Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 13, 2024 - Viva & Barnes

01:21:09

Hunter CONVICTED; Bannon APPEAL; Rumble FIGHTS BACK! AND MORE! Viva Frei Live

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	...
	...
	For those of you listening on podcast format, I shall dictate what we are currently watching.
	A man in a paragliding thing has paraglided onto grass.
	Leaders from across the world of the G7 are looking at the man while one elderly old man dawdling him off away from the crowd, seemingly looking at nothing or everything, is brought back to the crowd.
	By the other foreign leaders.
	He is stiff-hand, pulls out his sunglasses to do the thing.
	The dark Brandon thing.
	Puts on the glasses.
	His hands are not moving.
	They have not moved in quite some time.
	Could it be arthritis?
	Could it be dementia?
	Nobody knows.
	He stands there, motionless, rigid, like an overstarchy suit that comes out of the dry cleaner.
	Mouth agape, partially open.
	It's not clear that he understands what is going on, where he is, who he is.
	When he is.
	And thus the clip ends.
	Good afternoon.
	It's terrible.
	It's objectively terrible.
	This is a video clip that was going viral earlier today.
	And everyone's retweeting it.
	What the hell is Joe Biden doing?
	He's meandering off like a walking corpse that doesn't know where the hell he is.
	I saw the clip and because I didn't get burnt last week, but some people might have arguably gotten burnt by retweeting that otherwise, what's the word I'm looking for?
	Not redacted, not abridged.
	You know, the cut short clip of Joe Biden at the D-Day Normandy celebration in France where it looked like he might have been pooping his pants.
	And people retweeted that thinking that he was pooping his pants.
	And I was like, okay, before I retweet it, I'm going to go check the context and see what's going on.
	And lo and behold, he wasn't pooping his pants.
	He was looking for a seat because he thought it was time to sit down.
	And then he got told by big boss Jill Biden, elder abuser Jill Biden, it's not time to sit down yet, sweetie.
	So I see this clip and everyone's freaking out about it, retweeting it today.
	All of the usual folks, once it works its way into a certain cycle.
	Everybody tweets and everybody has their kick at that, I don't want to say pathetic can, but everybody wants to get a good take on it.
	My take was I need to find the deeper, broader context because I'm looking at this video and I'm saying, let's play devil's advocate.
	Maybe there are other power gliders still coming down.
	I'm not on the right mind.
	I don't know how that happens.
	Maybe there are other power gliders still coming down.
	And so he's looking off in the distance, and there's other paragliders.
	So he's not actually just a total dawdling, demented, senile old man.
	He's looking at something that the other eight dignitaries, the other eight foreign leaders, losers of the highest order, are not looking at.
	The full clip in context was even worse.
	Let me bring it back up just for one second.
	The way he puts on his sunglasses, it's like someone is out there, his handler is out there and saying, You know, like the I didn't do it episode of The Simpsons?
	Like, do the thing, Joe.
	Do the dark Brandon.
	I don't know if he's like, if that's his last memory that he has, like that's his last functioning cognitive capacity to do the thing.
	Look at this.
	He walks off.
	No idea where the hell he's going.
	Look at the people.
	Look at these other elder abuse enablers.
	You got Justin Trudeau who...
	As we will talk about later on in this show.
	Doesn't mind putting out of life the mentally ill under the pretext of medical assistance and dying.
	We'll get there.
	Look at all of these jackasses.
	You got the British guy.
	What's the British guy's name?
	I'm not going to get it.
	Suni?
	Sunar?
	What's the British guy's name?
	That doesn't matter.
	I'll get it in a second.
	You got all of these idiots.
	And they, like, they notice there's a problem.
	Like, this woman right here.
	Wow.
	Oh, wow.
	A guy paragliding.
	Wow.
	And then Joe Biden's like, look, the guy behind her.
	He's like, dude, somebody get this guy.
	Please bring him back.
	She notices, like, oh, where the hell is he going?
	Looking around uncomfortably.
	Head nod.
	Head nod.
	Did you notice it?
	Right here.
	I think that's a head nod.
	Can someone get this guy?
	Can someone?
	Go get the guy.
	Okay, there.
	Joe, Joe, over here.
	Please, come back to reality.
	I don't know who that is.
	That looks like Melanie Jolie, but I don't think it is.
	You got Sunar.
	Sunar.
	What's his name?
	Anyhow, that's the video clip.
	Then he puts on the glasses.
	Do the thing, Joe.
	It's Objective Abject Elder Abuse.
	Rishi Sunak.
	That's it.
	Rishi Sunak.
	Rishi Sunak.
	I've said this before.
	I'll say it again.
	The Democrat Party, the Democrats, the liberals, and I'm saying capital L, capital D, progressives, they are people who will do anything because the ends justify the means.
	They will engage in elder abuse.
	They will engage in exploitation of children.
	They will engage in exploitation of the mentally impaired, the cognitively impaired.
	And I'll give you three solid examples.
	One you just saw, Joe Biden objectively...
	Mentally impaired.
	Objectively, this is not a judge.
	I'm not making fun of old people.
	My grandmother was diagnosed with early onset dementia.
	How that happens at 86, I don't know.
	But she went nearly another 20 years.
	She was 103 when she died.
	I know what that face looks like.
	And I'm not trying to make fun.
	It's just that's what's going on with Joe Biden.
	They will abuse that man so long as he has a pulse in his body and can stand on two feet even if it's in a stiff-like pose.
	Who else did they exploit while he was going through mental issues?
	John Fetterman.
	Doesn't matter that he just had a stroke.
	Doesn't matter that he's going through clinical depression.
	Keep on your own two feet, John, just as long as it takes to get elected, and then we can throw you under the bus when we're done with you once we get that nice, warm body in that...
	Was it Congress or Senate?
	The House or the Senate?
	Once we get that nice, warm seat in Congress.
	Who else have they exploited?
	The child, Greta Thunberg, who is also mentally...
	I have to weigh my words here so I don't get cancelled.
	Who suffers from mental issues, diagnosable mental issues.
	I believe that she's diagnosed as being on the spectrum.
	A child on the spectrum who can dance like the monkey that they need her to dance like and they will parade her around and use her as the political pawn that they need her to be used for.
	Exploitation.
	So that's the video clip in its longer, broader context.
	And I think whoever Weekend at Bernie's is the uncynical joke.
	I have to watch that movie again.
	Maybe I'll watch that movie with the kids.
	Weekend at Bernie's, indeed.
	I mean, it's terrible.
