott McAfee will pump this up to the Court of Appeals and say, look, immediate review, because if you proceed with this case and she gets disqualified later, irreparable harm, wasting of judicial resources, a number of problems that can be remedied simply by having the Court of Appeals decide on this now.
	Did Judge McAfee get the legal findings wrong?
	That's the latest.
	They filed.
	It's a wonderful, wonderful brief.
	I mean, it sets out basically, you know, what I set out myself in my initial assessment.
	The decision contradicts itself on its face.
	You can't say there's an odor of mendacity.
	Legally improper speech is made out of court and then come to the conclusion that that does not qualify as forensic misconduct warranting of disqualification.
	The judge relied on one case to say it's unclear.
	So I'm not doing it, but I think it's clear, and a court of appeals will say, we agree with all your facts, McAfee, we just disagree with your finding of law.
	That's the latest, but man, the poo-poo is not yet done hitting the fanny, and for anybody who thinks that it's an inappropriate analogy to say the fanny got spanked, I have been talking about judicial spankings for years.
	It's what judges do when they don't want to issue a ruling.
	That is, the conclusions of which are something they can't really come to in law, but they want to spank you.
	Or they come to the findings of law and they want to spank you, where they could have done it in a way that says, okay, you're wrong, but I'm going to be nice to you.
	No, you're wrong, and I'm going to give you a judicial spanking.
	It just so happens now that judicial spanking has a double entendre, because it has to do with a fanny.
	Pin.
	Sammy.
	Hey, Viva, are you familiar with Michael Young?
	Highly recommend checking out his interview on the Sean Ryan Podcast, episode 101.
	He goes very in-depth about the Darien Gap and answers why China is so involved.
	Well, I can tell you one thing for certain, Sammy.
	I know nothing about that, so I'll have to look into that.
	Now, let me see something.
	If I go to live chat.
	Oh, sorry.
	I've got to click back to the all.
	Okay, beautiful.
	Developing story.
	Developing story.
	Leticia James could start seizing President's property on Monday over non-crime with no victims.
	We're going to get to that.
	We're going to get to that over on Rumble.
	Thank you.
	Okay, sorry.
	I got very distracted reading a chat that I'm not going to bring up.
	We're going to get to Leticia James in a bit.
	But first, let's do this.
	By the way, this is what's beautiful.
	It's a product I use and love.
	I mean, first of all, who doesn't love coffee?
	Everybody loves coffee.
	Attention to all you coffee lovers.
	Are you tired of the same old cup of joe?
	Say goodbye to bland and ordinary and say hello to an extraordinary coffee experience with 1775 pounds.
	Like, no joke.
	I drink it.
	It's bold.
	It wakes you up.
	If you wanted to drink tea water, go drink Nescafe.
	I drink this and it's fantastic coffee.
	Picture this, a cup of freshly roasted coffee crafted with care and passion.
	That's what you get with 1775 coffee.
	By the way, it's 1775 because it's a year before 1776, people.
	You got 1776 Law Center with Barnes.
	You got your 1776 Moment with Vivek Ramaswamy.
	And now...
	A fantastic coffee, which is teamed up with Rumble, 1775 coffee.
	Every sip is like a journey through time, back to the birth of our nation, when our forefathers brewed coffee to fuel their revolutionary spirit.
	I don't know, man.
	Revolutionary spirits might be criminalized sooner than later.
	Where am I?
	Okay, hold on a second.
	Whether you start your day taking a well-deserved break, let 1775 coffee...
	Be your companion.
	Here's the best part.
	By supporting 7075 Coffee, you're not just getting great coffee.
	You're supporting a company that gives back to the community, honoring the spirit of service and sacrifice.
	It's delicious, and it's bold, and it's strong, and it tastes...
	You know you're drinking coffee.
	It'll get you up in the morning.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	And by the way, I love it.
	The Rumble Advertising Center is amazing.
	It's going to revolutionize everything.
	You'd see the ads and you'd say, that's it, bam!
	I like 1775 coffee.
	I drink 1775 coffee.
	I'm picking the moment in my stream where I want to do the ad, and it facilitates everything.
	Also, by the way, the link was there, and depending on whether or not Rumble has integrated all of the recommendations yet, the link to 1775 should be in the description.
	All right, people.
	What do we do now?
	I think now's the time where we get off YouTube and we go over to Rumble.
	Did I put the link in the pinned comment?
	Let me see here.
	Sorry.
	Hold on.
	My computer and fat fingers are...
	Viva dibs on Revolutionary Spirits as a distiller brand.
	S underscore Ren from our Locals community.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	That's amazing.
	Revolutionary Spirits.
	Damn it, why did I read that out loud?
	I should have gone right away to buy the domain.
	God, I'm so stupid!
	Once upon a time, I had a bit of an addiction where I would buy domain names that I thought would be interesting business opportunities.
	Never amounted to anything other than wasted money and laughed domain names.
	Yeah, everybody, let's do it.
	We're going to go over to Rumble now.
	I just wanted to make sure that I had pinned the...
	I wanted to make sure that I had pinned the comments.
	I'm a little more disorganized than usual just because I only have one computer and...
	Did not have too much time to set up for the stream.
	There's a cast net at the place where we're staying, and I'm trying to figure out how to use the cast net and play with the kids while they're on spring break, but let me see here.
	odor of mendacity.
	Yeah, the echo is not great, but hold on.
	Did I?
	The heck is going on, people?
	Is it a pinned comment?
	Was is das problem, yeah?
	I can't see the...
	Oh, here.
	Everybody, this is the link to Rumble.
	I thought I had pinned it already.
	Ba-da-bing, ba-da-boom.
	Here.
	Now we go down.
	And now we're going to go here.
	You did not, says Greg in Houston.
	Well, shame on me.
	That's the link to one of the other things that they're going to work on with...
	Rumble Studio is allowing it to set up the page, the landing page for the stream before you go live in YouTube in particular because it's important so you can click contains paid promotion, not get into trouble when context doesn't matter if they want to go after somebody, and also set the pinned link and other things like that.
	So that's it there, and I noticed some more tipped questions, so I'm going to go back to live chat, go to the column of donations.
	Okay.
	That's it.
	And now we're also live on divabarnslaw.locals.com.
	So let me go give this to you here.
	And then we're going to move on over to the east side.
	Link to Locals.
	Yeah, Operation Monk.
	Well, I should probably put the link in there.
	All right.
	So what we're going to do now is end on YouTube.
	Come on over to Rumble.
