Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 23, 2024 - Viva & Barnes

01:34:05

Trump Trial; NY Surety Settlement; Canada Madness! Baldwin Harassed AND MORE! Viva Frei Live

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	For me in 1999, I would have been...
	And I did see Alex Jones clips in 1999.
	And then in later years where he was talking about Building 7, and I was very offended.
	I was outraged that he would be suggesting that there was something about 9-11 that wasn't above board, that there were things we didn't know that were being hidden from us.
	And I was mad at Alex Jones for saying that.
	I remember that really well.
	How dare you?
	The Building 7 one is wild.
	It is wild.
	All I know is 21...
	I don't even know what year it is.
	23 years?
	Could it really be 23 years after 9-11?
	23 years later.
	What's the justification for classifying any document around 9-11?
	There's no justification.
	Well, the same justification in classifying the documents about the Kennedy assassination.
	Well, exactly.
	61 years later.
	Yeah.
	Or releasing the COVID vaccine data 75 years later.
	Of course.
	Yeah.
	Right.
	I mean, it's...
	Look, secrecy is different from privacy.
	Privacy is necessary for the dignity of this white.
	You've got a door in the bathroom in your bedroom, right?
	You know, you need...
	Privacy, you need private thoughts.
	We have no privacy whatsoever.
	None.
	No privacy at all, thanks to the iPhone and government spying on us all.
	So there's no privacy, but there's massive secrecy.
	Secrecy is different.
	Secrecy of bets lying.
	The only reason to have secrecy is in order to do something that you're ashamed of other people knowing about that's immoral and probably illegal.
	And there's more secrecy than ever.
	And that means that there's more lying than ever.
	There are more crimes being committed than ever.
	That's the surest sign of it.
	Why are there a billion classified federal documents in a so-called democracy?
	Because they're lying to us.
	That's why.
	But 9-11, what is the justification for that?
	I don't know the answer.
	I really don't know the answer, but there is one.
	That's for sure.
	It's not methods and sources.
	You think it's methods and sources?
	Trying to protect their Saudi sources?
	I don't think so.
	Good after...
	Noon, everybody!
	It's 12.01, so that is scientifically and temporally correct.
	Let me just bring this tweet out.
	How does everyone do this fine afternoon?
	I let that play for a little bit to make sure that we were live across all aspects of the interwebs.
	And what I'm going to do now is start the show.
	How is it going?
	Holy crap, apples, people!
	Before we even get started, we're going to talk about Tucker Carlson and his bombshell of a podcast with Joe Rogan I'm thoroughly convinced 96% of the people that are commenting on it have not watched it.
	I don't know why The Daily Wire seems to be going hard against Tucker Carlson.
	I don't understand these internal conflicts, these internal politics that create division among, in theory, minds that should be ideologically aligned.
	But we're going to talk about it.
	But first, we're going to make sure we are live on Rumble.
	We are live on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	And good evening, everybody.
	Good afternoon.
	Oh, good evening.
	Good afternoon from the UK.
	I love crab apples, but not those.
	All righty, people.
	We've got a bunch of stuff to talk about today.
	But for those who are new to the channel and who are new to me.
	I am Viva Frye.
	That is my internet name, a random name that I picked out of the hat in 2014.
	It will be 10 years in November of this year.
	Holy crab apples, that's the election.
	November of this year will mark 10 years of my life on the internet from my first viral video.
	In November 2014 of the squirrel stealing a GoPro and carrying it up a tree.
	David Walter Carlson, good afternoon.
	Julie Kelly on Substack has a great analysis on the Trump indictments.
	David, share it below.
	We're going to talk about Julie Kelly today as it relates to one aspect of what was recently disclosed yesterday by Judge Eileen Cannon coming out of the Florida courts.
	We've got more to talk about than you can possibly imagine.
	But before we even get into the Tucker Carlson Daily Wire...
	I don't know why they are picking on Tucker Carlson, but maybe Tucker Carlson is, you know, subtly jabbing the Daily Wire and they need to get back.
	I don't know.
	Before we get there, if you are new to the channel, I am David Freiheit, a former Montreal litigator.
	I no longer practice law.
	I no longer maintain my Quebec bar license because I never anticipate practicing law again.
	Certainly not in the province of Quebec.
	And all that was happening was I would pay $3,000 a year so that nincompoop jackass snowflakes on the Twitterverse can go file anonymous bar complaints because they don't like a tweet that I put out about Justin Trudeau.
	So, Spearhand, I thought that said Aviva is biased as hell now, and I took offense for a second.
	I'll take based over biased any day of the week.
	Former Montreal litigator turned current Florida rumbler watching the world burn.
	And trying to put out the fires with my salivas from my mouth.
	Holy hell.
	Today we're talking about the Trump trial.
	They had day one of the actual trial, but it's day five of the trial if you include jury duty out of New York in the Alvin Bragg corrupt prosecution for the hush money, and I put it in quotes, election interference, and I put it in quotes, conspiracy to commit election fraud, election interference.
	We're going to get there.
	We're talking about that.
	We're going to also, en passant, because it covers the same subject, talk about the deal that they reached on the certi in the other corrupt New York persecution before, yes, it was New York nipple judge Engelron and Leticia James.
	The person, you know, the $450 million judgment there, we're going to get to that as well.
	The attempt to bankrupt Trump.
	We're going to talk about what's going on in Canada because the proverbial poo-poo is hitting the fan-fan and you...
	You want to know what the world looks like when it's run by progressives, liberals, Democrats, with a capital D, capital L, and big fat R?
	It looks like what you see in New York.
	It looks like what you see up in Canada.
	The new Democrat Party, the NDP, tabled a bill that would literally, and I mean literally, literally, not literally like Rachel Madcow literally, we're going to get to her as well, criminalize speech that speaks favorably of fossil fuels.
	Literally, literally.
	Tucker Carlson, Rachel Madcow, and a bunch of other stuff.
	For those of you who don't know, these beautiful things here from Ian, you should try the water, Dave.
	It's really real.
	This crazy needs to hurry up and come to a head because the simulation is breaking.
	Do you know what I had this morning?
	Are my teeth green?
	Okay, they're not so green.
	I drank this, and it was surprisingly green.
	And I have a feeling something that it's going to make me expel from my body might be equally as green with that.
	Don't eat that.
	All right.
	So these things here, these Rumble Rants, Super Chats, tips.
	First of all, thank you very much.
	YouTube takes 30% of that.
	So if you want to support the channel in a way that does not enrich the platforms that don't necessarily act in your best interest, go to Rumble.
	Rumble has these things called Rumble Rants.
	I don't have one yet to bring up, but I'll bring one up when I get it.
	Rumble takes 20% in a normal year.
	They don't take any percent this year.
	The best way, the absolute best way to support the channel is if you go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	10 bucks a month, or if you buy the year up front, 100 bucks, and I know it's not cheap, it'll be the best 100 bucks you ever spend for exclusive information if you're a supporter.
	If you just want to be a member, no support whatsoever, although you could tip, you could do all sorts of things, just become a member.
	We have a massive, beautiful, above-average community.
	They're so above-average that they picked out my Tavo Tuesday.
	Hold on one second, let me show this.
	Viva Fry is not above making the occasional typo.
	And by occasional, I mean always.
	It's Tavo Tuesday on Rumble.
	And why is it Tavo Tuesday and not Taco Tuesday?
	You would think it's a typo, but that would imply that I don't pay meticulous attention to my words and everything.
	I make typos all the time.
	It's a typo, but it's also Vegetarian Taco Tuesday, so enjoy that.
	Okay.
	Bias isn't always a bad thing.
	I can appreciate that.
	But no, I'm so not biased that I go and reassess myself.
	And that's one thing that we're going to touch on today.
	Because I want to make sure that even when I repeat allegations in a lawsuit, if there's a good argument for why those allegations are spurious, or if there's a fact check that debunks those allegations, I want to make sure I understand it.
	And we're going to clarify something as relates to...
	The corrupt Judge Marchand and his corrupt daughter, Lauren Marchand, and some kerfuffle about her Twitter account.
	All right.
	But first, share the link out because I created this stream, as always, on short notice because I create my streams like I was created myself.
	Short.
	And here we go.
	Look at this.
	Here's one.
	Here's a small sample from Mouse.
	Thank you.
	That's a rumble rant, as we say.
	Oh, and by the way, when you're in...
	When you're in Rumble, there's a little join button right next to the 413,000 subscribers of followers.
	Amazing on Rumble.
	There's a little join button if you want to join the locals community.
	So thank you very much, Mouse.
	Let's get on with the show.
	Let's play that video again from the beginning.
	Tucker Carlson on Joe Rogan.
	And if you haven't seen it, you have to see it because if you haven't seen it and all that you're doing is relying on...
	People on Twitter snipping, clipping, showing highlights in order to understand what went on during that interview.
	You would think that Tucker Carlson got out there, said the earth is flat, the moon landing was fake, Bush did 9-11.
	What else did he get in trouble for?
	Oh yeah, evolution doesn't exist.
	A number, you would think that Tucker Carlson, instead of being a world-class, I don't say journalist, I'll say just a mind.
	A world-class respected mind.
	Honest.
	Self-reflective.
	You would think that he was the biggest jackass propagandist on the internet.
	I listened to this entire podcast.
	I listened to Joe Rogan every time when I go jogging.
	Put it up at like 1.2, 1.5.
	It was an amazing podcast.
	You know, you have a man.
	What did he say?
	He says, the true test of humility is can you be honest about yourself?
	And it's an amazing thing.
	And it's something that I think we should all strive for, but it's certainly something that I strive for.
	To be honest with myself, the easiest person to lie to is yourself.
	This is another highlight from the podcast, and I love it because it pokes a little fun at Liz Cheney and crybaby Adam Kinzinger.
	And also a lot of them are violence worshippers.
	They get off on war.
	They get off on hurting people and on the power that that imbues them with.
	The Liz Cheney model.
	You know what I mean?
	Like someone like Liz Cheney who's got like a really sad and barren personal life.