	I mean, it's something that is so terrible that it's not even something that a cup of 1775 coffee can remedy.
	Are you a sleepy Joe who has zero cognitive performance, scared of walking upstairs without being worried that you're going to fall down or up?
	Do you struggle to muster focus and brain power for your basic things in life, such as eating ice cream or riding a bike or kissing a grandkid on the lips?
	That I won't judge so hard.
	I had my good friends who did that when they were adults and whatever.
	Germ.
	Kids are disgusting.
	Germ bags.
	But whatever.
	You need to stop drinking woke liberal coffee and start your day by drinking Rumble's very own 1775 coffee.
	Never mind that it'll be the best coffee you've ever tasted in your life, as in seriously good.
	It's also ethically sourced from a family farm in the high altitude mountains of Bolivia.
	So instead of waking up tomorrow and drinking your mold-infested, big corporation-owned woke ideology coffee that is probably making you sick from the pesticides, spray it on it.
	Try Rumble 1775 Coffee, support freedom of speech, and build a parallel economy that actually values you.
	We're going to talk about Rumble during tonight's stream as well, because Rumble, holy shit, if you don't understand why we need a parallel economy and why you should vote with your feet, your eyeballs, your dollar, support companies that actually value your business and don't think that you're a piece of scum to be exploited.
	We're going to understand that a little more thoroughly tonight.
	1775 Coffee has an exclusive partnership with Rumble.
	Go to 1775coffee.com right now.
	Pick up your first bag.
	Use promo code VIVA for 10% off your first order to make it a big one.
	There's medium, dark, peaberry.
	I take my coffee like I take my women.
	Dark.
	That's the old joke, but I actually don't.
	But I do prefer my coffee dark.
	I take my coffee like I take myself.
	Short, stout.
	Strong.
	Strong, robust so that you know you're drinking coffee when you drink it.
	You won't regret it for a moment.
	Level up your morning routine with a bag of 1775 coffee.
	Sleep well at night knowing your hard-earned dollars are going towards supporting a freedom-loving company that loves its freedom-loving customers, that values their money, and build that parallel economy.
	The link is in the description.
	And it's delicious coffee.
	Everyone knows the joke, right?
	How do you take your coffee black like my men?
	I think it was from...
	I want to say it was from Airplane.
	It was back in an era where humor could be funny.
	Who knows where it's from?
	Balls of Steel, Hallis Baller.
	Okay, we're going to get there.
	We're getting there right now, actually, now that you mention it.
	Let me just make sure that we're live across all platforms.
	We are live on the Rumbles.
	We are live on the VivaBarneslaw.local.com Mr. Mike, Mr. Mike says, Viva, this is in Locals.
	Admit it.
	You like your coffee like you like your men.
	Lots of cream and sugar?
	Too much.
	Too much.
	I went too far.
	Who said I went too far here?
	You should drink the thing.
	Okay, there are memes galore in here.
	I'm going to bring up a few of these because these are just incredible.
	We have an amazing community at Rumble.
	Above average.
	Wonderfully humorous.
	Good senses of humor.
	Intelligent, tolerant, and loving.
	That is our VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com community.
	Hold on, hold on.
	There's a better one.
	Okay, Bill Brown apparently is...
	Here we go.
	This is it.
	This is the one.
	I mean, it's not even a joke.
	This is quality, quality memery.
	Who said Viva in...
	Viva!
	So, everybody...
	Oh, if you're new to the channel, first of all, my...
	I'll say it.
	My ass is extremely sore.
	I drove yesterday.
	What is that?
	I don't know, like 500 kilometers?
	Is it more than that?
	I think it was like 600 kilometers.
	I drove from the southeast side of Florida, across the wang of the panhandle that is Florida, through Naples, up to Longboat Keys.
	To the Rumble Studio to do an interview with Russell Brand.
	I was on his channel at noon, and he was on my channel at 1.45.
	And it was amazing.
	I drove there, left at 6 in the morning, got there by 10, had a nice picnic on the ocean.
	Then I did the interviews, then I came back.
	And on the way back, because it was torrential flooding, my wife, who was on her way to Canada, had their flight canceled after sitting on the freaking plane for three hours on a disgusting, hot plane with no TV with our youngest kid.
	I didn't even tell my kid.
	You want to know how good it is to meet people in real life?
	The lectern guy just came over and slept over when we did the podcast with Luke Rudkowski.
	My kid knows the lectern guy and the injustice that he endured.
	He was on the plane, and as much as he was flipping his Shi 'at, he said to my wife, this is not as bad as being in solitary confinement like the lectern guy.
	I'm not trying to be funny.
	It's like, that's how you put things in perspective.
	The flight was canceled, so then I drive straight to the airport, plowing through rain puddles and flood water, and I pick up my kid and my wife, and we go home.
	So it was amazing.
	So that's why my butt is a little sore.
	And then that was like eight, nine hours of driving in one day, which is no big deal, because I listened to Russell Brand's Revelation.
	I listened to Joe Rogan interview Tank Abbott, and I would never have recognized Tank Abbott in a million years.
	He looks good.
	He looks like a nice, healthy, elderly gentleman.
	Not the Tank Abbott I remember from UFC 3. It was wild.
	So that's what's going on today.
	Everybody, Viva Frye, David Frye, Montreal Litigator, former, former, current Florida Rumbler.
	And we're going to talk about a lot of stuff today.
	And we have a special guest who just popped in the back, actually.
	Phil Holloway.
	We're going to go over the stuff that we're going to talk about.
	Phil is going to be the special guest of the day.
	We're talking about Georgia.
	About Georgia.
	We're going to talk about Hunter Biden, conviction.
	Steve Bannon, appeal.
	What else was it?
	Then we're going to go to Rumble because Rumble has some amazingly wild news that just came out in terms of not being listed on the Russell 3000 exchange.
	Rumble is also suing Google and has recently published some very damning video of Google basically admitting that it's not just an accident, but a strategy that they game the system to favor themselves over other search results.
	And whatever else comes up on the menu.
	That is it.
	What I wanted to say that I didn't get to the live chats or the super chat, the rumble rants or the tips yesterday during the interview because it just wasn't feasible to do it.
	So I apologize for that, but that's it.
	Okay, I'm going to bring Phil in.
	Phil, you ready?
	Phil Holloway, you might remember him from such corrupt jurisdictions as Fulton County.
	He's a practicing attorney.
	He's been on the channel before.
	We've been on each other's channel.
	He's a good guy.
	Phil.