	And the way I do that here is I go like this.
	Rumble and locals.
	And I'm going to update the stream and we're going to end it on YouTube.
	Now.
	Okay, cool.
	I've done the Peter McKinnon thing.
	Peter McKinnon always said if you want good lighting, get as close to a window as you can.
	So I'm close to a window.
	Lighting's pretty good.
	We're in...
	We're in the live chat, and we're going here now.
	There was another thing I wanted to do.
	Okay, we're going with MKUltra stuff.
	Speaking of MKUltra, may I introduce you to Christine Blasey Ford, people?
	Let me bring this clip up.
	It's an amazing thing.
	It's so coordinated.
	It's so sinister.
	It's so obviously in your face.
	Can you imagine if the government colluded with print media and television the way it coerced its will on social media?
	You don't have to because you got their compliance anyhow.
	That is also to say they're also fully infiltrated and so you don't even need to, but they're parading out Christine Blasey Ford.
	I wonder why.
	Have a look at this.
	Well, you've been called a highly credible witness.
	You have a PhD in psychology.
	You're a professor.
	You teach at Palo Alto and Stanford universities.
	But even today, some people remain skeptical of your story.
	And you write that during the hearing, Senator Lindsey Graham wouldn't even make eye contact with you.
	Were you prepared for that kind of response?
	I was prepared ahead of time that none of the Republicans were going to speak with me, and they were going to use an outside interviewer.
	And so I was actually surprised at how kind some of the other Republican senators were who broke that protocol and said hello.
	Who was that?
	Can you name a good one?
	Senator Flake and Senator Sasse both came over and said hello.
	The needle is gone in Congress anymore, right?
	But still with credit.
	Yeah, it's good for them.
	Both good men, yeah.
	Well, you've been called a highly credible witness.
	And you have a PhD in psychology.
	You're a professor.
	You teach at Palo Alto and Stanford universities.
	But even today, some people remain skeptical of your story.
	And you write that during the hearing, Senator Lindsey Graham wouldn't even make eye contact with you.
	Were you prepared?
	They're parading out Christine Blasey Ford.
	I wonder why.
	Is it because they're in full exploitation of faux victims again?
	Why would that be?
	Oh, because they're gonna start running the narrative that Donald Trump is a rapist?
	Not a sexual abuser, whatever the hell that means, but that would be the only legally correct manner of referring to Trump until it gets overturned in appeal.
	No, they've got to run the narrative that he's a rapist.
	And Stephanopoulos, as far as I'm concerned, did in fact step in it.
	But we'll see.
	I mean, context always matters.
	And there's always a way to wiggle out of it when you're a lefty.
	Stephanopoulos, when he was shaming, what's her name?
	Mace.
	Representative Mace.
	Came out and said, you know, Trump is a...
	He's guilty of rape, and apparently Trump is suing him now for the statement.
	Let me see.
	Oh, I missed the statement here.
	Hold on a second.
	Go down.
	Where's Stephanopoulos' ugly face?
	Right over here.
	Okay, check this out.
	The interview is from last week, and apparently Trump has now decided to sue for the statements, which I don't see it going very far, but here we go.
	Breaking!
	This is from Colin Rugg.
	Let's just play the clip before we leave.
	I'm asking you a very simple question.
	And I answered it.
	You're shaming me for my political choices.
	I'm asking you a question about why you endorse someone who's been found liable for rape.
	It was actually incorrect, by the way.
	It was a civil court.
	And by the way, she joked about the judgment and what she was going to do with all that money.
	And I find that offensive.
	But as a rape victim...
	Who's been shamed for years now because of her rape.
	You're trying to shame me again by asking me this political question.
	You've repeated that again and again.
	I think it's offensive.
	As a woman, I find it offensive.
	My political choices, I've endorsed the man that I believe is best for our country.
	It's not Joe Biden.
	And you looked at the dueling rallies yesterday in Georgia.
	Lake and Riley's family was with Donald Trump.
	They weren't with Joe Biden.
	The same guy yesterday that apologized for calling her killer an illegal.
	Who wasn't illegal?
	And here you are trying to shame a rape victim.
	I find it disgusting.
	I mean, you keep saying I'm shaming you.
	You are.
	The question, it is.
	It is.
	How is the question asking about a presidential candidate?
	You're asking a rape victim.
	And there's no question about that.
	You're questioning my political choices because I've been raped.
	No, I'm questioning your political choices because you're supporting someone who's been found liable for rape.
	He really should listen to her mansplaining.
	I'm being facetious with the mansplaining.
	I'm not shaming you.
	I'm just saying, as someone who was raped, how can you dare support?
	That's not shame.
	This is the George Stephanopoulos, what was he called?
	The clean-up guy for the Clinton?
	For instance, he's the one who gave that thoroughly amazing interview with...
	Oh, what's his face?
	Alec Baldwin.
	I'm not shaming you.
	I'm just saying that as a rape victim, you should know better and shame on you.
	I'm not trying to...
	You are.
	That's exactly what you're doing.
	You're not answering the question.
	I think it's disgusting.
	Well, you're welcome to say that, but you also have to answer the question.
	I have to answer the question?
	Who the fuck do you think you are, Stephanopoulos?
	Who the hell do you think you are?
	Now it's gone from shaming to demeaning.
	I understand the way you feel, but you have to answer the question.
	I got two middle fingers for you, and you're welcome to have a long view of both of them, Stephanopoulos, but I'm not shaming you.
	What is the answer?
	He was not found guilty in a criminal court of law.
	It was sexual abuse.
	It wasn't actually rape, by the way.
	And E. Jean Carroll joked about all the money she's going to get and made a mockery out of this case.
	And I think that's offensive.
	There's a reason why women don't come forward.
	And when you have someone who says that they're raped...
	Democrats, liberals, progressives turn the MeToo from a legitimate...
	Movement into a politically weaponized movement that then makes it very difficult for other actual victims to come forward.
	Stroll out Christine Blasey Ford to rehash a 35-year-old machination of gang rape with Brett Kavanaugh.
	And then you wonder why people are skeptical to believe other victims who might actually be bona fide victims when they come forward.
	E. Jean Carroll, 25-year-old hallucination of getting Assaulted in a Bergstorf, Bergdorf, Bergstorf, whatever the hell that store is called.
	Changing room?
	And then there was like, yeah, you're crazy, Carol.
	You're crazy, Ford.
	You've made this up for political purposes.
	And then every other actual victim is like, shit, if I come forward now, they're gonna think I'm making this up for political purposes.