	A lot of them are this way.
	Weird personal life.
	Failed personal life.
	Like they don't have people who love them.
	They don't have kids who respect them.
	And so Adam Kinzinger or whatever, they're all kind of the same.
	The more broken they are inside, the more focused they are on like war and foreign policy because it gives them a feeling of power and strength and success.
	Like I can't get my wife to respect me.
	I can't get my kids to listen to me.
	I can't pass any meaningful domestic agenda.
	But what I can do is bomb the living shit out of a foreign country.
	How do you listen to that and not love that?
	And anybody who's been involved in any sort of professional sphere where people are imbued with a great degree of power.
	And I say this as a lawyer who practiced for 13 plus years.
	You get in front of judges.
	And you might be inclined to notice this type of phenomenon as well.
	They are people who are, not all of them, but a statistical over-representation of judges tend to be, on the one hand, not failed lawyers, but when you become a judge, if you're a successful lawyer, you're taking a pay cut, not a pay raise.
	And so the lawyers that become judges...
	To the extent they're taking pay raises, they weren't the most successful lawyers, at the very least in terms of financial remuneration, because nobody goes from a million dollars a year in private practice to a quarter of a million dollars a year to become a judge, unless what they're after is not money, but power.
	However, that being said, you will find people who get the appointment and they're going to go from, you know, 100 to 150 to a quarter of a million with lifetimes of benefits and a massive...
	A stick of power that they get to wield over all of the lawyers with whom they just practiced.
	And a lot of them, you ultimately find out, have questionable personal lives.
	Multiple divorces, family issues, alcohol issues, consumption issues.
	Not all of them by any means, but a statistical significant amount, an observable amount.
	And Tucker, during this interview, is talking about these...
	Call them corrupt, I'll just call them evil.
	Politicians, they are, by and large, a lot of them were lawyers, it's not a coincidence, broken people, angry people, and people who get off on controlling others.
	And Tucker's talking about foreign policy.
	Tucker went on to talk about, this is what we're going to, you know, lead us into the Daily Wire dispute, that he thinks, you know, bombing Japan, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with the ultimate flex of godly powers, was an act of evil, and anybody who justifies killing...
	180,000 civilians with the snap of the fingers.
	Anyone who justifies that is evil as well.
	But I love it.
	You look at these politicians.
	They are awful, insidious people who control the biggest levers of power.
	They, as we are witnessing right now, can leverage those levers of power, hence leverage, into political persecutions to destroy their enemies with immunity and with impunity and slaughter.
	And then paint themselves as the heroes at the end of the day.
	And by the way, I agree.
	I'm not arguing in this.
	I won't argue with anybody over this.
	I've realized now what I took for granted is historical fact.
	I'm prepared to reassess.
	I won't argue with anybody, but I certainly won't call someone who says killing 180,000 people civilians instantaneously evil.
	I won't call that person prima facie wrong.
	I would say prima facie.
	Dropping a nuclear bomb, especially if it wasn't as necessary as history might have assured us, that someone saying that that's evil, I'm not prepared to immediately write that person off, as are other people.
	Which brings us into the Daily Wire beef with Tucker Carlson.
	And it goes back, I mean, I know it goes back to other issues where they at one point said, you know, just asking questions is code for making a strong suggestion, which may or may not be the case.
	But just asking questions, even if it's made with the purpose of making a strong suggestion, is not the reason that you get to write off someone's just asking questions, even if it is, in fact, a loaded question.
	But this is...
	I come across it.
	I watch it.
	It's important to watch that with which you disagree to understand that with which you think you might disagree.
	This is Ben Shapiro.
	Put out a longer piece.
	It's 20-some-odd minutes, and I just clipped one part of it.
	This is what he has to say about Tucker Carlson.
	Okay, actually, what would be childish is to assume that there are no other players in the world, for example, trying to develop nuclear weapons.
	The fact is the Nazis were trying to develop nuclear weapons.
	There was, in fact, a nuclear arms race that was happening at the time.
	Not only that, as it turns out, the Soviet Union then developed nuclear weapons, and it is mutually assured destruction and nuclear deterrence that has kept the world largely from sinking into another World War III-like mass casualty morass because of the horror of dropping...
	The nuclear bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the first place.
	By the way, he says things like, how exactly would you justify...
	Why are we talking about how many lives it would save?
	It's just wrong to drop the bomb?
	Well, no, actually.
	If you end up saving more lives than are cost by the dropping of the atomic bomb, then it is morally justified to drop the atomic bomb.
	And that happens to be the reality of the situation.
	Okay, actually, what would be...
	There's actually so many things that I fundamentally would be inclined to disagree with here.
	Conflating, by the way, the consequentialist calculation with the moral calculation, the argument is if you kill 10 people to save 100, then it's morally justified to kill 10 people.
	From a consequentialist perspective, maybe, but not necessarily from a morality perspective.
	And this was actually...
	My goodness, one day I'll be able to find my philosophy thesis.
	This was actually my philosophy thesis.
	That the idea of consequentialism...
	Does not actually maximize moral good unless all that you're doing is maximizing moral good, which you are not doing by willingly killing people in order to preserve or prevent the killing of more people.
	In fact, all that you're doing is maximizing the evil.
	And that if you have a consequentialist theory without integrating deontology with it, deontological imperatives, and what I called deontological consequentialism, if you're not having...
	If you're not implementing a form of deontological consequentialism, and all of this is a matter of numbers, you're not maximizing the good at all, and you shouldn't call it morality, just call it math.
	Ben Shapiro comes out and says two things which I think are very questionable, and two things which, more simply put, you would actually be surprised to see who might agree with it.
	Targeting civilians to coerce the capitulation of an enemy government is morally justified.
	You know, on the one hand.
	So targeting civilians to compel the capitulation of a government, if that government won't capitulate, can be justified.
	There's a number of people and groups who might agree with that.
	And bombing and killing 150, 200,000 people, if speculatively it, as the argument goes, would save more lives, then it's morally justifiable.
	I can think of a number of people who would agree with that as well, and they're not necessarily people with whom you'd want to be agreeing.
	It might actually be very ironic that these are the very people right now that Ben is rightly opposing and rightly condemning.
	And yes, I am talking about the Hamases of the world.
	I'm talking about other terrorist organizations which say, yeah, if the only way that we can get full capitulation from the government is by targeting civilians, so be it.
	Fair game.
	And by the way, I have no doubt that people out there would say, well, if we just wipe off a certain country from the map, it'll prevent more people from dying in the long run.
	Well, I'm sure people would make that argument as well.
	So there are two very, very spurious arguments to be made in support of dropping the atomic bomb.
	The underlying point here also that Ben was making is that there was an arms race and that it was only through America dropping the bomb that it deterred other nations from developing and dropping the atomic bomb because they saw the destruction.
	I'm not sure I believe that.
	I'm not sure I'm convinced by that.
	But the flip side to that is, well, had the Nazis or had the Soviets gotten the bomb first and used it, well, then we would have capitulated and it would have been morally right for them to have done it because it would have preserved and saved more people from dying by them using the ultimate godlike form of violence, the nuclear bomb.
	But I don't know why the Daily Wire, Shapiro, and I think Jeremy Boring as well, are going after.
	Tucker Carlson to the degree to which they're going.
	All that I know is you see Tucker Carlson come out on Rogan and say it was evil to drop two nuclear bombs on a civilian population to coerce the capitulation of the government.
	One may disagree with that, but from a moral perspective, I think it's very difficult to call Tucker Carlson wrong, evil, for espousing the belief that killing hundreds of thousands of civilians to compel surrender is evil.
	The flip side to this, and I said this in a tweet, nobody really cares, I'm thinking Shapiro's reading my tweets anyhow, but having lived long enough now, having seen what the government will do simply because they have the tools with which to do it, I am prepared to entertain the notion that maybe what we read in the history books is not what we were told it was from the very beginning, from the get-go.
	History is written by the victors, true.
	And the narrative was that unless America dropped the bomb, Japan would have never surrendered.
	It would have cost hundreds of thousands of American lives to invade and conquer Japan.
	It would have been an endless war like Vietnam on steroids.
	That's the narrative.
	The flip side is there is a counter-narrative that, according to at least three big voices of the time, it wasn't necessary to drop the nuclear bomb.
	Japan was already on the verge of capitulating anyhow.
	Where I ask the questions, and I'm not asking questions with a loaded conclusion.
	I'm actually asking the questions.
	Japan would never surrender.
	They would fight to the death, which is why it was necessary to drop the atomic bomb after which they surrendered.
	That argument doesn't make sense.
	They would fight to the death.
	They were kamikaze killers.
	They were never going to surrender.
	It was death before dishonor.
	So we needed to drop the bomb to coerce them into surrendering, which they did after we dropped the bomb.
	Logically, it doesn't make sense.
	Having lived long enough to see that the government will use the tools that it has simply for the purpose of using the tools that it has because what's the point of having them if you don't use them?
	Waco.
	That might be the only good example I can come up with offhand.
	I'm prepared to maybe contemplate the idea that they had developed this, they wanted to flex it, after Germany surrendered in...
	April, I think Hitler committed suicide, if you believe that, on April 30th, 1945, and Japan surrendered in September after the bomb.
	I mean, once Germany surrendered, Hitler, Italy had already surrendered.
	How much longer could a war with an imperialist Japan have lasted?
	Imperialist Japan is going to go conquer the rest of the world after Germany has already surrendered?
	They would never surrender, but they surrendered after the atomic bomb, which is why it was necessary to drop the atomic bomb, because they would never surrender.
	They would fight to the death.
	So it doesn't make sense, necessarily.
	I can understand that there's an argument to be made on the other side.
	And I don't know why they're giving Tucker Carlson such a hard time for floating this idea.
	It's almost, if someone really wants to get tinfoil conspiracy theory hat, it's almost as though they are trying to normalize the idea of killing massive amounts of civilians for the purposes of coercing full capitulation of governments.
	Are they trying to normalize what the argument might be if they decide to do something similar to another country today?