	How are you doing?
	You know, I've got a little bit of studio envy, to be honest with you.
	I've always, you know, liked your studio.
	And I've always been a little jealous, I've got to admit.
	I think it's great.
	Oh, you said studio envy?
	Yeah.
	Okay, now hold on a second.
	I've got to see what it says in the background.
	This says Folsom Prison.
	Hold on one second.
	Johnny Cash.
	What?
	What prison did he go to?
	Well, that's the Folsom Prison.
	He did the famous Folsom Prison blues song.
	And so he did live from inside Folsom Prison.
	So I've had this sort of knick-knack in my house for years, and finally I found the right place for it.
	Well, Folsom Prison is in Georgia.
	No, no, it's in California, I believe.
	Okay, fine.
	Okay, never mind.
	So that's why I knew Fulton was in Georgia.
	But Phil?
	Look, we're going to do a variety talk show, I guess, tonight.
	Tell everybody who you are, just in case they don't know, but I think everybody knows.
	I'm Phil Holloway.
	I'm a lawyer in the metro Atlanta area.
	I'm also a LawTube streamer.
	My show is Inside the Law.
	And we have, I think a lot of you probably subscribe to both Viva's show and mine, of course, and others.
	Viva and I have a very, you know, we're friends actually in real life and in the LawTube space.
	But we don't like compete, I think, with each other because your style is very different from mine.
	Your show is very different from mine.
	But fortunately for me, I am right here in the belly of the beast in Fulton County, Georgia, where so much of the law craziness is going on right now.
	It is.
	Was that you or that was me?
	Do you have Ring on your phone as well?
	No.
	Okay, I got Ring.
	No, my theory has always been this, and I stand by it.
	None of us are competing with each other because we have barely tapped into the market of the awareness.
	At the broadest of scales of LawTube on YouTube on the interwebs.
	We're getting there, but the more that there are of quality legal analysis, you bring more people in, and it's the rising tide that literally lifts all ships.
	You've obviously been doing this longer, and you've got a great, it's a fantastic show.
	I was actually watching and listening to you before I started doing this myself.
	By the way, you and Eric and some of the others were...
	Crucial, critical in encouraging me to do this, and I really appreciate your help and support.
	I don't know.
	I can't see your numbers, how many are in it, but I was surprised.
	Like today, I had 5,000 live on my channel at 2.30 in the afternoon simply because they're so fascinated.
	I think, look, it's not because of me.
	It's because I happen to be in Fulton County in Atlanta talking about the craziness that's going on.
	People genuinely are interested in Learning about the law.
	And they don't want to always go to cable TV or anything like that.
	They like to hear from people like you and I who have some real-life perspective, I think, which sets the LawTube community apart.
	The Young Thug trial is now turning into the next Rittenhouse, the next Johnny Depp, because when it's live-streamed and people can watch it, it provides for amazing insight and entertainment.
	Legal entertainment.
	And I was just flipping through the live streams today.
	The networks that just play it with no commentary.
	Tens of thousands of people watching it.
	The ones that provide meaningful, insightful commentary.
	I mean, just need to tap into those markets.
	But it's turning out to be a wildly interesting case because not from necessarily even the legal perspective, from the corruption perspective.
	What made Rittenhouse so amazing.
	It was not the law.
	It was the corruption.
	It was the malicious prosecution.
	What made the Johnny Depp so interesting was not the law.
	It was the debaucherous character of...
	What was her name?
	Jeez.
	Johnny Depp and...
	Oh.
	Pirate.
	Yeah, yeah.
	What was the woman's most...
	Pirates are the Caribbean there.
	Johnny Depp.
	I don't want to look at the chat, but I'm going to have to.
	Johnny Depp and Amber Heard.
	Son of a gun.
	I think I may have gotten Fizben Goldstein to see it.
	Yeah, it was the behavior and the characters and the extrajudicial stuff about it.
	I'm going to bring...
	You put a clip in the back there of a video.
	I'll set it up for you.
	I'll just offer it in case you...
	Look, I mean, this...
	The thing about the Young Thug trial, if we can talk about just for a second.
	We're going to do that, and I'll play the video in a second of balls of steel, steel, giving it to the judge.
	I've known him for 25 years.
	We can talk about him.
	He's a great guy.
	Look what Young Thug has done.
	He's a rapper in Atlanta.
	Atlanta, for those of you who don't know, has a large community.
	There's a bunch of the recording industry is here, particularly in the rap genre.
	It's literally...
	A big market for that.
	That's why we have so many rappers that live here and are based here.
	And so this young thug, because it's Fanny Willis prosecuting young thug in a racketeering case.
	Oh, by the way, she's using rap music lyrics as what she calls substantive evidence of a crime.
	That's pissed a lot of people off.
	Now that everybody has gotten familiar with Fannie Willis through the Trump-RICO case, you've got this very interesting dynamic where you've got a lot of Donald Trump fans that are now, I guess, they've adopted Young Thug and they're now Young Thug fans that they may not have otherwise been.
	But the insider, here's the thing.
	Young Thug himself is a major Donald Trump supporter.
	Okay.
	And so there's just so much overlap, and these two things have kinetically fueled the fire of the interest in both these cases.
	Well, if the increased scrutiny or the increased interest in the case...
	I'm not sure that it's actually young, thug-based, or at least it might not have been at the beginning, but the Fannie Willis corruption interest.
	Once you know that she was that corrupt in the RICO prosecution of Trump, well, now everybody wants to look at what she's doing next, and now we're discovering we're going to get into the corruption, but absolutely.
	There also seems to be a tendency of going after celebrities or big bigwigs who are Trump supporters in front of the Trump.
	I mean, what happened in the Trump case has opened a lot of people's eyes, and so they realize now, just because you're accused of a crime doesn't mean you're guilty, but that's not the point.
	That's actually irrelevant.
	I haven't really given any thought or consideration to the substance of the charges against Young Thug and all the other 28 defendants, and I don't know if they're guilty, and I really don't care, because what this is about...
	This is about fundamental fairness.
	This is about prosecutors and judges doing the right thing, because when our system doesn't work right for Young Thug or Donald Trump, then it won't work right when you get charged or when I get charged or when our friends who are in your live chat here might, unfortunately, if they ever get charged, if they can do it to one, they can do it to all.
	The general public, there's a raising of the awareness that the justice system has got to be fair for all people.
	Where the heck is the clip of the Balls of Steel?
	The bottom line, I just put out a quick vlog before this stream, but maybe some people didn't get to watch it yet.