	They're gonna think I'm doing this for some nefarious purpose.
	You wanna know who makes it exceedingly difficult for actual victims of actual rape?
	You, Stephanopoulos.
	You, Joe Biden and his team.
	You, Kamala Harris.
	You, everybody who parades E. Jean Carroll around like an actual victim of rape.
	A mockery out of this civil court judgment.
	It's offensive to other women.
	It makes it harder for other women to come forward when another woman has made a mockery of it.
	You said women don't come forward because they are afraid.
	They're judged and shamed.
	You're trying to shame me this morning.
	They are afraid to come forward.
	Be quiet, woman.
	I'm talking, is what he's thinking.
	Listen, I'm lecturing you, and you have to answer my questions.
	I want, oh, I'd love to know the dirt in Stephanopoulos' closet, because he's...
	As you said, because they are defamed by those who commit the rape.
	That's what Donald Trump has been found guilty of doing.
	He defended himself over that and denies it.
	Guilty of rape.
	Wrong and wrong, but we'll get there.
	It never happened, but he was not found guilty in a criminal court of law.
	Nor was he found guilty in a civil court of law.
	The term would be liable.
	He wasn't found liable for rape in a civil court of law.
	Until we get to the kangaroo court insanity that should merit disbarment and removal from the bench of Judge Kaplan.
	Let me just refresh and read the latest.
	Donald Trump sues ABC News and host George Stephanopoulos for defaming him during an interview with Representative Nancy Mace.
	Good.
	The lawsuit stems from Stephanopoulos' questioning of Mace about being a rape survivor.
	I wish people would just...
	I don't find that it stifles reach on Twitter.
	Using the...
	As we'll get to.
	Some of the most...
	Popular tweets I've had often use the F word.
	So I don't know.
	Okay, fine.
	The show host apparently lied about Trump during his questioning of Mace when he asserted that he was found liable for rape.
	Judges and two separate juries have found him liable for rape and for defaming the victim of that rape.
	How do you square your endorsement of Donald Trump with the testimony we just saw?
	Trump was not found liable for rape.
	These statements were and remained false and were made by defendant Stephanopoulos with actual malice and reckless disregard for the truth.
	Given that the defendant Stephanopoulos knows that these statements are patently and demonstrably false.
	You want to know why I'm going to predict, even though I don't want Trump to lose this suit?
	You know why he's going to lose this suit?
	Because of what that crooked, corrupt Judge Kaplan did afterwards.
	So that's the tweet.
	I'm going to close this down.
	Trump is going to lose that suit.
	Because they're going to say it's substantially true because of what...
	This kangaroo court corrupt Judge Kaplan did.
	But if anybody...
	No, don't disable the camera.
	If anybody had any lingering doubts, E. Jean Carroll is not a rape victim.
	Trump was not found liable for rape in a civil court.
	He was actually specifically found not liable for rape in a civil court.
	You see, here I know.
	Spell it out.
	Don't be shy.
	And the tweet.
	If the substance is there, people are going to want to share the knowledge.
	E. Jean Carroll is not a rape victim, moron.
	Who was I talking to here?
	Who was I replying to?
	Oh, Jody.
	Who's this person?
	I don't even know who this person is.
	She's not a rape victim, moron.
	Literally.
	She is, however, a mentally ill individual who hit the political jackpot with a corrupt court and partisan jury.
	We'll get to it.
	But I can't see real good, Bill.
	What is that?
	I had to double check that this was the actual legit jury form.
	If you see this image, my new trademark is yellow highlight with a red crayon circle.
	I had to make sure that this was a real jury verdict form because I just didn't believe it when I first found it or when I first discovered it, saw it.
	Verdict form.
	Did Ms. Carroll prove by a preponderance of the evidence?
	More likely than not.
	One, Mr. Trump raped Ms. Carroll.
	No!
	Like, hey, Stephanopoulos.
	No, no, no.
	I know, it's hard to understand, eh?
	Did Trump, Mr. Trump, sexually abuse Ms. Carroll?
	Yes!
	You want to say that Trump was found liable for sexually abusing Ms. Carroll, that would be a factually accurate statement to make.
	I think it's a load of shit.
	The product of a corrupt kangaroo court.
	And a partisan jury pool, but it is factually true that a corrupt jury and a corrupt judge, or I should say it's the jury.
	The judge didn't make any findings of liability, but he did make some other findings we're going to get to.
	It would be factually correct to say that a jury in the politically partisan hackery state of New York found Trump liable for sexual abuse.
	He sexually abused her, whatever that means in law.
	And then to answer a question everybody always asks that I made a mistake on it first.
	Mr. Trump forcibly touched Ms. Carol.
	There's no answer to that question.
	And I didn't make a mistake.
	I just said, how did they get to...
	How did they get to...
	There were some other questions in question six.
	How did they get to the later questions without...
	Oh, how did they get to question four that he injured her if they didn't forcibly touch her?
	The answer to that question, you don't need to answer forcible touching.
	Because forcible touching is necessarily included in sexual abuse.
	I guess there's no way of sexually abusing someone that does not involve forcible touching.
	So once they say, yes, he sexually abused Ms. Carroll, it necessarily includes forcible touching.
	So they don't need to answer that question.
	They can go straight to question four, that she was injured, as well as Ms. Trump's card.
	It is factually incorrect to say that Trump was found liable for rape.
	Period.
	In fact, it is only factually correct to say that he was found not liable, based on a preponderance of the evidence for rape.
	In a normal world, that's where the political corruption would end.
	Found liable that he sexually abused her, yes, because you're dealing with a jury pool, that would have found him guilty of anything, something, necessarily.
	All right.
	All right.
	That's part one of it.
	Link.
	Part two.
	How then do we get to this fabrication that Trump was found liable for rape?
	I've talked about it at length.
	It's the most shockingly disgusting thing I've ever...
	It's beyond words.
	Because you have this set up already where even a partisan, hack, corrupt jury could not find that Trump...
	raped E. Jean Carroll.
	Even a corrupt jury out of New York did not believe E. Jean Carroll when she argued alleged claim that she was raped by Donald Trump 25 years ago in a Bergdorf changing room with Even that jury said, "Yeah, we don't even believe her based on a preponderance of the evidence of that." All right.
	Well, how do we get to rape?
	It's amazing.
	Well, leave it to a judge who's got tools.
	You got New York nipple Judge Engron who's got tools.
	Well, you've also got, I don't know what this Judge Kaplan has been up to in his spare time.