	Won't name any names, but it rhymes with Prussia.
	It's an amazing thing.
	It seems that they're building a modern-day argument for doing the exact same thing again now.
	Well, if it means killing 200,000 Russians...
	To prevent the speculative loss of more lives, then it's morally justified, it's morally required to drop nuclear bombs on another nation and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians to coerce the full, unequivocal capitulation of an imperialist government that was Japan.
	I mean, all of this applies, mutatis mutandis, to the argument that could be made for doing the exact same thing to Russia today.
	Not that I'm getting conspiracy theory tinfoiled hat, but past this prologue.
	I mean, you see them normalizing.
	The abnormal in real time, it causes people to ask questions.
	Okay.
	So that's it.
	That's Tucker Carlson.
	It's a phenomenal interview.
	It's a phenomenal discussion.
	And let me see something here.
	Jeremy Boring said, it's not critical thinking to say that America never landed on the moon or that George W. Bush orchestrated 9-11 attacks.
	It's rejection of critical thinking.
	Let me just make sure we're on the right thing here.
	That is what Jeremy Boring said in response to Patrick Bette David, who said, Jeremy, isn't the entire premise of being a critical thinker to question things?
	Some of the best podcasters and influencers are those who ask questions no one else is asking.
	being anti-establishment, is to question the establishment's motive.
	No.
	Then we have to follow this rabbit hole down.
	People who deny the moon landing or suggest America is evil for its use of the atomic bombs against Imperial Japan or whoever say George W. Bush was behind this country, hate All right.
	And when someone said, Viva, you're supposing that Jeremy's talking about Tucker Carlson.
	No, I'm not.
	He was.
	As was Ben Shapiro.
	And I don't know what the war on Tucker Carlson is all about or why.
	Certain players are jumping in on this war, which traditionally and hitherto had only been waged by one side of the political ideological spectrum.
	How dare YouTube show a commercial while David is talking?
	I say, don't get too angry because that's how David, while he's talking, remains monetized and through multiple means continues to be able to do what I'm doing right now.
	So that's what I have to say about Tucker Carlson.
	Great interview.
	Listen to it.
	I don't know why the Daily Wire is picking a fight with him.
	I don't think it's a wise thing to do.
	I think that it's a strategic mistake.
	And I also think that it's...
	I think that they're wrong also in the attack.
	But set that aside.
	That is that.
	Tommy Robinson trial.
	No case to answer.
	Not guilty, but judge doesn't award $60,000 in costs.
	Okay, so I...
	Oh, that's very good.
	Well, I'll get Tommy back on.
	To talk about that.
	Let me screen grab this so that I can save that.
	Let me see if I can't...
	Sorry, this is breaking news to me.
	So hold on.
	Tommy!
	Oi!
	Tommy Robinson!
	Let's see what the news is.
	Bring up the news.
	Tommy Robinson case thrown out over incorrect police report.
	Oh, is that going to irritate some people?
	Okay, so hold on.
	I had Tommy on a few weeks ago.
	Tommy Robinson case collapses over police paperwork.
	Dude has been through more than anybody should go through and remains undeterred.
	It's amazing.
	Controversial.
	Yeah, he's controversial because the media says he's controversial, so they get to report on how he's controversial.
	Activist.
	Tommy Robinson has been cleared of breaching a dispersal order after a judge ruled that the power had not been legally authorized.
	The 41-year-old, his real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, they got him there, was arrested at a march against anti-Semitism after organizers said he would not be welcome.
	Hold on.
	I was told he's anti-Semitic.
	He's had a march against anti-Semitism.
	I'm being facetious.
	I talked about this with him.
	A senior Met police officer who signed the dispersal order had previously told Westminster magistrates court he had used the wrong date.
	Oh, that's a problem.
	On Tuesday, District Judge Daniel Sternberg ruled there was no case to answer.
	The responsibility of policing certain aspects of the protest, which was being held in Westminster Central, fell to Inspector Steve...
	Parker Phillips.
	The court heard the inspector imposed a Section 35 order, yada, yada, yada, against the...
	Sorry, actually, I'll read that.
	Under the Crime and Policing Act 2014, when he thought a, quote, right-wing group, end quote, could potentially be attending, whose laptop battery was dying, put the order in place at 10 on November 26, but accidentally dated it to November 24. His defense lawyer, Alistair King's counsel...
	Uh, said litany of catastrophic errors in the Met's handling of the incidents.
	Okay.
	Well, that's good news.
	Oh, lordy, lordy.
	Okay, that's good news.
	I mean, some mild good news.
	I put the wrong deal on my paperwork one time.
	What a nightmare.
	Uh, okay.
	Okay, people, hold on a second.
	We got here.
	In this INFMDA, David, the Daily Wire is going after Tucker for two reasons.
	They want to justify the annexation of Gaza and they want to vilify Tucker as insane in the conservative sphere so they are leading the pundits.
	I mean, I'm sensitive to those arguments.
	But yeah, I like Tucker Carlson.
	Until proof to the contrary, I only like him more with each passing day after hearing him more and more and not liking him less.
	All right.
	We're going to take the party on over to Rumble?
	We are.
	Let me see.
	Hold on a second.
	Have I not been on Rumble in a while?
	Hold on.
	Let's see this here.
	Let's see this here.
	We're going to move on over to Rumble.
	The link is in the pinned comment, so start making your ways over there.
	1,547 people on YouTube.
	Come on over to Rumble.
	Viva, they had their civilians convinced the Americans were going to eat them and their babies.
	Look up the mass civilian suicides during World War II in the Pacific.
	Okay, fine, but that also doesn't...
	Sorry, that doesn't answer the question as to...
	And I'm not trying...
	I mean, maybe it's a stupid, naive question.
	Someone did call me stupid on the internet yesterday for asking it.
	What would have been the offensive risk from basically saying, okay, Japan...
	Good luck invading the rest of the world.
	The idea that 200,000 U.S. servicemen and women would be killed invading Japan is predicated on the notion that they would invade Japan.
	Why would Japan even need invading if the only country left fighting was what was the population at the time?
	Tough to conquer the world when you have a population.
	Hold on, let me just make sure of this.
	The population of Japan in 1940.
	Population of Japan.
	Let's say 1945.
	71 million.
	Approximately 71 million in 1945.
	I don't know how you imagine a population of 71 million, an island nation, is going to imperially conquer the rest of the world when their biggest allies had already surrendered.
	Maybe there is a good argument.
	Maybe they controlled a portion of the sea that would have interfered with everything and required an invasion in order to facilitate capitulation.
	I don't know.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	But that is it.
	Okay, good.
	The number has dropped down to under 1,400.
	We're going to deal with Trump and more over on Rumble.
	But let me give everybody the link to Rumble.
	And if you want to come directly over to Locals.
	Vincent's in the house!
	Locals.
	No, this is Rumble.
	Rumble.
	Boom.
	And then Locals.
	Oh, come on.
	Locals is here.
	Vinny Oceana.
	That's not him.
	Vinny Oceana is right here.
	Capitulation.
	Unreserved.
	Total capitulation.
	And yeah, I hope I didn't just blackpill people that this is a primer for what they are going to argue needs to be done to Russia because the argument and the full comparison is there.
	Okay, that is it.
	We are ending on YouTube.
	Going over to Rumble, then going over to Locals afterwards.
	Ending on YouTube.
	3, 2, 1, go.
	All righty then.
	Who has been following the Trump trial out of New York?
	First things first, we'll get the easy stuff out of the way.
	You will recall, I put out a vlog yesterday, but my short video content on YouTube, I don't know if it's algorithmic censorship.
	Maybe my content isn't good anymore and people don't want to watch it.
	Maybe YouTube has a good reason for not even recommending my own content to people who subscribe to the channel on YouTube.
	Doesn't matter.
	I covered it in a vlog yesterday.
	We'll cover it real quick like today.
	Leticia James opposed the certee that Trump had gotten to post the $175 million bond in the New York anger on Leticia James bullshit fraud case.
	You will recall Trump was prosecuted for fraudulently overvaluing his assets.
	Nobody complained.
	Nobody was upset about it.
	The banks were repaid in full.
	But Leticia James argued successfully in front of the nipple judge there, New York nipple judge Engeron, that Trump fraudulently overvalued his assets so that he could get preferential interest rates from the banks.
	The bank said, no, we would have done this anyhow.
	We would have done it.
	We did our own due diligence, whatever.
	Leticia also argued that Trump overvalued his assets from an insurance perspective, which also makes diddly squat of sense because what that would mean is that Trump overvalued his assets, was paying insurance that would be more than the actual value of his assets, but didn't claim any losses or fraudulent insurance claims.
	None of the case made any sense, but what we're seeing out of New York is cases don't need to make sense in order for there to be bypassing jury summary judgment in the case of New York Judge Angeron, or, you know, absolute corrupt judicial process in the Merchant case.
	So, the order came down.
	A nipple judge condemned, sentenced, found Trump liable for a disgorgement of $355 million, plus like $90-some-odd million of interest.
	$450-some-odd million.
	In his initial order, Nipple Judge enjoined Trump and his companies from borrowing money, doing business with banks, registered to do business in the state of New York.
	How he would then be able to get a bond or, you know, post-bond, whatever.
	Who knows?
	That's Trump's problem.
	It's nobody else's.
	The appellate court stayed certain portions of Angeron's outrageous ruling, including the prohibition on doing business with banks in New York.
	And reduced, for the purposes of the bond, the amount that Trump had to post pending appeal.
	Because in New York, you've got to post the amount of the award when you appeal a decision, just in case, you know, it's frivolous and you lose and whatever.
	You have to have that money.
	Make sure the state knows you have that money to pay.
	$450 million at first.
	New York Court of Appeal comes in, stays certain elements of Angron's ridiculous order, and reduces the bond to $175 million.
	Trump goes out and gets an out-of-state company called Knight Security something, KSIC, to post.
	To bond him for $175 million.