	Young Thug.
	Rico charges, you know, amongst other charges.
	He's facing nine charges.
	And apparently someone got murdered and now they're going to try to go after Young Thug as part of a Rico racketeering intimidation corruption organization in that he participated in the murder by allegedly, according to the witness at issue here, by renting a car that they knew was going to be used in this murder.
	And so...
	He's facing nine charges.
	That's the long and short of it, whether or not you think he's guilty, innocent, whatever.
	They tried to use lyrics from his rap song in order to adjuice guilt.
	We talked about that, Barnes and I, a while back.
	And the trial's been going on.
	What happened, I think this is going to blow the case up and blow the interest in it up as well, if it already hadn't blown up, is the lawyer, Young Thug's lawyer is a man named, what's his first name?
	Brian Steele.
	It's so cool.
	It's like Max Power.
	His name is Brian Steele.
	And the video clip that went viral was based on the news that we heard last week.
	I've got it here.
	I can share it.
	Flip the link in the private chat.
	I've got it in a folder.
	It's not like a web link.
	I've got the actual video.
	But I retweeted it, so I don't understand.
	Oh, it's right here.
	I got it.
	Okay.
	Hold on.
	Okay, I'm going to put this up here.
	It's a three-minute video, but it's freaking wild.
	Here, let's do this.
	I got it here.
	Okay.
	It's...
	Okay, hold on, hold on.
	I'm just trying to build up the suspense while I go share a screen.
	George and X. Here we go.
	This is it.
	Okay, whatever.
	Here.
	Okay, bringing it up.
	We'll play through it and I'll pause it, Phil, and you'll add some insights.
	So the judge, what's the judge's name?
	Earl Glanville, U-R-A-L.
	Now, I know that you are a practicing attorney in this district, so you'll weigh your words.
	I won't, because I may have to drive around, George.
	No, I'm not.
	Look, I don't know that I'll be welcome down there anytime soon, so I'll give you the unvarnished truth.
	All right, let's play this and I'll pause it.
	Well, I'm going forward.
	What I was told was that Mr. Copeland said...
	And you haven't answered my question yet.
	I'm not going to answer that question.
	You're not.
	No, I do not answer that.
	Why would you not answer that question?
	So the question here is, how did the lawyer find out that the judge and the prosecution had an ex parte meeting with the prosecution's star witness, leading witness, whatever, ex parte meaning without the defense being present?
	And so let me, I'll flesh out one question first, Phil.
	The prosecution can meet with their witnesses.
	That there's no problem about, obviously, right?
	Well, they're not supposed to once the witness has started testifying.
	But when the witness is not, yeah, otherwise they can't.
	But you can't have this ex parte.
	It's Latin, one-sided.
	You just can't have a meeting with the judge, just about anything.
	So it's very, very limited in most states, in fact, including in Georgia.
	A friend of mine who's a prosecutor is watching us right now, and she loves you, Viva.
	She just sent me a text message.
	Hi, Karen.
	All right, so listen, you can't just go in and have a one-sided conversation with the judge.
	You've got to have all relevant parties there.
	And so what's happened is still...
	Rightly so, is confronting the judge because he just found out that the prosecutor was back there with her witness and the judge, and they were essentially talking about the, well, not only the case, but the witness wanted to take the fifth, and according to, and look, I did a whole stream on this today, if anybody wants to check it out from earlier today, I went through this motion to recuse the judge that lists Like verbatim, the things that happened back there.
	And what they're alleging happened is that the judge pulled out the statute on perjury and said, look, this is what they're going to do to you if you don't cooperate and you don't testify the way they want, you know, this sort of thing.
	And he's basically saying, oh, and by the way, if you want to take the fifth, I can hold you in jail, not until just this trial's over, but until the remaining.
	12 defendants, and this case is going to go on for years, but they were saying, we've got 12 more defendants that we can try, and we can hold you in jail until all those cases get over, too.
	So basically, they're allegedly intimidating this witness, saying, you're going to be held in jail almost indefinitely if you don't testify the way.
	The prosecutor wants you to.
	And because people get confused a little bit as well, but they'll trust it more coming from your mouth.
	Prosecution can meet with their witnesses.
	They can prep their witnesses.
	Once the witnesses started testifying and they're under oath, they cannot correct or not coerce, but they can't correct or guide the testimony.
	That's unlawful.
	Yeah, they're not supposed to do that.
	The prosecution, as a strategic decision, can decide to give immunity.
	To people.
	It's not the judge's discretion to do that.
	So the prosecution allegedly gave this guy immunity to testify.
	Yeah, but they didn't give him federal immunity.
	Look, he's a felon with guns, and that raises lots of potential federal charges.
	And so they gave him state immunity, but they didn't give him federal immunity.
	So when he first started testifying...
	His lawyer said, look, you need to take the fifth because you're not fully protected here.
	It's the same advice I would have given.
	It's good, solid advice to a witness like this.
	But the judge threw him in jail anyway, saying, if they've given you immunity, you're going to have to testify.
	You can go to jail until you get ready to testify.
	I mean, it's wild.
	So he started testifying Friday.
	Then he took the fifth and apparently aggressively took the fifth.
	The judge didn't take kindly to that because this is the star witness to tie in the RICO charges against Young Thug.
	Now, the meeting took place presumably with prosecution.
	Was it Fannie Willis herself or another prosecutor?
	The allegations are from the motion to recuse that I went over today is it was the prosecutor Love and one named Hilton.
	Also present, maybe a sheriff's deputy.
	They did have a court reporter present, the judge, of course.
	And if there was anybody else there, and the witness, if there was anybody else there, they didn't reference it.
	Okay, so we don't know if the witness had an attorney.
	Witness does have an attorney.
	So yeah, the witness's attorney would have been there.
	So the only places that Steele could get this information are from any of those people.
	And I'm just trying to make an educated guess.
	I would imagine if the guy's taking the fifth and he's a little bit pissed, maybe the witness...
	Is there any chance the witness is not colluding with?
	It was hypothetically, perhaps, possibly, absolutely 100% the lawyer for the witness, in my opinion.
	Who did not like the legalities of what he saw?
	Well, I mean, it's a she in this case, but yeah, that's right.
	And look, here's the thing, and there's nothing wrong with that.
	The judge can't swear to secrecy about an illegal meeting in the first place, right?
	So there's nothing wrong with telling the defense counsel, Viva, what?
	What happened back there in this meeting?
	And that's part of what's so frustrating about this, is the judge is seeming to act like this is the Lindbergh baby kidnapping or something.