	He's also got tools.
	He came to this conclusion and then reiterated it later on, given his previous finding.
	Listen to this statement that the judge came to in his ruling on the punitive damages.
	And the defamation of E. Jean Carroll.
	Punitive damages defamation claim.
	Lastly, Mr. Trump argues that the jury's $280,000 punitive damages award for Ms. Carroll's defamation claim violated due process principles.
	He principally argues that the punitive damages award for Ms. Carroll's defamation claim should be no more than $5,000 because his conduct with regard to the 2022 statement is barely reprehensible, if at all, because he was defending himself against a false accusation of rape.
	Remember people were saying, I didn't rape her.
	I never knew her.
	She's a crazy woman.
	Yet, yet, apparently you can't even protest your own innocence after a finding of liability, but set that aside.
	Quote, the Supreme Court has outlined three guideposts to facilitate its review of state court punitive damages awards.
	One, the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct, the ratio of punitive damages to the actual harm inflicted.
	Two, and three, the difference between this remedy and civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases.
	End quote.
	Mr. Trump's argument plainly is foreclosed.
	He can't even say that he didn't rape her by the analysis set forth above and by the court's determination that the jury implicitly found Mr. Trump did in fact digitally rape Ms. Carroll.
	This is Orwell on steroids.
	This is Orwell on MKUltra.
	I want to read it again.
	This court's determination that the jury implicitly found, despite their explicit finding of no to rape, that they implicitly determined that Trump did in fact digitally rape Ms. Carroll with his fingers.
	And that, I'm not going to bring the other part back up, but that goes back to Judge Kaplan arguing that, yeah, sure, technically the jury found that Trump didn't rape.
	Didn't rape Ms. Carroll based on the preponderance of the evidence because they didn't know what she alleged.
	He put something in her.
	It was his fingers or whatever.
	She couldn't tell.
	But that what Trump did, colloquially speaking, under people's general understanding of rape, despite the actual criminal legal definition, it might even be civil definition in New York, despite the actual legal definition, what most people understand to be rape.
	Is what Trump actually did.
	So therefore, he did indeed rape her, even though the jury said that he didn't actually rape her.
	But now the judge says that because, you know, colloquially speaking, what people understand rape to be, it's close enough, so we can say that he did indeed rape her, even though the jury verdict form specifically says no.
	This is the broken judicial system that is a laughingstock of the international community at this point.
	A jury comes to a specific finding of fact based on the preponderance of the evidence, and this corrupt hack of a judge is still not happy with the corrupt ruling that he's liable for sexual abuse, that he's sexually abused.
	Still not happy.
	Gotta get to the rape.
	Gotta let people call Trump a rapist.
	Gotta let the idiot blue checkmarks, MSM hacks like Stephanopoulos, say that he raped her because they want rape.
	I mean, sexual abuse, even though that's bad.
	Not bad enough.
	So obviously, yeah, he sexually abused her.
	He put his fingers there.
	So he digitally raped her.
	I mean, the irony is that in the world into which we're going, there's going to be digital rape.
	It's going to be internet.
	Oh, he said something terrible.
	He raped my personality.
	He raped my reputation.
	Well, that's digital rape.
	We're going to get there, but we're not there yet.
	Right now, we're only at the stage of a judge overriding the determination, the finding of the jury, so that he can now facilitate.
	The continued defamation of Donald Trump for digital rape.
	So I'm telling you, I think this is going to get tossed because Stephanopoulos is going to say, no, the judge said he did indeed rape her.
	I'm just saying what the judge said.
	Oh, but he was not found liable for rape, but implicitly digital rape found liable for.
	This is what justice in America has come down to because of Trump derangement syndrome.
	It's sad.
	It's not even like, you know, we would like to criticize the system, rage against the machine.
	It's sad.
	Witnessing, it's not an implosion.
	What we are witnessing is people sabotaging what was the greatest experiment of all time.
	We are witnessing people detonating the foundations of one of the most critical institutions to ensure a proper civil functioning society.
	And what we are also witnessing are useful idiots, delightfully stupid and ignorant people, and people who are maliciously deceitful that they need the lie.
	They know it's a lie.
	They know they're being lied to, but they know they get to repeat it now.
	And they're so ridden with Trump derangement syndrome that they need someone to lie to them so they can then lie to themselves and say, yep, Trump is a rapist.
	I mean, as if it wouldn't be bad enough to say that he's a sexual abuser to the extent that anyone believes that to be the case.
	That should be bad enough to get to say that about somebody.
	I think it's a load of shit.
	Apologies for the swearing.
	I think that entire verdict is a load of shit.
	I do not believe E. Jean Carroll as far as I can throw her.
	It's an absolute political witch hunt.
	It's a partisan lynch mob.
	I've said it before and I'll say it again.
	Replace racial with political, and now we have the modern-day lynch mob.
	It's an absolute egregious injustice of a jury finding.
	It deserves to get overturned.
	Kaplan, the judge, not Kaplan, the lawyer, deserves to get disbarred.
	But people need, it's the two minutes of Orwellian hate.
	They need someone to lie to them so they can say, I don't care that he's lying to me.
	I know it's not true, but I get to say it now because that's how much I have been brainwashed into thinking I hate Trump.
	So Godspeed, Trump.
	I don't think it's going anywhere.
	We'll see.
	Maybe I'm wrong.
	Oh, lordy, lordy, lordy.
	What else do we have on the backdrop here?
	Breaking Donald Trump.
	Oh, yeah, no.
	Then the ultimate irony of all of this.
	Here, look here.
	I don't know who these people are that I pick fights with on Twitter.
	81,000 followers.
	Oh, it's okay.
	Blocked by Rudy Giuliani, Tom Fitton, and Carrie Lake, political junkie.
	Good for you.
	I mean, I do...
	I do broadcast my blocks as well, but I don't put them in my bio.
	I'm not that pathetic.
	Although if Elon Musk were to have blocked me, maybe I'd put that in my bio.
	So there's a video of an effigy of...
	I'm Dr. Joe Biden's husband.
	And I ate Chinese ice cream, chocolate chip.
	I came down because I heard there was chocolate chip ice cream.
	That's an actual audio.
	By the way, I have a whole refrigerator full of sticks.
	I think I'm kidding.
	Is that audio real audio?
	I mean, that really sounds like, if that's a deep fake, that sounds like a good deep fake.
	Dutchy Patrick says, I'd rather support a man who licks ice cream than a man who rapes women.
	What about you?
	Defamation.
	Set that aside.