	They guarantee the bond, and as their security for their guarantee, there's a trust irrevocable, a Trump irrevocable trust account that is required to have $175 million cash or cash equivalents in it.
	Leticia James comes in and says, no, no, no.
	This bonding company is not registered in New York, and therefore it's not good enough.
	Not registered in New York when Angron's original order prohibited Trump from doing business with banks in New York.
	That is called...
	Constructive bankruptcy.
	That is called setting it up so that you bankrupt someone entirely.
	Nobody has enough FU money in the world if you are compelled to put up $450 million by way of bond while being precluded from doing business from the only institutions that the Attorney General is going to recognize being licensed in the state.
	Set that aside.
	He gets it.
	This bond company agrees and secures their bond with this bank account.
	Leticia James says, no, no, this is not good enough because Trump still retains control over this bank account.
	He can take money out of it.
	He can put assets in it that are not cash in kind that are susceptible to market fluctuations.
	And that $175 million, it could dip below $175 million and that would be a problem.
	They also said that this company does something called ghost insurance.
	I can't really pretend to understand that.
	My mind goes numb when I try to read that stuff.
	So she sought to...
	Enjoying Trump to replace his certainty within seven days of the order.
	The hearing occurred yesterday.
	At the same time, Trump is in trial for criminal trial before Judge Mershon.
	They came to an agreement yesterday.
	Courthouse news service, so you know it's got to be good.
	Trump reaches deal with prosecutors averting challenge over $175 million bond certi.
	New York Attorney General Letitia James has pledged to seize Trump's signature real estate properties and other assets if he doesn't comply with the order.
	The government has promised to seize private property after getting a totally corrupt, ridiculous ruling.
	You know what that's called?
	I mean, it is called nothing other than communism, fascism, totalitarianism, authoritarianism.
	It's not democracy, and it's not freedom, and it's not America.
	So, God willing, may the rest of America wake the hell up to what is going on because New York is showing you what the world looks like under these corrupt...
	Democrats, so-called Democrats with a capital D. The world looks a lot like Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Kim Jong-un's Russia, and what they argue is Vladimir Putin's North Korea, and what they argue is Vladimir Putin's Russia.
	Donald Trump lawyers consented Monday to an agreement with the New York state prosecutors that blocks the former president from accessing a bank account that holds his millions of dollars of bond collateral.
	The deal moots the New York attorney general's objection to an insurance company covering bonds, Trump's $175 million.
	So as Trump is running for president, as Trump is raising money and spending money on his presidential election campaign, New York nipple judge has found a way to lock up $175 million of Trump's money after having issued his insane ruling.
	While he sits for six weeks in criminal trial, In New York.
	If nobody understands what this is, they're either dumb or they like it.
	Or they're dumb and they like it and they like it because they're dumb.
	Corrupt.
	There is no other way to look at this.
	This is election interference.
	Judge Mershon is election interference.
	What we are seeing coming out of Florida is election interference.
	What we're seeing happening in Georgia is election interference.
	And ironically enough, all of these idiots are accusing Trump of election interference.
	Joseph Goebbels, accuse your enemies of doing what you are doing so as to create confusion, a cornerstone of Nazi propaganda.
	After the New York Supreme Court Justice, New York nipple judge Arthur Engeron found him liable for civil fraud in February.
	No victim, no complainant except for the government, $350 million disgorgement of ill-gotten gains.
	Trump is on the hook for more than $454 million, which includes the interest the sum has already gained.
	9% in New York, or 8.5%.
	Initially, Trump had to post at least a full value of the nearly half-billion-dollar judgment by a deadline last month, but a last-minute order granted him 10 more days and reduced the sum to $175 million, pending appeal.
	Instead, buying him some much-needed time to keep New York prosecutors from potentially seizing his namesake buildings or assets.
	They'll seize them.
	They'll seize his Trump Tower, and they'll convert it into a migrant center because they're running out of place.
	To deal with those illegal immigrants that they've welcomed into their sanctuary city and now said, well, we don't have enough money to actually take care of our citizens that we were elected to represent.
	Last week, New York Attorney James Letitia James urged the Manhattan State Court to reject the bond, raising doubts on its creditworthiness, insurance, yada, yada.
	They failed to justify using Knight's specialty insurance company.
	Oh, Trump and his co-defendants failed to justify using Knight Specialty Insurance Company as the certee, quote, on this extraordinarily large undertaking, prosecutors wrote in an amendment last week.
	The prosecutors acknowledge that it's an extraordinarily large undertaking, almost unprecedented, almost...
	Targeted.
	Almost malicious prosecution.
	Almost selective prosecution with a corrupt judge who then issues this extraordinarily large undertaking.
	Almost like it's intended to bankrupt the political rival during an election season.
	Almost like it's election interference.
	Yeti had a 90-minute court hearing.
	Okay, let's see.
	They had some questions, whatever.
	I just want to get to the agreement.
	Okay, here.
	The Attorney General's office ultimately consented to the terms of the agreement reached with Trump's lawyers.
	The AG is fine with these conditions stipulated in the record.
	And what were those there?
	The bottom line, it could have been worked out without the necessity of a hearing.
	Where is it?
	State Attorney Andrew Amor said Trump's collateral needs to be posted in, quote, a true lockbox, end quote, that, quote, can't be traded, can't be withdrawn, has to stay cash.
	So they've done very good.
	Congratulations.
	You've actually locked up $175 million of Trump's cash during an election season.
	I'm sure it's unintended consequences.
	While the funds are cashed today, under the terms of the pledged agreement and control agreement, they can be swapped out for the less secure collateral like a fund.
	So they agreed to keep it as cash.
	Then James has pledged to seize his buildings.
	Yeah, good for her.
	She's a filthy Connie.
	So that's what's coming out of New York on the bond.
	Good news.
	Good news.
	The good news is that Trump can avoid the hearing, avoid having to find a new bond company, but has now have to have $175 million cash locked up Indefinitely during the appeal.
	So congratulations, Leticia, you commie dictator.
	You've succeeded in tying Trump's hands in this election season to the tune of $175 million.
	Angeron, you have the tools under your belt to do it.
	Congrats.
	Now to the second aspect of the election interference.
	Actually, before we get there, let me just see what's going on in the chat here.
	Viva!
	Look up Jonathan Blanchett, Union Nationale au Québec, sur ton YouTube, dernière vidéo, il fera un grand interview, God bless.
	Look up Jonathan Blanchett, National Union for Québec, his YouTube channel, he'd make a great interview.
	Yes, I see the not-so-friendly terms in the chat over on Rumble.
	So let's bring it on over to the other case, the one that's going on before Judge Juan Marchand.
	So there is some confusion here.
	First of all, I will call Judge Marchand a corrupt judge, because he is, in my view.
	He's corrupt not only because of his clear animus towards Trump, because he's got family corruption involved in the successful prosecution of this case, or even just the prosecution of this case.
	He's got a daughter, Lauren Marchand, who people are trying to equate to Baron Cohen in terms of untouchable...
	Sacred cows.
	She's just his daughter or family member.
	You can't talk about her or pick on her.
	She's an executive of a president or vice president at a PR firm called Authentic Something or Other that has such clients as Adam Schiff and political action committees that are raising money off this persecution, off this prosecution, literally.
	She did a podcast in 2019 talking about how her father hates politicians who tweet, literally.
	Trump filed a motion reiterating the recusal of this Judge Juan Marchand because of family corruption, which has been solidified, confirmed, and put on blast.
	There were some allegations in that motion that were disputed, that there were fact-checkers fact-checking saying, this is not accurate.
	One of those had to do with an alleged Twitter account that was allegedly Lauren Marchand's Twitter account.
	This was Laura Loomer who...
	Let me see if I can get this here because I'm going to get an article that was written on it.
	It was alleged in the motion that this Twitter handle that was Juan Marchand's daughter's Twitter handle had a profile of Trump behind bars and that was the allegation that her father is the judge at the helm of a case.
	That can literally put Trump behind bars.
	And that was evidence as to her corruption.
	There was a second account, which is not arguably her account.
	As it turns out, according to some fact checkers, that Twitter account was only created in April of 2023 and was not her actual Twitter account.
	Now, hold on.
	Oh, this is not the right one.
	I want to get the article.
	And so there was an article in The Spectator that says, no, no, this is a mistake.
	What was alleged in Trump's filings was not actually her Twitter account.
	It was another person.
	It was created in April.
	It was not one that she ever had control over.
	Okay, hold on.
	Let me just get the article so we can not make a mistake on this.
	Here, here, and here is the article.
	Okay, let's bring this up.
	So the spectator did a fact check, and this is what the spectator had to say about that particular Twitter handle.
	If we're going to see it, are we going to see it?
	Is it going to work incognito?
	Well, this is curious.
	Okay, hold on one second.
	Spectator.
	Lorne Mershon tweet.
	That's not it.
	That's not it.
	Okay, is this it?
	Yeah, this is it.
	Okay, good.
	Here, I think I got it here.
	Sorry about that.
	So this was a fact check coming out of an article in Spectator?
	This has to be it.
	Okay, this is it.
	Here we go.
	Trump falsely accuses Hush Money judge's daughter of posting picture of him behind bars.
	A new Twitter account was created in April 2023 using Lauren Marchand's old handle.
	Okay.
	Donald Trump made a claim of so-called bias in his New York Hush Money trial on Wednesday.
	The daughter of Juan Marchand, the judge assigned to the case, appeared to have an X account with a profile depicting Trump behind bars.
	There's only one problem.
	The account's veracity is dubious at best.
	With a creation date of April 2023.
	The analysis of the Twitter ID associated with the account shows that Judge Juan Marchand's daughter Lauren's known Twitter account that she has used since 2016 had its name changed and was set to private at some point last spring.
	Now, even at worst, by the way, if this account turns out to be a fake account that someone created and whatever, at best, she has a Twitter account that had some politically, I think politically charged Tweets could be, or retweets could be the argument.
	The only question here is determining if this account was under, is under the control or was ever under the control of Lauren Mershon.