	He's going on this witch hunt, the Captain Queeg with the strawberry kind of thing, where he's just on this mission.
	He's going to find out who leaked his secret ex parte meeting, come hell or high water.
	Who's the witness's lawyer?
	Do we know her name?
	His last name's Bumpus.
	I don't know her personally.
	She happened to be there, by the way, just filling in.
	The guy's regular lawyer apparently had a long-planned vacation, and so he went on vacation.
	I do know where because I've been emailing with him.
	He's a friend of mine, but I won't say where.
	So he had another lawyer covering for him the day all this went down, and my goodness, I'm sure she's regretting it.
	Okay, well, let's bring this back here.
	Is this yours or is this mine?
	Well, I'm going forward.
	Okay, this one's yours.
	Same thing.
	And you haven't answered my question yet.
	I'm not going to answer that question.
	You're not.
	No, I will not answer that question.
	Why would you not answer that question?
	Because I want to make sure that what I say is accurate and I'm not trying to...
	No, no, no, no.
	I'm asking you, how did you get this information?
	I'm not telling the court.
	What I'm saying is based upon information.
	Okay, well, listen, if you don't tell me how you got this information, then you and I are going to have some problems.
	I paused it.
	Sorry.
	Here's the thing.
	You notice the judge is skipping over the part of the meeting.
	Brian confronted him first.
	Brian's like, did you do this?
	And he's skipping over the part about him being guilty, allegedly, of this improper meeting.
	He's going straight for who told you.
	I think he does it all, but he confirms it later on by referring to it as proprietary information.
	It's such a wild term.
	I have problems right now.
	Look, I don't want to know about your problems at this point in time.
	All I'm asking you at this point in time is, how did you come upon this information?
	Look, if the case gets reviewed, the record's going to be available for our appellate court and for whatever reason.
	But it's disturbing that...
	How somehow you have surreptitiously gotten information in regards to the court's private ex parte conversation with the party.
	A witness who was sworn in Friday.
	The court's telling, this is what I was told.
	If this is not true, not true.
	This court handed Mr. Copeland.
	Tell me how you got the information.
	Tell me how you got the information.
	Then we can go ahead and go forward.
	I can go put the other lawyer in jail.
	What I'm going to say is this.
	I was told, and I hope this concerns the court.
	It concerns me that you have proprietary information that you should not be having that was ex parte.
	Why?
	With a party.
	Why?
	State of Georgia.
	How about the witness?
	How about Mr. Copeland, who supposedly announced he's not testifying, and he'll sit for two years, and then supposedly this honorable court, or excuse me, let me rephrase, that this court supposedly said, I can hold you until the end of this trial.
	Ms. Hilton supposedly said actually all of the defendants, and then all 26 people are disposed of.
	If that's true, what this is, is coercion, witness intimidation.
	Because both the judge and the prosecutor want a conviction.
	I understand that you're upset towards me, but I don't know what I did.
	Mr. Steele, I still want to know how did you come upon this information?
	Who told you?
	What I want to know is why wasn't I there?
	Why, sir, I'm going to hold you in contempt if you don't tell me who this information was coming from.
	I'm not answering that question.
	That's attorney-client privilege information.
	I'm not an attorney-client privilege.
	Unless you were in my chambers, that's the only way you can figure out.
	I'm going to give you five minutes.
	If you don't tell me who it is, I'm going to put you in contempt.
	Because that is not attorney-client privilege.
	Attorney work product privilege.
	How did you get that information supposedly from my chambers?
	Did somebody tell you?
	You should have told me.
	You got five minutes.
	This is what I was told.
	Listen to what he says here.
	Don't take my notes.
	Don't take my notes.
	The cop is coming, smacking on the table.
	Don't take my notes.
	And did you see the prosecutor telling the court reporter to stop taking it down?
	I did not see that.
	Bring that back.
	Just at the very end?
	Yeah.
	It's like in the last couple of seconds.
	Hold on, I can do that?
	Okay, here we go.
	No, you're doing that.
	Okay, go.
	You're killing Donovan Thomas.
	Oh my goodness.
	Don't take my notes.
	No, no, no, no, no.
	Don't take...
	This is corruption of...
	First of all, okay, so the judge found him in contempt, ordered him to spend 20 days in jail to be served on the weekends.
	The guy said, if I'm going to jail, can I go to Young Thug's jail so we can prep on the weekends?
	And he said, yeah, I'll think about it.
	This dog's wet and smelly.
	That was vacated, or how do they refer to it?
	Overturned?
	The Supreme Court stayed at the Supreme Court of Georgia.
	I'll spare you the details.
	There was some confusion about whether it should go to the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals because murder cases go directly to the Supreme Court in Georgia.
	And one of the defendants somewhere in the indictment has a murder count.
	But even though this is an ancillary collateral thing...
	It was the motion, emergency motion for a stay and for a bond, a supersedious bond, was filed in the Court of Appeals.
	The Court of Appeals transferred it to the Supreme Court.
	The Supreme Court said, well, we're not sure we're supposed to have it either, but we'll keep it since we do know that we have the authority to do so.
	We're going to do it anyway.
	We'll just keep it, send everything here.
	And oh, by the way, Mr. Steele doesn't have to go to jail until we sort this out.
	So the Supreme Court, I mean, I predicted it was going to happen in 24...
	I think it took 36. And what's going to potentially happen to the judge?
	I mean, this should be immediate ethics review?
	Yeah, and it's my understanding.
	I've got it on good authority.
	The Georgia Judicial Qualifications Commission, which is a state agency that polices judges in their ethics, has already opened a file on this.
	What happens and how fast it happens is anybody's guess.
	But, I mean, look.
	I think it goes without saying that what the judge did was wrong.
	I think it violated Georgia's rules on ex parte proceedings or ex parte discussions.
	There are certain limited reasons why you can have a one-side, like if it's related to scheduling.
	Another example, let's say I'm a court-appointed lawyer and I'm representing somebody that's indigent.
	And let's say as part of my strategy, You know, I'm going to need an expert witness to testify that the police screwed up a crime scene, okay?
	And so I need to go to the, I'm going to need money, public money, for my defense, for an expert over and above what they're paying me by the hour, what the government's paying me to represent this indigent client.
	I am allowed to go on an ex parte to see the judge and say, judge, please sign this.
	Sign this order approving my $4,000 for funds to hire an expert witness for my defense because I'm pursuing this particular strategy.