	Defamation.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	So you haven't picked up, Dutchy Patrick, on the time-tested and true rule of life, confession through projection.
	Whatever they're accusing Trump of is that of which they are guilty themselves.
	Impeachment?
	Quid pro quo?
	That was Joe.
	Pissing on hotel sheets with hookers in Russia, that was probably Hunter Biden.
	Nepotism, corruption, family corruption, Hunter Biden, Joe Biden.
	And now raping women?
	I'm not making any accusations.
	I'm just noticing.
	You are supporting a man who did both and opposing a man who did neither.
	Y 'all remember this?
	Did Joe Biden digitally rape Tara Reade?
	In March 2020, during that year's election campaign for President of the United States, this is from Wikipedia, Tara Reade alleged that Democratic nominee Joe Biden sexually assaulted her in 1993 in a Capitol Hill office building when she was a staff assistant in his office.
	I'm going to get to it.
	By the way, you know why I say that this is true?
	Because Lisa Bloom, the daughter of Gloria Allred, said, we know that this happened.
	We know that you're telling the truth.
	We know that you said it at the time.
	We know that you're not asking for money.
	I believe you.
	But I've got to go fight Donald Trump and defend your rapist, your digital rapist.
	Oh yeah, what about this improper touching or improper behavior?
	Ashley Biden said in her diary, pages 67 to 68, that she waited until late at night to take a shower because she was afraid of her father coming in with her.
	So why do you continue to support Joe Biden?
	This was in her diary.
	The diary that the intelligence, speaking of disinformation, said Russia was a fake, was disinformation.
	Hold on a second.
	You've got to see this.
	You've got to see this, people.
	I know that I tweeted it.
	Oh, yeah, here we go.
	Look at this.
	It's good.
	I don't remember things.
	I just remember systems.
	Here.
	They just discounted me.
	They marginalized me.
	They said they didn't believe me, said Tara Reade.
	Tara Reade, who accused Joe Biden of sexually assaulting her in 1995, feels betrayed by the Democrat or whatever.
	Oh, she feels betrayed?
	That's because she has been betrayed.
	Lisa Bloom, I believe you, Tara Reade.
	You have people who remember.
	You told them about this decades ago.
	We all know he was handsy.
	Was he digitally rapey?
	Joe Biden, we all knew he was handsy.
	Well, according to Kappa, that's digital rape.
	We all knew Joe Biden was digital rapey.
	You're not asking for money.
	You've obviously struggled mightily with this.
	But I still have to fight Trump, so I'm going to support your digital rapist.
	But I believe you, and I'm sorry.
	She actually tweeted this, Lisa Blue.
	I think the tweet's still up there.
	The only alternative is Trump, credibly accused of sexual misconduct by over 20 women.
	Ah, but we believe you.
	I can't believe it.
	Who remembers this?
	Still up there.
	Yeah, it's still up there.
	Look at that.
	Un-freaking-believable.
	But no, Trump is the digital rapist, according to Kaplan, and Joe Biden's not.
	That's really unbelievable.
	Okay, close that up.
	Let me see if I...
	Did I have any more on the TDS?
	We'll go to the chat for a second.
	Let me see what's going on in the chat.
	Oh.
	Okay, chat has frozen, so that's why I'm not seeing any updated chat.
	All right, let me see if I can go to France.
	Viva, you're going to guano.
	Viva, you're going to guano here.
	I think you should drop it off a notch or five.
	What's guano?
	Hold on, Viva, you're going guano here.
	I think you should drop it.
	That's quick, but what does that mean?
	Okay, I don't know what that means.
	The whole chat is TDS.
	Chat is a myth.
	Like Antifa.
	Okay, so hold on.
	Let's discuss your past pharmaceutical dealings and the merits of those allegations your viewers demand to know if they are true.
	What the hell is 2DZ Williams talking about?
	My past pharmaceutical dealings and the merits of those allegations.
	I don't think people are talking to me.
	Update chat.
	Sorry, now I'm into the chat here on Rumble.
	How many times have cases like this been fabricated and delusionally believed by crazy stalker women and dismissed by a thousand times?
	Yes.
	Who said I'm batshit crazy?
	My wife is strong and independent, but she stayed home and raised our children while I was making the money.
	That's actually feminism.
	Okay.
	Oh, the bots.
	Okay.
	Pharmaceutical dealings.
	I'm kind of curious as to what the person even thinks.
	No, I knew guana is bat poop, but how am I going crazy?
	Is it true he pushed a fraudulent drug that failed multiple drugs?
	Oh, you're talking about freaking 2D Williams.
	You're talking about Vivek Ramaswamy.
	Dude, listen to my interview with him.
	Not for these people.
	This is nothing.
	Dude, you got VDS.
	Vivek derangement syndrome.
	VDS actually sounds like a...
	VDS.
	What's it?
	Oh, that VD.
	That's good because it actually is a kind of a VD.
	Oh, yeah.
	Lordy.
	Vivek is a snake who can never be trusted.
	Simple AS.
	All right.
	Well, there's a lot of this VDS in the crowd there, so I don't care.
	I've satisfied my own skepticism when it comes to Vivek.
	I would just like that Vivek would get a little more vocal with a couple of issues.
	Obviously, the Amos Miller Pennsylvania farmer, I'd like to bring that to the attention of Trump.
	There was another one.
	Oh, yeah, that's right.
	Bring to him my outline as to never taking pride in the jibby jab ever again.
	And the path forward is to hold all of those responsible for everything that is wrong with the jibby jab.
	Okay.
	Oh, Biltong's in the house.
	So how do I do this now?
	If I go like this, Biltong share screen.
	Trump derangement.
	Here we go.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	Good afternoon from Anton's Meat and Eat.
	Free shipping on your Biltong with code VIVA on www.biltongusa.com and antonusa.com.
	Biltong, a perfect pairing for high-protein, keto, and carnivore diets.
	It is objectively delicious stuff as well.
	Thank you, Biltong.
	Thank you, Anton.
	Okay, and let me see something here.
	Can I go up?
	Because I'm sure that I missed some more Super Chats up at the top after the chat froze.
	That doesn't matter.
	It does matter.
	I feel bad if anyone...
	Oh, look at this.
	They're all up here.
	Crash Bandit.
	Are we seeing Operation Mocking Murder in real time?
	Yes.
	The lawyers should use the right argument.
	If the government has the right to take down harmful speech by proxy, shouldn't they also be named in lawsuit against the platform?
	Of course, they would say no, says W. Claxton, 3721.