	And so this article says, no, that account, it's dubious at best.
	It was created in April, 2023.
	Fine.
	Now I reached out to the spectator and I got an answer actually from the journalist who was quite courteous and everyone should be great.
	Be respectful because she...
	We got in touch, and I got clarification because this is what I had a big question about.
	It says in the beginning that the account is dubious at best.
	It wasn't hers.
	It's dubiously hers.
	We don't know.
	It was created in April 2023.
	At the end of the article, it says this.
	A call to the Trump team was not returned at the time of publication.
	State OCA spokesman, Al Baker.
	So this is not a Trump representative.
	This is a state spokesman.
	OCA is...
	The office of...
	I forget what the acronym is.
	If anybody knows, just tell us.
	Al Baker confirmed the spectator's reporting in a statement.
	And listen to the statement.
	The ex, formerly Twitter.
	My God.
	The account being attributed to Judge Marchand's daughter no longer belongs to her since she deleted it approximately a year ago.
	It is not linked to her email address, nor has she posted under that screen name since she deleted that account.
	Rather, it represents the reconstitution last April and manipulation of an account she long ago abandoned.
	Now, recall, and I'm not calling the journalist a liar whatsoever.
	I think it seems that the OCA spokesman either confounded changing the profile with deleting or said something which might be wrong.
	Or said something which might be right, but who knows?
	The explanation that I've been given is that this spokesperson who says the account being attributed to the daughter, that's presumably the one with the behind bars, the account being attributed to the judge's daughter no longer belongs to her since she deleted it approximately a year ago.
	That seems pretty clear.
	As to what this guy, who's not a Trump spokesman, but apparently a state's spokesman, is saying.
	She deleted the account being attributed to her a year ago.
	My question is, okay, so let's just say someone deletes their account.
	Let's just say I delete Viva Fry, or it's VViva Fry today.
	I presume that that account becomes available tomorrow.
	Somebody else can take it.
	And so somebody else takes it and starts posting crap in my name and then says, look what VViva Fry tweeted.
	Well, no, I deleted that account on April.
	March 30th or March 31st, whatever the last day of March is.
	And on April 1st, somebody else reconstituted that account using my name.
	That's what it sounds like.
	But from what I'm led to believe, this OCA spokesperson confounded her changing the name and making her account private, the one that she always had control over, with this other one that she allegedly, arguably, or dubiously ever had control over.
	So that's the point of clarification there.
	Take it for what it's worth, but I'm very grateful that the journalist actually quite cordially explained that situation to me.
	I said it's very understandable why people could not only be confused, but seem to think that the OCA state spokesperson confirmed that she had control over that account being attributed to her, but deleted it, whatever, April of last year.
	Then somebody else might have reconstituted it and gone hog wild with it, posted stuff that's not...
	You know, to be attributed to her.
	That's the explanation.
	And Jacqueline Sweet, thank you very much for the clarification.
	It'll be up to the interwebs.
	I mean, look, I'll rely on what we can agree is hers.
	What we can agree is hers is the one that was made private after an article in Breitbart came out revealing her existence and her connection to her dad, who's prosecuting that case.
	What we can agree on, set aside the dubious one with the Trump behind bars.
	We can also take with a grain of salt or take as true what the OCA spokesperson said.
	Set that entire account aside.
	What we know is that Mershon has an account that she's been using since 2016.
	She put on private back in April after Breitbart ran an article on her.
	She was doing podcasts talking about discussions she had with her father and his disdain for Trump.
	And that she's running...
	Political action committees raising money hand over fist for these packs for Adam Schiff while her daddy sits on a trial that can put Trump in jail for upwards of a hundred and some odd years.
	Okay.
	Now I want to see what everybody thinks about that in the chat over on Rumble.
	And Viva Barge.
	Um.
	Um.
	But everyone, if you could do me the courtesy of not being...
	We've entered the realm where, like Alex Jones said in his deposition for Sandy Hook, we see conspiracy everywhere, even some places where it might not exist.
	There are a lot of journalists who are truly and demonstrably the scum of the earth.
	Rachel Maddow, Aaron Rupar, Jake Tapper.
	I could go on.
	And then we think that because there are a great many that are objectively and demonstrably the scum of the earth, that they are all the scum of the earth.
	I've had a lot of private discussions, and I'm not even talking about Jacqueline Sweet right now.
	A lot of discussions private with other journalists who can't come forward, who don't want to come forward, who really want to do good work, and in some cases are actively pressured against the good work because of the powers that be and whether or not you want to call them cowards.
	It's very easy to tell other people to sacrifice stuff that you don't have to contemplate sacrificing.
	They're not all bad.
	There are a lot of them who are.
	But until you definitively know that one is a scumbag who deserves to be treated as such, Rachel Maddow, Potato Head Stelter.
	Who else?
	Aaron T. Rupar.
	No lie with BTC with Brian Taylor Cohen.
	Until you know that they are definitively scoundrels and scumbags, don't be mean to them.
	Okay.
	Oh, yeah.
	So that's that.
	Okay.
	Now that we've resolved the tweet gate or the alleged tweet gate, I'd say based on the evidence that is incontrovertible, there is corruption afoot.
	With that judge, Juan Marchand, who refuses to recuse himself and has been very, very unfair or very one-sided in terms of what he's allowing in this trial.
	All right.
	So the trial started yesterday.
	Day five of the trial, but day one of the actual substantive trial, because last week was four days of jury selection.
	We talked about that at length.
	Day one of the actual trial, which is day five or the actual day five of the trial, opening arguments.
	Hold on.
	Let me see what we're going to pull up here.
	Let me just close some stuff so it doesn't get too confusing.
	I don't think we need Ben Shapiro on the backdrop anymore.
	They had opening arguments yesterday, and you won't believe what they're actually arguing in opening arguments.
	I was following Adam Klossfeld yesterday.
	I'm going to go back to following Inner City Press because I've been following both, and this is not to say...
	First of all, I trust...
	I trust Intercity Press.
	He's been on the channel.
	I trust him.
	And it seems that we're getting a much more detailed analysis from Intercity live tweeting than from Classfield with maybe arguably a little bit less commentary or perspective.
	But I'm going to pull up one of Classfield's tweets from yesterday because this is the one that I responded to, which summarizes what's going on here and the insanity of this case.
	They're telling you now...
	You'll notice there's a legal sleight of hand, a legal game of three-card bounty.
	What's Trump charged with?
	What are these 37 felony indictments that Trump is charged with?
	They're bookkeeping issues.
	The claim is that he falsified business records by writing down monthly payments to Michael Cohen as legal expenses.
	When the prosecution is alleging that they were actually hush money payments to shut the big mouth, un-gaggable Stormy Daniels up.
	That's the basis of the case.
	So don't lose sight of that, although the prosecution is hoping that the jurors are going to be sufficiently confused.
	It is called falsifying business records.
	That's the 37...
	Felony charge indictment.
	How did they get to the felony charge?
	Well, it can't just be a misdemeanor, which is what it would have otherwise been.
	It had to be falsifying business records to conceal a federal election felony.
	Of note, the feds investigated this and did not pursue it because there was no federal law, federal election law, felony offense here in the first place.
	How are the states going to go and try to make that argument?
	They can't.
	But it doesn't matter because all they want is a conviction at all costs by confusing a jury that is undoubtedly biased against Donald Trump.
	So 37 felony charges falsifying business records.
	31, 37, I forget what it is.
	Because when Trump signed that thing that said legal fees, when he signed that check, Michael Cohen, retainer, it was actually falsifying business records because it wasn't actually a retainer.
	It wasn't actually legal fees.
	It was actually illegal election interfering hush money payment to Stormy Daniels.
	Bullshit.
	Okay.
	Opening arguments.
	They actually argue this to the extent we can trust.
	What Klasfeld says, and I have no reason not to trust the summary because this summary of what was said is not beneficial to the prosecution for anybody with half a critical mind and half a brain.
	Colangelo, by the way, who I didn't know is a totally political player here, bought and paid for by the Biden administration, like number three guy or whatever up there with the Biden administration, gets involved in this case, has been involved in apparently the back...
	Colangelo describes the conspiracy with AMI.
	That's the company that owns, not National Geographic, National Enquirer.
	Colangelo describes the conspiracy with AMI as having three parts.
	May I just stop it there?
	Nowhere in the indictment is Trump charged with conspiracy.
	So he's not charged with conspiracy to commit a crime.
	Nowhere.
	It's falsifying business records.
	But now they're throwing in this term conspiracy with AMI, the company that owned National Enquirer.
	And the conspiracy has three parts.
	And look at these three parts.
	To run positive coverage of a candidate during an election cycle.
	To attack opponents of a political candidate during an election cycle.
	And to be the eyes and ears of the campaign.
	He says that the last prong of the conspiracy, which is not in the indictment, it's not the charges, conspiracy to do anything, falls under the rubric of catch and kill.
	So, Understand what this means.
	The prosecution is arguing conspiracy when there is no conspiracy charged in an attempt to confuse the jury that something nefarious must be afoot when the feds looked into this and said there's no violation of campaign finance laws.
	What Cohen pleaded guilty to is unrelated to this.
	But there's a conspiracy to catch and kill stories and to influence positive coverage and attack opponents and be the eyes and ears of the campaign during an election cycle.
	Everybody should appreciate what we're witnessing right now.
	And this is an attempt to criminalize political campaigning of the politically disfavored.
	Oh, what's that?
	You ran positive, you paid people to run positive coverage?
	Is that to say then Biden?
	Should be indicted for paying those dipshits Krasensteins to say good things about him?
	Or Luke Beasley?
	Or who's the other one there?
	Who's the other kid that was on a podcast with Tim Dillon?
	Come on.
	Oh, Chad.
	Who's the kid that admitted to being paid for by Biden?
	What's that kid's name?
	Krasenstein, Luke Beasley, and the other...
	He looks like he's...
	Sisson!
	Thank you.
	No, Sisson.
	Spine tickler.
	Sisson.
	Harry J. Sisson.