	That's permissible because the judge has to approve it, and it's permissible because I don't have to show the prosecutor what my strategy is.
	So there are certain limits to it.
	So there are some things that you can do ex parte, but very, very few.
	And none of those exceptions to the Otherwise, outright prohibition apply.
	It's amazing.
	I didn't notice the hand gestures.
	Someone said that that's also going viral on YouTube or on the social medias.
	It's amazing.
	This is why they don't want to broadcast in as much as they can live trials.
	What we've witnessed is nothing shy of pure judicial corruption.
	I didn't know that Young Thug is a Trump supporter.
	That makes a little more sense in terms of the...
	The viciousness with which they're going after him.
	Alright, what do we expect?
	The next step in this is going to be...
	What?
	Is Steele going to ask for a mistrial?
	Would this be sufficient for a mistrial?
	Oh yeah, there's definitely...
	Well, there's multiple motions.
	There's motions for mistrial almost every day.
	But see, every day something new and crazy happens.
	There's like a 30-second clip I put in there.
	This is like...
	This guy here?
	Don't recall any conversation with Detective Thorpe.
	I understand.
	You can slow it down, but I'm going to keep asking you these questions.
	So, do you recall texting or telling Detective Thorpe that, so another guy called you and said that those people were just lying?
	I don't recall.
	This is the witness that was in the ex parte meeting, and he's still on the stand.
	He clearly doesn't want to be there.
	I mean, and I shared that with you because this summarizes perfectly how the trial is going today.
	You know, it's just...
	So he's testifying, let me say this, he's testifying he was given state immunity but not federal immunity, but he is in theory testifying against Young Thug, but now he seems to be protecting Young Thug.
	Well, he's certainly not answering the questions the way the prosecutor wants.
	She's trying, apparently, to nail him down on some things he previously said to law enforcement.
	It goes back to an arrest that was his some time ago, and he was facing certain charges.
	And in the process, he allegedly said to the police, I know about all these crimes and some others that haven't happened yet.
	And so he supposedly came forward and spilled the beans on...
	Thug and his alleged gang.
	And so his credibility, though, is, well, it is what it is.
	I mean, he's a convicted felon.
	He's got plenty of reasons to lie.
	But now he's backing up and the prosecutor's saying, well, he's backing up because he's afraid of those people.
	And by that, the defendants are saying, we got nothing to do with this.
	He's just a squirrely guy.
	I mean, you just don't know.
	He's all over there.
	And the jury is having to sit through all of this.
	And by the way.
	The trial is, some people said it might take until 2026 or 2027.
	They're not even halfway through with the witnesses, I don't think.
	It took them almost a year to pick a jury, or at least maybe it was a year.
	Shut up!
	And then they have 12 others still to go.
	Oh my goodness.
	Fannie Willis and her giant RICO cases that the court can't digest.
	Well...
	Fannie got, oh no, Fannie did not get reelected yet.
	She's up in November, if she's still in good standing.
	You're deeper in the weeds on this.
	The ethics complaints that were initially withdrawn, is she facing any current ethics challenges?
	Yes, I mean, I know of a couple that I know of that have been, but I don't know the status, and the state bar takes a while to resolve those things.
	I don't see that those are going to be resolved in the foreseeable future.
	The big, bigger question for her, is she going to be able to stay on the Trump Rico case or is she going to get booted by the court of appeals?
	I did a stream on this, too, where I looked at the three judges on the appeals court panel, and they come from pretty red parts of the state.
	Assuming politics plays a role in this, but of course we know politics never plays a role.
	But anyway, if it does, she's definitely flying into the headwinds here.
	I think that the odds are better than 50-50 that she's going to be booted from the case.
	And if that happens, what we don't know is are they going to dismiss the indictment too?
	Or is it going to be an indictment without a prosecutor?
	Well, yeah, they'll try to find another prosecutor.
	But they may not be able to.
	There's a state agency that...
	First off, that agency has to decide, do they want to find one?
	And if so, who's it going to be?
	And no other prosecutor is going to want to touch this thing.
	Because they would have to start over from the beginning and then decide even if there was even a crime that was committed.
	So if it went to another prosecutor, it's probably dead as well.
	I want to bring this one up.
	Yeah, I didn't get that reference at all, by the way.
	Not only that I'm Canadian, I don't watch football and haven't watched football in a long time.
	So, yeah, I understand.
	Maybe someone was cheating with hand gestures.
	I didn't get it.
	But now, what happens to the judge?
	It's a jury trial criminal.
	The judge, in theory, could get swapped out, or would they have to start the trial all over again?
	Yeah, so I was having this conversation with a judge friend of mine today.
	Ex parte, no.
	We were talking about it, and so it's uncommon, but...
	You can have a judge, let's say a judge gets sick or something in the middle of a trial, right?
	Or for whatever reason, can't finish it out.
	Jeopardy attaches for purposes of double jeopardy.
	So the law makes a provision that if there's a good reason, a judge can change in the middle of a trial.
	Yeah, because it's not like...
	I mean, there might be some decisions or rulings that that judge had started ruling on or objections that were made under that new judge, but to the extent it's all the law, presumably another judge can just as easily jump in as matters of law.
	Okay, well, that's wild.
	Phil, ordinarily I don't do this, but I'm going to do my second sponsor.
	I hate doing it when there's someone in the chat, but maybe this is going to be good for you too, Phil.
	Hold on a second.
	Do you have an emergency contagion kit handy just in case we get locked down again?
	Oh, you're asking me?
	Yeah.
	I have all sorts of emergency supplies.
	We won't get into that for operational security reasons.
	Well, I'll tell you one thing.
	Phil, April 23rd, media outlets began to flood headlines with the latest avian flu development.
	The FDA said, quote, it had detected viral particles of H5N1 avian influenza in milk purchased at grocery stores.
	While the FDA cautioned that they believe the milk is still safe to drink, others are sounding the alarm.
	According to a new report, Dr. Topol, founder of Scripps Research Translational Institute, said the findings of viral particles in milk on grocery store shelves means the outbreak is probably more widespread than we've known.
	The dissemination to cows is far greater than we've been led to believe, Topol said in an email Tuesday.
	The FDA assurance that dairy supply is safe is nice, but it's not based on an extensive assessment yet.
	Plus, the FDA tends to get everything wrong in any event.
	Chief Medical Board of the Wellness Company has been closely watching the avian flu.
	They've given up the very scary H5N1 name outbreak in the United States over the last few weeks.
	While it's far from certain that the recent strand of the bird flu will result in a pandemic...