	Sammy.
	Hey, Viva.
	Are you familiar with Michael Jan?
	Okay, I got that.
	Joseph Goebbels would be envious, says Crash Bandit.
	Okay, good.
	That's all the chats now.
	Okay, what else do we have on the menu before we head on over to...
	So my schedule for the week, I'm going to try to go live whenever I can, but it's going to be very, very...
	It's going to be even more erratic than it is normally.
	Yeah, Aiken.
	I feel bad giving this...
	Here, by the way, 30-second clip.
	Aiken, this is the account that spread the lie that I still don't think has been community noted yet.
	Let's hear the lie, or let's see what they want us to believe here.
	To everybody around the world watching this, absolutely horrific.
	Well, wait, Kevin.
	Kevin, but hold on a second.
	Kevin, what would be the- Trouble will be gone one day.
	Hold on a second.
	This attorney's general will be gone one day, and this is what you want to tell me.
	I have a wonderful voice, and we'll be talked over.
	Kevin O 'Leary, I would like to hear you have to say, but- This is not America.
	What are you doing?
	Not America.
	It's not America, but it is the Laura Coates live show, and I am speaking.
	So that will be the rule.
	Not Venezuela, nowhere else.
	Fine, but it's Lara Coates Live.
	Then don't invite them, Lara.
	My name is Lara Coates.
	The question to everybody around the world.
	That might be why no one's watching your show, Lara Coates.
	I don't know what the viewership is, but I'm going to go ahead and predict it's not much.
	The last time she talked, if it was her show, I think she talked over the last time as well.
	Which brings us to our Leticia James, the news of the day.
	Oh, there's some people, I don't want to put them on blast, who are so afflicted with Trump derangement syndrome that they are happy, that they think that Trump is bankrupt.
	Trump, in his appeal of nipple Judge Engeron's decision and tishy-tish corruption like James, has posted an appeal in which he's explained that unless the order to pay $455 million...
	$355 million plus $98 million no interest.
	Unless that order out of New York has stayed, well, he's going to suffer massive and irreparable harm because apparently he is unable to secure a bond to post in court $450 million plus the daily interest, as Leticia James was at one point tweeting out, of $115,000 a day in interest.
	So the news of the day that people are reveling it and Idiots like Ted Lieu.
	Barnes said it Sunday.
	I thought I tweeted it out.
	Sometimes you need to cuss those that need cussing.
	People are reveling in the fact that they think it's a sign of insolvency.
	Sorry, it's the word.
	That Trump can't secure a bond to put up $450 million.
	Therefore, he's insolvable and bankrupt.
	And everyone's like, yeah.
	Now we get to seize his stuff and go full commie.
	We get to seize his buildings, maybe house them with some illegal immigrants because they fucked up society so much now that by flooding their own cities with illegal immigrants, they can't even provide to the homeless, to the veterans, kicking kids out of schools so they can take their dorms.
	Oh, but they didn't shut down the school.
	They just sent the kids home so they can deal with the overrun of illegal immigrants in their cities.
	No, maybe now.
	They're going to seize Trump Tower and turn it into a migrant center.
	I said it as a joke, as a political satirical Babylon Bee joke when they announced this order.
	I'm thinking it might prove to be prophetic.
	Trump was ordered to pay $455 million in a fraud trial in which there was no crime, no victim, and no complainant other than a communist tactic.
	Corrupt Leticia James, who campaigned off prosecuting Trump not once but twice.
	Banks were not injured.
	Banks were not upset.
	Banks said, we lent all this money in full awareness.
	In fact, I don't need to go over the basics of this case again, nor do we have the time.
	Nonetheless, no victim, no real plaintiff except for the government.
	And the judge, New York nipple judge Angeron, the guy who posts...
	Topless selfies of his body to his alumni.
	The guy who posts links to all of the judgments that he issued, smashing Eric Trump, orders a disgorgement of ill-gotten gains because the banks gave Trump a preferential rate on his loans because he allegedly overvalued his assets.
	And the banks said, no, he didn't.
	No, we didn't.
	We were happy to do it.
	We all liked it.
	We made millions of dollars.
	We're actually pissed that you're not letting us do it again.
	$455 million.
	As Trump appeals this under New York state law, he must post The amount of the award in a court holding file, whatever the court account, or post bond, which would require him to put up 10% of the award and find a bond company to post up the balance.
	He did it in the E. Jean Carroll 90 some odd million dollar case.
	That's a little easier to post bond for.
	Can't do it in this case.
	He can't do it not because he's insolvent, not because he's, I guess he's...
	Illiquid in the sense that he doesn't have a half a billion dollars cash lying around to pay off these communist, fascist, whatever the hell you want to call them, corrupt to the core judges and prosecutors.
	Nobody has $500 million lying around.
	He can't secure a bond because bond companies, in their motion as alleged, but anybody who's ever done any law, anyone who's done any real estate knows this.
	Managing real estate is a royal pain in the ass.
	Nobody wants to do it.
	Banks don't want to do it.
	Banks will secure a loan with real estate when they know that they could seize your real estate, sell it without having to manage it, even at a fire sale, and still make enough to pay back their loan.
	Banks don't want to manage real estate.
	Bond companies don't want to manage real estate.
	So you've got a bond company saying, we're not securing a bond over a property that is massively complicated to manage.
	We're not in the real estate business.
	We're in the bond business.
	Typically, from what I understand, bond companies typically have a maximum of 100 million that they'll post bond for.
	Here they're saying, we don't want to get into the real estate business.
	We don't want to manage properties.
	That's not what we do.
	Certainly not super complex estate properties.
	And so they say, we're not doing it.
	Trump, tough noogies.
	Too bad, so sad.
	You're not going to get...
	We're not going to do it.
	And now Trump has to come up to the court of appeal and say, I can't get bond.
	If you don't stay the order...
	Stay execution of the order pending the appeal.
	I will suffer massive and irreparable harm.
	It's obvious.
	Some are going to say, well, thanks, man.
	What you're pleading is what the purpose is.
	They don't not know this.
	They know this.
	And apparently, you know, Leticia Tishy Tishluck James said it at the time.
	We're going to start seizing asses.
	No one is above the law.
	And then you got your filthy commies who know exactly what's going on and are rattling in it.
	Ted Lieu, listen to this here.
	We're back with breaking news on one of Donald Trump's legal cases.
	Trump's lawyers say the former president has been unable to get a bond for the $464 million fraud judgment against him in that civil fraud case.