	Okay, all right.
	So Biden caught and killed negative stories, although we're going to get to that because the Hunter Biden was not a catch and kill.
	The Hunter Biden was actual election interference.
	Biden pays for good coverage, attacks his political opponents, and has eyes and ears on the political campaign show.
	What they are trying to do is criminalize basic 101 of campaigning, and it's in plain sight.
	And they go on, they talk about how they bring up the other story, Karen McDougald, who's another woman that demanded money to be shut up.
	They're going to criminalize consenting adults entering into NDAs, settlement agreements, so that they can resolve their differences without it being litigated in the public forum or in the courts.
	But the most amazing thing about this, if you really think about it, on the one hand...
	They are victimizing the victimizer who might have been the victim of extortion here when it comes to Stormy Daniels.
	Holy crab apples, I just forgot what I was going to say.
	The most amazing thing.
	They're trying to criminalize political campaigning.
	Oh yes, that's right.
	We are exactly one step off from it becoming a crime not to disclose prejudicial information that you know about yourself when campaigning that might negatively affect your campaign.
	What's that?
	If you're going to not say all the bad things you've ever done that might politically impact you, that's going to be conspiracy to interfere with elections by covering up prejudicial information.
	It's a load of crap and everybody has to understand this.
	The question is not going to be like, did they even get a fair jury?
	The fact that this is going to trial is an absurdity.
	And so the prosecution, because Judge Juan Marchand is so unbiased and so objective...
	Seems to be maintaining objections on one side and overturning objections on the other.
	He's allowing them to talk about the Karen McDougald story.
	He's allowing them to talk about the grabber by the story.
	He's allowing them to talk about all of the stuff that is prejudicial prima facie to build this idea that somehow catch-and-kill stories, which John Edwards did.
	It wasn't illegal then.
	Catch and kill stories, which is not a question of abusing of governmental powers to coerce censorship, but rather two consenting adults saying, let's resolve this quietly and discreetly.
	They're criminalizing private contracts.
	And they're not even hiding it.
	Defense gets up and says, look, he's committed no crime yet.
	All the stuff, the typical stuff you'd expect.
	Then they had...
	This guy named David Pecker, who used to be high up at AMI in an editorial position, I think he might have been the president, I forget, which he's 72 years old, he started testifying yesterday, and that was about all they had.
	They stopped early for a dentist appointment, Passover.
	This morning they were debating the contempt case, and I actually want to see what happened with that.
	But that is what's going on with the Trump trial thus far.
	Pecker's going to come back on the stand and they're basically going to say that conspiracy to commit election interference when the feds looked into it and said there's no federal election campaign finance violations here.
	There's no conspiracy alleged.
	What there is, as Trump has said time and time again, is Michael Cohen getting his monthly retainer, $35,000 a month, to do legal services for Trump, which is what he was doing, and did whatever he did.
	Whether or not, I mean, there's allegations or accusations or rumorings that Cohen was having an affair with Stormy Daniels.
	There's suggestions by Avenatti himself that Stormy Daniels was extorting the Trump campaign.
	We'll see.
	But that's what's going on in the trial, and it's a load of crap.
	Judge Juan Marchand today adjudicating on whether or not Trump is going to be held in contempt for tweeting a Jesse Waters tweet.
	For tweeting a quote tweet of what Jesse Waters from Fox News said on the air.
	And I don't know what the outcome of that was because it was still going on when we were doing this.
	Okay, let me see here.
	Inner City Press.
	Judge Juan Marchand.
	Is your client saying...
	This is from today.
	Inner City Press.
	Michael Russell Lee.
	It's Russell Lee.
	That's right.
	Justice Marchand saying...
	Is your client saying he thought reposting Jesse Waters from Fox News couldn't violate the gag order?
	You've presented nothing.
	Trump's lawyer Blanche, did you want me to put President Trump on the stand?
	Is that what you're asking for?
	At one point in here, let me close this up.
	Judge Marchand said, Trump could have just asked me for permission before posting it if he thought there was anything wrong with it.
	Can you imagine the defendant having to ask the judge if he can quote Fox News on his own social media while he's being prosecuted by this judge or by the Alvin Bragg prosecutor before this judge?
	Can you imagine this?
	He could have asked.
	It's absolutely wild.
	Now, hold on a second, people.
	I'm going to play a video because I have to pee really badly.
	This is Rachel Maddow.
	I played this yesterday in my vlog, but enjoy this while I very quickly run to the little boys' room.
	And I'm going to make sure to turn off the mic because I know the mic still works now.
	Thank you.
	Yes, and I should say, in the courtroom, it's, you know, President Trump's back is to all of us who are sitting as observers in the courtroom.
	There are monitors that are mounted in the courtroom where we can see a forward-facing view from him, but it's a little occluded.
	So it may be the people in the overflow room who are looking right at those monitors might have had a better look.
	But from where I was sitting, he seemed basically inert.
	He kind of slumped his shoulders and was kind of, I'm a slump-shouldered person.
	He was kind of slump-shouldered like this when he came in and while he was sitting there.
	At times when Mr. Pecker was testifying, I noted that he was kind of leaning heavily on the desk.
	There were times when he leaned from one side to the other, but I just didn't see him as particularly animated.
	Again, I may not have been in the best position to observe that closely.
	I've seen him in person in my life a few times.
	I would say seeing him go up and down the aisle, I was sitting on the aisle, seeing him walk right past him in the aisle, including the recess.
	I would say that he seems thinner than I have seen him in the past.
	I want to stop it there.
	Do you not all recall mainstream media saying Trump was lying about his weight relatively recently?
	Do you remember that?
	I'm going to find that while we finish this.
	The mainstream media accused Trump of lying about his weight.
	I think it was on the Georgia indictment when he went for his mugshot.
	No, true.
	Oh, he might have been heavier then.
	They said he was lying about his weight, and now you've got Mad Cow Maddow saying he looks thinner.
	Okay, good.
	He's considerably older, and he seems annoyed.
	Resigned, maybe angry.
	He seems like a man who's miserable to be here.
	I'm no body language expert, and this is just my observation, but he seems old and tired and mad.
	When he came out.
	I probably would seem that way, too, if I was looking at this kind of a proceeding.
	Congratulations, Matt, for stating what was painfully obvious to everybody.
	He looks old and tired and mad.
	No crap.
	Because he's got $175 million tied up in the New York Engeron trial.
	Because he's being tied down for six weeks in this trial.
	And because we are now discovering that the Biden DOJ has had its tentacles in pretty much all of this from the beginning.
	Recall when Biden said, we have nothing to do with the New York State prosecution.
	I mean, that's a New York State level prosecution.
	Bullshit!
	Colangelo is in there.
	Biden administration is neck deep in all of this.
	And we got confirmation coming from Julie Kelly, who got some unredacted documents released in the Florida case.
	But before we get there, remember, people, he looks skinny.
	He looks skinny.
	See something here.
	This is another one of them fact checkers.
	No, Donald Trump is not 6 '3 and 250 pounds.
	Behind Donald Trump's most outlandish lie yet.
	When was this from?
	Maybe he lost...
	This is August 2023, so August, September, October, November, December, January, February, March, April.
	Yeah, he might have lost a lot of weight in eight months.
	Or maybe they were always lying about his weight.
	Let's see here.
	Donald Trump booking documents and folder code have managed to repeat a familiar untruth about the former president and even establish a brand new one.
	Once again, Trump, whose height peaked at 6 '2".
	He's not 6 '3", he's 6 '2".
	You know there's a margin of error even in scales, but set that aside.
	He's been doing this for years, even though as a 77-year-old man, he's been shrinking.
	He's surely been shrinking.
	Oh my goodness.
	And he's 215 pounds.
	6 '3 and 215 pounds.
	Those are impressive stats.
	Those are Muhammad Ali and his prime numbers.
	These effing idiots.
	Oh my goodness.
	Anyhow, according to Rachel Madcow herself, Trump looks skinnier than he did before.
	How do I get rid of this?
	I can't get rid of this.
	Oh, because it's up here.
	That's why.
	All right, well, he looks skinny.
	Good for him.
	Julie Kelly, people, coming out of Florida.
	It looks like the Biden DOJ has had its tentacles in all of this from the get-go.
	Before we get there, can you address the elephant in the room?
	Sloppy Daniels lawyer Mikey is ready to testify for Trump.
	Oh, Mike Avenatti.
	I mean, they're all liars.
	You could say you could choose to trust the liar when you want to trust the liar because they say something convenient, but the bottom line is I presume that when Michael Avenatti says that Stormy Daniels lied to him and that it wasn't Trump who sought her out, it was she who sought to extort Trump, I presume he could substantiate that.
	So even if he is a liar, liars do tell the truth, but you just have to confirm and verify what they're saying.
	Yeah, Michael Avenatti, convicted extortionist who's currently giving interviews from jail.
	Is intimating that Stormy Daniels extorted Trump and that he was lied to by Stormy Daniels, which is why he had to cease representing her.
	And he wants to testify.
	He's prepared to testify for Trump.
	He would neither confirm nor deny that he had been in touch with the Trump defense team.
	Viva has the gag order on Trump.
	Hold on a second.
	That was from IHall86, from Nike7.
	Viva has the gag order on Trump now that it is a charge worthy of SCOTUS.
	I would bet that would scare the crap out of these disgusting lawyers.
	John Tremblay.
	Okay, we got that.
	I'm going to have to see what the...
	I've been preparing, so I didn't see what the outcome was on the Trump gag.
	But while we do that, hold on, people.
	I'm going to go over to the tip questions in vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Encryptus says, completely agree with your view on consequentialism.
	It is possible you had a different takeaway from our conversation.
	Humanism matters.
	That's from Encryptus.
	Ginger Ninja is sending a picture from...
	He's on location building homes for veterans, I believe.
	Yes, he is.
	How is it going in Louisiana?
	Check this out, people.
	When I say we have an above-average, wonderful community on Locals, it's because I mean it.
	Check this out.
	Hold on.
	Stop screen.