	They can still lie about it or pretend that it did or genetically modify it to make sure that it does.
	We know that the medical tyrants are never going to be done with us.
	And with scientists still saying that the bird flu strain could be 100 times more deadly than COVID...
	I'm not sure how deadly that makes it, but whatever.
	And knowing that it's an election year, Americans should now more than ever be prepared.
	Do you have what your family needs this time around?
	Because many doctors still won't even consider prescribing ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine, but we've got you covered.
	Keep listening.
	The only one of its kind.
	It's not available.
	It's only available in the United States, so Canadians, I don't know what you got to do to get one.
	The Prescription Contagion Emergency Kit from The Wellness Company provides you with a carefully sorted assortment of medications for bird flu, COVID-19, and other respiratory illnesses, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, Z-Pak, Tamiflu, Budesonide, along with a nebulizer so you can rest easy knowing you have the emergency meds on hand along with the guidebook.
	It's prescription.
	You've got to fill out a form, and it comes with a very detailed guidebook.
	Backed by researchers like Dr. Peter McCullough, The Wellness Company's Emergency Kit is a must-have.
	Go get one.
	Everyone should have one.
	If you put in the promo code Viva at TWC forward slash Viva.
	No, TWC health forward slash Viva.
	The wellness company dot health forward slash Viva.
	You get 30 bucks off your first kit or your kit plus free shipping at checkout.
	Get one.
	You need one.
	Everybody wants to have one.
	And unfortunately, Canadians are going to have to be jealous that Americans will have their emergency meds on hands.
	The link is in the description.
	Phil.
	Let's do it.
	I mean, you can say it and you can let me know when you want to leave, but you can say it.
	I got two or three minutes, but let me say this.
	Maybe one day when I grow up and get my big boy law tube streamer pants, maybe I'll get a sponsor or two over at Inside the Law.
	You need...
	Oh, yeah.
	The color, I'm told, is teal or salmon?
	I would say salmon for sure.
	I don't wear pants anymore.
	Once upon a time, I only wore pants and now I only wear shorts.
	Phil, let me pick your brain on one thing.
	Oh, geez.
	Who is it?
	It's...
	Well, no.
	Bannon, I don't think I need to pick your brain on.
	Oh, for goodness sake!
	Oh, let's...
	Bannon.
	Hunter?
	No, the hunter, the conviction.
	What was that?
	Hold on.
	Let me check my...
	What do you have coming up, by the way?
	I'm going to be...
	I'm getting ready to take a little vacation, so I'm going to be under or sort of off the radar, but not entirely.
	I might do some...
	Pop-up streams, short ones from parts unknown from the secret bunker or secret lair.
	Fortress of Solitude coming up in the next couple of weeks.
	The question was Merrick Garland, found in contempt.
	This was my question.
	So Merrick Garland, and I'll get to it in detail when you're not here, but he was found in contempt.
	Not found, they voted to find him in contempt.
	Who would need to bring the contempt charges against the Attorney General?
	The Attorney General?
	Okay.
	Well, I mean, look, so Bill Barr was in contempt.
	They found him in contempt.
	And Eric Holder back in the day in the Obama administration, they found him in contempt.
	And so it's symbolic, but that's really all that it is.
	I mean, at least with the...
	Mayorkas guy, it was more than symbolic.
	At least they could at least send it to the Senate to see if anything would happen as far as the impeachment.
	So impeachment is symbolic, but contempt is entirely symbolic.
	Okay.
	All right.
	I'll read that news anyhow, and we're going to end it on YouTube and head on over to Rumble.
	Phil, where can people find you?
	And inside the law on Rumble and on YouTube and, of course, locals inside the law as well.
	Any or all of those places, check it out.
	And look, I'm zeroing in pretty quickly.
	My next goal is 50,000 subscribers.
	I just started this in March, so I've been very, very humbled and blessed and surprised by the growth.
	But I'm trying to get to 50,000, so maybe I'll be there by the time I come back from the Fortress of Solitude.
	Booyah!
	Well, from your mouth to the internet.
	Overlord's ears.
	Phil, you do great stuff.
	And you'll come back on.
	I'll come back on.
	Anytime, brother.
	You're always welcome with me as well.
	Thank you very much.
	Okay, go.
	I'll text you later.
	All right.
	Fantastic.
	Before we head over to...
	We're going to go over to Rumble.
	We're going to go over to Locals as well.
	What was I going to do?
	Yes!
	Rumble Prants and Tips in our Locals community because one of them is hilarious.
	I like Phil and I like the way he talks.
	I love the Southern accent.
	I've always loved it.
	And he reminds me of the guy from Whammy from Anchorman.
	What was his name?
	Not Brick.
	You got Brick?
	Oh, you know, well, the weather guy from Anchorman.
	Once you see it, once you see it, you'll never be able to unsee it.
	Lord of the Rees says, I like my coffee how I like my women with no penis.
	Well, just wait until you get the penis blend, Lord of the Rees.
	It's especially hard to grind.
	Oh my gosh, I'm done.
	Okay, Lord of the Rees says, just want to give a shout out to my buddy, Zeb Boykin.
	He started a podcast and deserves a much larger following than he has now.
	And not just because it features some of my music.
	It's really good stuff.
	Zeb Boykin, people.
	Check it out.
	And then we got...
	Let me bring this out of here.
	We got tips in our local community, and they're hilarious.
	Tim Adderholt says, Viva, this Judge Glanville in Georgia is fourth world lord of the flies insanity.
	Is fourth...
	Oh, fourth world, Lord of the Flies Insanity.
	Just watched Phil's earlier show.
	Love you both.
	It's crazy.
	Did you notice how the judge got especially aggressive?
	Both times, Steele said, I should have been there.
	And when he was defiant and righteously defiant, that's when the judge got the most aggressive in his response.
	$5 tip says, Viva, you have to stop.
	Talking about how you like tall, dark men, your ass hurting, and someone slipping in the back, just please know, LOLs.
	We've got Cliff Norman, who says, from Matt Gaetz, this is the quote from Matt Gaetz, I believe the only way Steve Bannon does not go to jail is if there is a vote at an entity called The Blag, the bipartisan legal advisory group, end quote, Gaetz said, adding, Quote, it is made up of the Speaker of the House, the Majority Leader, the Majority Whip, the Minority Leader, and the Minority Whip.
	So the Republicans hold a 3-2 in this, end quote.
	Have either of you heard of this, and does this undo the illegal establishment of the January 6th committee?