	Back with us now, Kathryn Christian, former assistant Manhattan district attorney and MSNBC legal analyst.
	They write, Trump's lawyers write in a recent filing here that getting the judgments full amount in a bond is a practical impossibility.
	They say they have tried to approach about 30 shorty companies through four separate brokers and cannot get a bond for this amount.
	So what does that mean?
	That says he doesn't have the collateral, so a company is like, no, we're not going to do it.
	That's not what it says.
	And what it means is unless the appellate court in New York is called the appellate division.
	Grants him a stay until after the appeal is done to pay.
	Attorney General James has said she's going to go into court, and so he has until March 25th, and she's going to request that his assets start being seized.
	Properties, liquid assets, so that's going to happen if he doesn't get to stay, and he has to pay, because that's what the Attorney General said she's going to do if he doesn't come up with the bond or the money.
	I'm trying to find a...
	It doesn't mean that he doesn't have the collateral.
	It just means that even a bond company is not going to take a half a billion dollar property and then worry about managing it.
	They're not in that business.
	It's not what they need to do.
	Ted Lieu, Trump claims he's a billionaire, but he can't pay a $464 million judgment.
	That means he's lying.
	How do I know?
	How do I know you're lying?
	You're a bloody idiot, Ted.
	Enjoy it.
	Revel in it.
	Husband of Betty, the love of my life.
	Father of two great kids.
	United States Air Force veteran.
	Member of Congress in that order.
	Also, empathy is good.
	These mother effer...
	They are the walking embodiment of filthy hypocrites.
	Empathy is good.
	Oh, he can't pay a $464 million.
	What a broke ass.
	Oh, Trump, you said you were a billionaire, but you can't pay a $500 million corrupt communist ruling?
	You broke-ass biot.
	Whoa, you're a liar.
	Oh, boy.
	Okay, a filthy communist who's never built anything of value in his life can't understand how unfeasible it is for someone to post a $500 million bomb after a bullshit kangaroo court verdict.
	Sometimes you need to cuss the people who need to be cussed.
	Hold on, hold on.
	That wasn't the best of it.
	Look, every now and again I wake up and say, "Ah, shit.
	Maybe I went a little hard in the paint the night before." Maybe I was just a little too angry.
	Is this it?
	I think this one's it.
	Can I see this?
	Yeah, that's it.
	Is that it?
	No, that's not it.
	What the heck is going on?
	Is it this?
	Yeah.
	No, that's not the right one.
	That's not the right one.
	Get this out of here.
	Get this out of here.
	Hold on one second.
	We're going to do it.
	We'll do it live, people.
	I call them an effing communist.
	That's what I did.
	Forget it.
	I can't find a tweet.
	And then there's another dude.
	Trump is bankrupt.
	First of all, he's not.
	You dumbass.
	But even if he were, are you now taking pride?
	Are you now rejoicing in the fact that a weaponized Totally politically compromised, totally corrupt judicial system can bankrupt any billionaire.
	This you think is a good thing.
	He's not bankrupt.
	But if they did successfully bankrupt Donald Trump, they have effed America.
	Nobody's going to invest in America if they have bankrupted Donald Trump with this bullshit ruling.
	This total corruption of the process.
	This total bastardization of justice.
	America's over if that's what happens.
	America is over, not just because they've done it, but because they get other people to rejoice in it.
	He's insulting.
	How do I know?
	Math.
	The plan has worked.
	He's not bankrupt, but if you think he is, you're an asshole and an idiot for thinking it's a good thing.
	He isn't bankrupt, which illustrates the other problem.
	A, he is a billionaire, and B, there's a problem in the process where the courts can come down and cripple you, even though you might succeed on appeal.
	From what I understand, Leticia James talks a big game.
	She's going to come start, I'm going to seize buildings and assets to make him pay for his property.
	By the way, are they going to seize Mar-a-Lago at $27 million?
	I mean, they can't seize Mar-a-Lago because it's in Florida, but are they going to seize these properties at whatever they deem the municipal evaluation to be?
	Are they going to seize a $500 million building for $50 million and say, you still owe us another $450 million?
	I wouldn't be surprised with these filthy communists.
	And by the way, I'm using the term right.
	Rightly here.
	Communist, fascist, whatever.
	Communism is about nationalizing private property.
	Hey, you got a nice building there, Trump.
	Give it to us.
	Oh, you don't want to give it to us?
	Well, I'll just pull a little lovrenta barrier and convict you of a bullshit crime.
	I'll find the crime.
	Who was it that said, oh, yeah, they were faulting Trump for the bloodbath comment.
	Like, well, he really makes it easy.
	He should just watch what he says in public.
	If he just watched what he said a little more.
	They wouldn't be able to take things out of context so easy.
	Alrighty.
	And why don't you complain that her dress was too short when she went to the bar the other night?
	I mean, this is...
	He should weigh his words more carefully.
	They wouldn't be able to take things out of context.
	They can literally take things out of context where peacefully and patriotically is ignored.
	Like, he should just watch what he says.
	Well, if he just did business a little better, they wouldn't have been able to do this.
	A man who's been in business for 40 years.
	Plus, maybe more than that.
	Leticia James campaigned off finding money laundering from foreign interests because domestic banks weren't lending him any money.
	Oh, and they couldn't even find that.
	Oh, if he just spoke more carefully, he'd be fine.
	If he just did business better, they wouldn't come after him.
	You idiots are either willfully or unwittingly, no, not understanding what the hell's going on here.
	He's not bankrupt, but if you did bankrupt him, shame on everybody involved.
	And he's not bankrupt, but they love it.
	Now, Leticia James apparently can start seizing assets.
	From what I understand, if they start seizing assets and selling them and all this other crap, and it's overturned on appeal, will they have to pay him back all that money plus interest?
	You think Leticia James gives a sweet bugger all about pissing away taxpayer dollars?
	You think she gives a sweet bugger all?
	If Trump suffers irreparable harm as a result of their, is it the word, their arbitrary, capricious, and premature disposable assets, she won't care if they don't have the money to repay them.
	She won't care if taxpayers have to flip the bill if Trump survives to that point, financially, economically, politically.
	So whether or not Leticia James is going to go full crazy and say, yeah, we're going to start seizing assets, even though this is under appeal, and if it doesn't get reversed on appeal...
	America was a nice experiment.
	Enjoy the balkanization of the states and I'll enjoy living in Florida to the extent I can.
	Touch wood.
	So we'll see.
	I don't know where to go with my prediction there.