	Present.
	This is Ginger Ninja, who was on for a Locals discussion building homes for veterans.
	And I think it's in Virginia.
	I'm going to go back to the...
	Take this out.
	Ginger, good to see you again.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	Okay.
	So, escape.
	How's it going?
	In Louisiana, at the Veterans Home Build, end of day two.
	Ginger Nuda says another picture, end of day three, and then you see a house literally coming together.
	End of day five, that house is almost built.
	DTQC, $1 tip, viva!
	Have you heard about the new madness coming from Quebec?
	They want to impose a tourist tax for coming into Les Illes de la Madeleine Municipality.
	A QR code or an ID for the residents will be required to exit the city to make sure you paid $30 fee to enter the city.
	Otherwise, a $1,000 fine will be issued.
	I heard about that DTQC.
	It's a QR code for an ID for the residents will be required to exit the city to make sure you pay the $30 fee.
	Oh my goodness.
	Ginger Ninja says, my brother and I just finished hanging out, hanging all the kitchen and bathroom cabinets the last 24 hours.
	Now for trimming out the house, hanging all interiors, etc.
	And then Ginger Ninja says, if anyone wants to see what we do, we'd appreciate your support.
	WWW, A Soldier's Journey Home.
	Hold on.
	I'm going to show that for everybody and put that on blast right now.
	Here.
	Stop this.
	Present this.
	A soldier's journey home.
	Here we go.
	There are more than 2.5 million veterans who have served our country since 9-11.
	More than 80% have served in a combat theater of operations, and 30% of veterans have disabilities as a result of their service.
	At a soldier's journey home, we began 18 years ago by supporting a variety of disaster relief construction projects and have now devoted nearly a decade to building mortgage-free homes specially adapted for veterans with disabilities.
	What's amazing is they can throw $60 billion more.
	At Ukraine.
	But veterans have to rely on the kindness of others for a sustainable life back home when they come home from fighting those wars that are funded to the tunes of billions and billions of dollars.
	Ginger, thank you.
	Link is in the chat, everybody.
	On Rumble.
	And let's just finish this up.
	Here we've got Stephen.
	Britain says, tourism is defined as influence...
	Oh, terrorism is defined as, quote, influence through fear, end quote.
	Democrats are using Trump to frighten Republicans into capitulation.
	Therefore, Democrats are terrorists.
	Also, since terrorism is evil, anyone who engages in these actions or supports the Democrats are, by extension, evil.
	I read that tip with neither approval nor...
	No overt approval or disapproval.
	I understand the argument and...
	As far as I'm concerned, there's no question what the 2020 Summer of Love was, was intended to be, and was effective at, in fact, being.
	So that's it.
	Okay, now, Julie Kelly is revealing the big stuff.
	Check this out.
	This is in the Florida indictment, which is the, not the FARA, but the NARA, the NARA, National Archives Records Act.
	Trump allegedly took documentation in violation of NARA.
	We're going to read this together because I don't want to get accused of misreading or misrepresenting.
	Julie Kelly, this was new yesterday.
	What day is this?
	April 22nd.
	It's April 23rd.
	Yep.
	Okay.
	Thanks to order by Judge Cannon.
	If you don't follow Julie Kelly, follow Julie Kelly as well.
	Key evidence related to classified docs case is now unredacted.
	On the left, what the DOJ Jack Smith wanted to conceal...
	On the left, no, what they did conceal.
	And on the right, what we now know.
	Check this out, by the way.
	It's so phenomenal.
	It's like the mean joke.
	That was not a...
	That's my footstool that I'm moving.
	I'm not...
	It's not what you think it is.
	You've got to read this.
	It's like how you could...
	Unnecessary censorship can literally change the meaning of things.
	Pre-indictment investigative activities.
	Early indications of NARA bias.
	This is what...
	This is how Jack Smith wanted it to be concealed.
	Almost as soon as President Trump left office, NARA started to work with the White House Office of Records Management, the WHORM, the White House Office of Records Management, WHORM.
	What could be more applicable than calling it the WHORM?
	On exaggerated claims related to records handling under the Presidential Records Act, less than five months after the end of President Trump's term.
	Oh, sorry, now it's a new sentence.
	On May 5th, 2021, less than five months after Trump's end of term, NARA General Counsel Gary Stern redacted.
	Stern noted that, redacted.
	Stern's draft, redacted.
	However, in early 2021, during an ongoing good-faith effort by President Trump's president, raised by NARA, redacted.
	Well, let's just see how this would have read had it not been redacted.
	Almost as soon as Trump left office, NARA started to work with the worm on exaggerated claims related to records handling under the Presidential Records Act.
	On May 5th, 2021, less than five months after the end of President Trump's term, NARA General Counsel Gary Stern sent an internal email attaching a draft letter to President Trump's PRA representatives.
	Stern noted that he, quote, had several conversations, end quote, with the White House Office of Records Management.
	And that they had, quote, raised some of these concerns directly with David Ferrero, Nara's archivist.
	Stern's draft conceded that, quote, things were very chaotic as they always are in the course of a one-term transition, end quote.
	And he acknowledged that, quote, the transfer of the Trump electronics records is still ongoing and won't be complete for several more months, end quote.
	Where are we here?
	At USA...
	what is this here?
	Employee explained to FBI that, quote, it is not uncommon that Presidential Records Act material collection extends past the close of any presidential administration, sometimes well after the close of any given presidential administration.
	However, in early June 2021, during ongoing good faith efforts by President Trump's PRA team to address the team's I am out of patience.
	Hmm.
	I am out of patience.
	I wonder why they wouldn't have wanted that showing up.
	Now, hold on, because I don't think I can get to this in incognito.
	That was part one.
	There was a bit of a thread here, and it's worth looking at the thread.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	Let me just make sure that my private messages are not open.
	Not that there's anything bad in there, but there might be cell numbers and correspondence that people corresponding with me that they might not want people knowing they're corresponding with me.
	Outrageous.
	Here we go.
	Then it goes on.
	This one is just entirely redacted.
	The Biden White House and Department of Justice, I guess, were intimately involved in developing a criminal case against Trump for records mismanagement.
	It appears that the first go around related to alleged destruction of government papers, contrary to public and legal assertions, NARA was working with the Department of Justice White House to craft criminal referral by September 2021, five months before the official NARA DOJ referral investigation.
	Let's listen to this.
	In August 30, 2021, Ferrero threatened one of President Trump's Presidential Records Act representatives that he was, quote, assuming, end quote, unalleged and non-existent, quote, 24 boxes, end quote, of records, have been destroyed, and that he was, quote, obligated to report it to the Hill, DOJ, and the White House.
	On September 1, 2021, Stern circulated a, quote, letter that we would consider sending to the Attorney General about missing Trump records.
	They had nothing to do with this.
	This was not...
	Let me see here.
	On September 1, 2021, Stern's email stated that he had, quote, Let me just take a wild guess and say,
	yeah, that was redacted in the original one.
	Or that was sought to be redacted.
	In late September, without disclosing that NARA had already drafted a referral letter and contacted the DOJ, Deputy White House Counsel Jonathan Hsu asked one of the President Trump's PRA representatives to permit...
	to access notes from Trump administration relating to records handling.
	Sue then intervened when Stern offered to provide a copy of the notes to President Trump's PR representative.
	Could we discuss the process before anything is provided to him?
	Stern agreed to coordinate on this issue with the Biden administration, but informed Sue that the request was atypical.
	Normally, we would have to provide the records to him per the notification process before we could provide anything to you.
	Two days later, Stern assured Sue that the present PR representative had not asked to see these records.
	You know what this smells like?
	The same entrapment that was so much of that Russiagate hoax.
	According to an FBI report, Stern and person number 53, also of NARA, consulted with Sue in late January.
	During the consult, Sue referred Stern and the other person to the Department of Justice Associate Deputy Attorney General Emily Leb and Associate Deputy David Newman.
	On January 24, Lieb and Newman instructed this person and Stern to refer the matter to their office of the Inspector General, Nara Oig.
	Nara Oig!
	The office director, yada yada.
	Newman also provided the DOJ contacts, Jay Brett.
	Okay, I think we're getting the idea here.
	Remember when the Biden team said we had nothing to do with the prosecution out of New York.
	Total coincidence.
	Nothing to do with that.
	Which would imply, on the one hand, that they had something to do with the prosecutions elsewhere, despite what they, you know, incredulously claimed.
	But it also is severe confirmation merely by Colangelo's existence in these cases and spearheading these cases at the state level.
	The DOJ has had its tentacles in it from the beginning.
	And this is overt, corrupt, Rico of the highest order, actual election interference that we're seeing across the board.
	What else do we have to talk about?
	Do we...
	I mean, I think we've covered everything as relates to the Trump trials as they stand as of now.
	Okay, sorry, that's not what we want.
	Let's get that out of here.
	What I do want to see, actually, give me one second.
	Let's just see if there's been any news.
	Trump contempt Merchant.
	Let's see this.
	Let's see this.
	Okay, well, I don't think we have...
	We don't have any ruling yet, but if we can just add to stage here.
	Trump willfully.
	And David Pecker returns to the stand.
	Hush money trial.
	Okay, fine.
	We'll have an update with that later on.
	Maybe I'll do another...
	I can't do my fishing catch-ups anymore because they've installed this fountain, which makes too much noise.
	Willfully and flagrantly, prosecutor says Trump violated gag order yet again on Monday.
	Court is in session.
	The contempt hearing has begun.
	Prosecutor kicked off the art willfully and flagrantly.
	Defendant has violated this order repeatedly and he hasn't stopped, Conroy said.
	In addition to the 10 recent online posts that prosecutors have already argued violated the gag order, Conroy told Merchant that Trump violated it again on Monday when he spoke to reporters in the hallway outside the court and attacked Michael Cohen, referring to, quote, all the lies, end quote, from Cohen.
	Can you imagine calling Michael Cohen a convicted perjurer, according to Arthur Engron?
	Calling him a...
	Referring to him as all the lies or referring to what he says as all those lies is contempt prohibited under the gag order.
	It's discouraging.
	It's despairing.
	Is that a word?
	It causes me to feel despair to watch people full-throatedly say, well, that's what the gag order said.
	Fuck around, find out.
	Anybody who says that's what the gag order said, he just should have kept his mouth shut.
	We know who would have turned in Anne Frank as the, you know, turned in their neighbors for hiding Anne Frank.
	Well, that's the law.
	Shouldn't have been hiding a human in the attic.
	Fuck around, find out.
	I hope the family gets executed also for hiding her.
	Okay.
	We'll see what happens this afternoon.
	So we're up to speed, people.
	We've done good here.
	We're not done yet.
	I'm going to save some good stuff for our vivabarneslaw.locals.com afterparty.
	And I actually want to see who's in the chat here because...
	How do I bring up a chat?
	I can't bring it up.
	Victor Cardone, $2 tip in...
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com says, If SCOTUS fails to put all these bogus show trials to bed soon, the lack of public confidence in the judiciary will be disastrous.
	It'll be borderline irreparable.
	It's so unbelievable.
	I admit I'm very much submerged in all this, enveloped in all this.
	It's not a silo, it's just overwhelming.
	Gagging him.
	To the point where he can't say Michael Cohen convicted perjurer Arthur Angeron's own words.
	Can Trump quote Arthur Angeron?
	Or would that be violating a gang order?
	To say a criminal defendant is gagged from revealing the corruption of the system, the corruption of the judge, the corruption of the judge's family, the perjurious nature of the star witness, the hoary dishonestness of the lying porn star who probably extorted him.
	He's gagged from saying that.
	That's okay, because a judge said it.
	Locking up $175 million in cash during an election season, that's okay, because a judge ordered it.
	Six-week trial during an election season, that's okay, that's the system.
	The fact that they're, that's okay.
	We know who would have participated in the lynchings of the 50s.
	We know who would have ratted out their neighbors in the 30s.
	We know who would have ratted on their parents in Mao's revolution.
	It's just mind-blowing that it's not turning the stomachs of everybody.
	And that some people are so deep into this.
	I would not be inclined to write off that it's an MKUltra mass formation psychosis crowd psychology experiment.
	This Trump derangement syndrome.
	I wouldn't put it past it being one of the biggest psyops of all time.
	These people are so fucking brainwashed.
	And they're so flipping lobotomized that they don't even see it.
	People's vitriolic rage against Trump.
	They call him the tyrant.
	They call him the threat to democracy while they de-platform him, persecute him through the wazoo, gag him, take him to trial.
	They have to do it because if he gets into power, he might do exactly what they're doing to him, to his political rivals.
	They don't see it.
	It's convince people of absurdities and you can get them to commit atrocities.
	Nietzsche.
	Can you address the elephant in the room, the sloppy Daniels lawyer?
	Okay, no, I got that.
	I got that one.
	Operation Gladio, says Lisa 007.
	Yep, we're not far from that.
	Every U.S. court is part of the Maritime British law.
	All right, I'm not...
	Western 63, I've heard that argument.
	It's not a discussion that I'm going to have.
	It's not a discussion I'm going to have any more than...
	I had my one discussion with Mark Sargent about the flat earth and...
	I've satisfied my own curiosity.
	Brazilian-American troll.
	These judges are not afraid.
	I don't want to read anything that might be construed as a threat.
	The lizard people will dispose of them after they've served their purpose.
	The DAs and the judges think they're untouchable.
	The elites will eat them.
	Brazilian-American troll.
	I agree.
	The first thing Stalin did was kill the useful idiots that he had used to foment the revolution.
	Because you don't want them when you're in power.
	And it's like, you just have to look at the Cuomo's of the world.
	As soon as you're politically useless or a political liability, they'll eat you.
	Metaphorically, politically speaking.
	Have I forgotten to talk about anything today?
	Oh, we're going to end on something good before we go over to locals, but I want to see in the chat on locals.
	Let me see something here.
	Because we haven't done the locals chat in a while.
	I want to see if anybody, if a supporter wants in, who can come in.
	But okay.
	Alright, alright.
	What we're going to do now, I'm saving the good Canadian topic for locals.
	And then maybe I'll put out a vlog on it later when I get in the car.
	I'm saving the most outrageous example of tyranny.
	Madness.
	Where the world goes when it is run by capital L liberals, capital D Democrats, capital R, and they put the R back in...
	No, it's P. It's progressives, not regressives.
	I'm going to save that one for locals and have the locals Q&A afterwards.
	This is old, but I'll bring it up anyhow.
	Stop it, you.
	I wanted to end with something that everyone should be aware of.
	If you successfully Make Alec Baldwin look like a sympathetic character.
	You're doing it wrong.
	We're going to play this video.
	And well done.
	I mean, this makes Alec Baldwin look good to the point where I wouldn't be surprised if Alec Baldwin hired the person to do this as a PR stunt to improve his tarnished public image for having shot and killed a woman.
	And then, you know, done some very, very questionable on-the-street interviews and George Stephanopoulos.
	Look at this video.
	Alec, can you please say free Palestine one time?
	Why did you kill that lady?
	You killed that lady and got no jail time?
	No jail time, Alec?
	No jail time, Alec?
	You're putting innocent people in jail, Alec Baldwin?
	Free Palestine, Alec, just one time, and I'll leave you alone.
	By the way, look at that face right there.
	This is like, I want to punch her right in the...
	Gosh darn.
	If I had a prop gun right now, the things I would do with that...
	Okay, Alec, you're on trial.
	Take a deep breath.
	I'll leave you alone.
	I'll leave you alone.
	I swear.
	Just say Free Palestine one time.
	One time.
	One time.
	One time, Alec.
	You know he's a criminal.
	You know he's a fucking criminal.
	Come on, Alec.
	Just say Free Palestine one time.
	One time?
	Just one time.
	Please.
	And I'll leave you alone.
	Free Palestine.
	Fuck Israel.
	Fuck Zionism.
	Please say it.
	One time.
	Oh!
	By the way, anybody who's watched enough UFC or anybody who's done some sort of mixed martial arts...
	You know, he's closing the range, people.
	He's closing the gap.
	You can see it happening.
	He's made up his mind.
	He's getting that itch-based phone.
	Watch what he does.
	Control the distance.
	Control the fight.
	Please say it.
	Gets closer.
	One step.
	She didn't move back.
	Step two.
	Get a little closer.
	Look at that.
	He's telegraphing it with his eyes.
	Oh, look at that.
	He's getting that freaking phone, man, and you knew it was coming.
	Boom!
	Alec, can you please say three pounds down one?
	I don't know who this person was.
	I just saw this video going by.
	Crackhead Barney and Friends.
	CHPF.
	White Devil.
	How does she know how he identifies?
	Alec Baldwin attacked me while I was trying to get coffee.
	It has to be parody.
	It has to be parody.
	But everybody, you could learn a few things from watching that.
	Control the distance.
	You control the fight.
	Alec Baldwin.
	Masterfully.
	I mean, we need to get one-minute breakdowns with Robin Black on this.
	If you don't know who Robin Black is, you should know who Robin Black is.
	He's fantastic.
	He did these one-minute fight breakdowns.
	He closed the distance.
	He eyeballed his opponent.
	And bam!
	Got that phone.
	But congratulations on actually managing to make Alec Baldwin look like the sympathetic victim in all of this.
	If that's what you end up doing with your video, you've done something very, very wrong.
	Crackhead Barney and friends, congrats.
	I do want to see what the chat has to say about that.
	White devil's built everything.
	Like a lizard.
	Corn macabre.
	Like a lizard snatching a fly with its tongue.
	Oh, that's funny.
	Okay, so that's that.
	Have I missed any crumble rants?
	Oh, I did.
	I did.
	There's two more that just came in here.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	Let me give everybody the link to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	And those who are watching, if you're contemplating becoming a member or a supporter, Think about it.
	It's a good way to...
	It's a good investment.
	Link to locals that I wanted to do here, and I wanted to bring this in.
	Bada-bing, bada-boom, e vola, share.
	Aurora Bennu.
	Hey, Viva.
	This is the UN website PDF.
	It has inventors of weapons.
	When what frequency attacks?
	I'll check that out in a second.
	Put that over here.
	Open up a new window.
	Okay, I'll check that out afterwards.
	It seems interesting.
	Then we've got Omar Gonzalez says Kafkaesque and Angry Marsupial says I never voted Trump before but will this time thanks to these trials as much as Biden.
	Thanks to these trials as much as Biden.
	Okay, and what I wanted to show everybody before we headed out of here.
	So look at this.
	Refresh.
	Look at that beautiful thumbnail.
	This is where you can join if you want to join.
	I don't know how it works.
	I haven't joined my own.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	Look at this.
	Community members, 120,000 community members.
	That's just people who are part of the community, not necessarily supporters.
	582,000 posts.
	10.6 million likes.
	1.89 million comments.
	That's a lot of comments.
	Anyways, if you want to do it, do it.
	It's a good way to do it.
	And what we're going to do now, if you don't want to do it, I'll see you tomorrow on Rumble and YouTube.
	I'll see you tonight from my car as I do a vlog.
	But we're going to end it and go over to Locals and have our Locals afterparty.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com And that is that.
	Livestream on Rumble.
	Coming to an end.
	Thank you all for being here.
	Like, share.
	Before you go, hit the thumbs up.
	Make sure that you're subscribed or following whatever the word is on Rumble.
	But share my stuff if you could.
	It helps.
	It's the freest and easiest way to help independent voices be heard.
	And I'm going to continue.
	Keep it on.
	Keep it on.
	Plugging away and covering the madness in real time and trying to dissect, condense, simplify, and make digestible with a spice of humor the madness of the times through which we are living.
	November 2024, people.
	That's the date.
	Okay.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	We got one more story.
	Canadian madness coming on over there.
	Rumble, if you're not coming, thank you very much.
	Peace out.
	Enjoy the day.
	Booyah.

▲