	I think she will start seizing assets or attempting to if the Court of Appeal does not grant a stay of execution pending appeal.
	And if the Court of Appeal does not grant a stay, given the obvious demonstrable harm, the system is broken.
	Pack up your shit and get the hell out of New York.
	It's sad.
	It's sad more than it is enraging.
	Jason of the Greater Area, Jason of TGA says, can the lenders turn around and file a class action suit against New York City for making them seem like incompetent negligent victims?
	Seems like a kind of defamation case to me.
	I don't think so.
	Can there be a...
	I mean, I don't even know who could sue.
	They succeeded on the claim.
	That's the issue.
	The judge came to the finding that...
	Leticia James' prosecution was legit.
	I don't know how you can sue for any form of damages if they succeeded on their claim.
	Everybody is suffering.
	Everyone in New York is going to suffer prejudice for this.
	And Leticia James, too, she just doesn't know it yet.
	Barbisa Ariane says, is it true illegals can carry it?
	I read that.
	I heard that.
	Setting aside that there was a split decision or that the court...
	There was a ruling on illegals carrying.
	Someone DM'd it to me, but I don't know yet.
	So I'll have a look at that.
	And I think we've done good here.
	I haven't gotten harassed by wife or kids yet to get outside, but I know that I should.
	So let me make sure that I've gotten to everything that we're going to get to today.
	Colin Rugg.
	Okay, we got that.
	We got that.
	All right, what we're going to do now is we're going to head on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	But because we've frozen the chat here...
	There's a tipper.
	It says, Viva from Geg.
	Back before Viva Barnes was a thing.
	In your own channel, you did a read-through of a group suing over COVID information who were alleging facts about the wet markets in Wuhan.
	Do you know whatever came in that case?
	I can't remember the name.
	It couldn't have been before Barnes because Barnes and I really got going when we all got locked down.
	This is from Dash G-E-G Dash.
	There was a class action about the wet markets.
	Oh!
	The Canadian lawyer.
	The Canadian lawyer.
	Italian name lawyer.
	I think that's the one.
	I might be wrong.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	Let me see if I can get this real quick.
	Google class action COVID lawyer in Toronto.
	I'm not going to be able to get it offhand, but we're going to go to locals at the end.
	Yeah, Rocco Galati.
	Rocco Galati.
	And he's doing one, I think.
	Oh, I think it was Rocco Galati.
	I'll look and I'll see what I can get.
	But everybody else, I'm not going to have too much time on vivavarneslaw.locals.com because I'm going to go and see if there's any.
	I saw the mother manatee.
	I'm on a phone with Richard Serret doing an interview with him.
	And I see a mama manatee and a baby manatee swimming up with this river here.
	Crystal River?
	I forget what it is.
	Anyway, it's beautiful up here.
	So what we're going to do now, it's going to be our locals supporters only.
	And I might really say what I think about what's going on.
	Link to locals.
	So come on over.
	If you are not a supporter, consider becoming a supporter and partaking in some of the exclusive stuff.
	There's tons of not exclusive stuff for the members.
	Those who don't, not everybody can choose to, you know.
	Flip 10 bucks to their favorite content creator.
	And I mean, I was talking about this with Lectin.
	I'm going to save this for, well, I'll do it here.
	Lectin guys, we're talking about these detached liberal elitist pricks who are on Twitter saying, of course I'm better off now than I was four years ago because four years ago, blah, blah, blah.
	Can you imagine?
	If COVID was actually a bioweapon that was released on purpose, or even if it was accidentally released because humans were doing shit they shouldn't be doing, that was illegal, but Fauci knew that it couldn't be done here, so he was doing it in China, lying about it here.
	They've ruined your life.
	They locked you down.
	They created a world in which your life was destroyed, upended, stolen years.
	And then they say, well, I'm better off now under Biden.
	And the very regime that probably was responsible for this than I was four years ago when we sabotaged Trump with this.
	So be grateful to us?
	Oh, things aren't that bad now?
	Who was it?
	I was like, you don't even go freaking shopping.
	Barbara Streisand?
	You tell me when the last time you went to a grocery store.
	I won't say how much we spent for groceries because we're on the road.
	My wife comes back, hundreds of dollars, not even half a fridge with three kids.
	That doesn't last.
	For people who are living paycheck to paycheck.
	To not be able to buy the food they want?
	Oh, no, but these liberal, elitist, progressive pricks take to Twitter and say, I'm better off now than I was four years ago, so everybody else has to be.
	And you're a racist bigot if you're going to go vote for the rapist.
	Say, boss.
	Okay, link to locals.
	Come on over.
	I'm going to end it here.
	Let me see if I didn't miss anything.
	I'll just get a few more in the chat here.
	People are actually cheering on the tit James attack on Trump, even as it destroys New York.
	Says, well done, son.
	Absolutely.
	More.
	Hey.
	But it feels good because they're promised something in the future that will compensate them for the suffering of the president.
	They actually believe that Trump is responsible for their current problems.
	And they actually believe that they're going to be better off for having done this.
	Burn their own freaking state down so that Democrats can rule over the ashes.
	Then let this guy who they think is an existential threat because, hey, he said there'd be a bloodbath if he doesn't get elected.
	The people who want you to take violence to the streets based on a lie are trying to get you to believe that that guy's the one who's interested in political violence.
	Horseship.
	Okay, guys, if you're not coming over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com, thank you all for being here.
	I hope this was an amazing test.
	And it's beautiful.
	It's fantastic.
	Rumble is...
	Rumble is the way, people.
	It's the parallel economy.
	And until and if YouTube ever gets its political ideological crap together, vote with your feet, vote with your dollars, vote with your eyeballs.
	If you can't vote with your dollars or your feet, vote with your eyeballs.
	Rumble, locals, the parallel economy.
	And that's it.
	I'm going to end it on Rumble.
	It's going to go to locals, supporters only.
	So if you're not a supporter, think of it.
	If you can't, I thank you all for being here anyhow.
	Thank you all for being here, but you're probably not getting the stream.
	I'll probably put the stream up.
	Maybe this one had a lot too much of rape talk for YouTube, but if you're not coming over as a supporter, I will see you all probably tomorrow.
	I'll go live at some point tomorrow.
	Okay, now I go to the ting here.
	I go to end this.
	Ending on Rumbles and Locals, and it's going to go to Locals supporters only.
	Thank you all for being here.
	Peace out, everybody.
	See you tomorrow.
	Stay tuned for some updates, and I'll post the video of the man team that I saw.

▲