	I'm going to get to that in a second, Cliff Norman.
	Tim Matterholt says, this is what being tread on looks like.
	Now, back to that question.
	Are we on Steve Bannon?
	We're on Steve Bannon.
	We're going to get to that answer over on Rumble.
	Let me give everybody the link to Rumble.
	I don't think I'm going to...
	Take my answer with a grain of salt because it's not my area of expertise, but I think I know a part of it, and I've never heard of the blag, though, but we'll answer that over on Rumble if I give everybody the link to Rumble and the link to Locals.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	Let's do this.
	And there were some tips here that I...
	Superchats.
	What do we got here?
	Operational security at this point, buy ammo, and my Patriots ref wasn't that obscure.
	David got that signals were stolen from my reference.
	Yeah, I know.
	I understand how football works.
	I used to watch football.
	Then it stopped being fun to watch.
	John S., hand signals so the Georgia court system is the new New England Patriots and weekend at Bernie's.
	Okay, we're going to end on YouTube and Twitter and vote with our eyes, vote with our feet, vote with our dollars and come on over to Rumble and or Locals.
	Ending on YouTube, the entire stream will be on podcast format and on Viva Clips.
	Which I should probably turn into Viva Replay, but whatever.
	That's where the entire stream is going to be for those of you watching on YouTube.
	Boom!
	Done on YouTube.
	And now we're going to be done on Twitter, which I hate Twitter on StreamYard because it counts views as viewers and it's very distracting.
	Ending on Twitter now.
	Okay.
	People, I think we're still good on Rumble.
	Oh, Biltong, I just missed it.
	Sorry about that, but we'll get Biltong's purple super chat.
	King of Biltong, good afternoon from Anton's Meat and Eat.
	10% off with code VIVATEN for your Biltong on BiltongUSA.com and AntonUSA.com for purchases qualified for free shipping.
	Else, use code VIVA for free shipping.
	And Benjamin the Dream Wizard says, Viva Rumble.
	Crash Bandits, now it's time to party.
	It is.
	We're going to start with Steve Bannon to get to that question.
	So Steve Bannon has filed an emergency appeal to stay his imprisonment pending the exhaustion of his other appeals of the substantive conviction for contempt of congressional subpoenas.
	Subpoenas.
	Speaking of coffee, okay.
	So he's filed an emergency motion to stay out of jail while he runs the gamut of his options and recourse.
	Appealing the conviction.
	Okay.
	He's got some very, very strong legal arguments as per the filing, which I'm not going to walk through.
	If you want to see the detailed walkthrough of the filing itself, Gouveia goes through it in meticulous detail.
	Bottom line, Steve Bannon is saying, I've got very strong arguments on the merits.
	I was not allowed to raise certain substantive defenses, such as reliance on professional opinion, such as the subpoena being invalid prima facie.
	What's the word?
	Ab initio.
	I don't know if nullity ab initio is going to be the right word for the subpoena.
	The subpoena was invalid because it was not formed by a lawfully formed committee.
	The January 6th committee was not lawfully formed, period.
	In accordance with the very resolution that authorized the creation of the January 6th committee.
	It was supposed to have five Republicans, seven Democrats.
	The Republicans were supposed to be appointed by the Republican side.
	As it was, it had two Republicans that...
	Horrible, horrible woman, Liz Cheney, and that horrible, horrible man, Adam Kinzinger.
	And they weren't even appointed by Republicans.
	They were appointed by Nancy Pelosi.
	So it didn't meet quorum.
	It didn't satisfy the legal requirements as per that House Resolution 503, whatever it was.
	So it was unlawful from the get-go.
	So there's a legal argument as to how an unlawful committee can issue a legally binding subpoena.
	That wasn't answered because Steve Bannon wasn't allowed to raise that as a defense.
	One.
	Other ones.
	Other defenses that he was not allowed to raise because you have your kangaroo show trials in which guilt has not been pre-adjudicated, except it has because they are forbidden, forbidden, prohibited from raising certain legal defenses.
	Couldn't raise if the subpoena was unlawful because the committee was illegal.
	Couldn't raise reliance on professional advice because the lawyer said, you don't need to rely on this.
	And thus, in Bannon's mind, he was not willingly, willfully...
	Committing an act of breaking the law because he didn't think he had to abide by it based on legal advice.
	Not allowed.
	Prosecution comes in and says Bannon is guilty and he can't say, but I'm innocent.
	And he gets convicted.
	Surprise, surprise.
	So he says, I've got very strong arguments on the merits.
	Apparently the case law that is pertinent does not support the conviction in this case anyhow.
	I don't think anybody's been convicted of contempt of congressional subpoena, but I think someone was charged like decades ago.
	And so he says, I've got great strong arguments on the merits, thus I should be kept out of jail pending the exhausting of my appeal remedies.
	Because if I go to jail, four months, I'll be out by the time my appeal is heard, undoubtedly.
	He also argues, and I don't like the argument because in as much as people are going to argue that the conviction was a political conviction, The argument raised that I need to be out because my voice needs to be heard because I'm the number one, not influencer, but populist voice advisor to the Trump campaign and the people.
	And as much as people are going to say, so keep me out so I can keep my voice alive until the election.
	And as much as people say it's a politically charged conviction, well, you've given the fodder to say, well, we're not going to give a politically motivated stay of imprisonment.
	But he's raised a bunch of good arguments, and now the question is going to be, does he go to jail pending his appeal process, running the process, which is going to take more time than his four months in jail?
	Also, not an accident, he's going to go to jail in July, August, September, October, and there's that little thing on my fifth finger called the election in November.
	I think he's going to jail, period.
	I think he's going to go to jail.
	I think he's going to go to jail, and oddly enough, I think it's not going to silence Bannon's voice, I think it's going to amplify it, a la Barbra Streisand.
	These idiots don't seem to learn.
	But I think he's going to jail.
	I don't think he's succeeding on this motion.
	We'll see.
	The question that this all was predicated on was Matt Gaetz saying that the only way to stop him from going to jail is to use this blag, bipartisan legal advisory group, I've never heard of it.
	And the question was, so the Republicans hold the three to two seats.
	I think the answer to that is going to be no.
	I don't understand how the illegal formation of the committee has not produced the results that you would expect from a committee being illegally formed.
	They are so far gone on this lie.
	They are so deep in this.
	I'm a former Quebec lawyer.
	I just gather as much information as I can as I look into these things.
	I don't know who would come in and say, declare that that committee was unlawfully formed, thus undoing three years of investigations, eight primetime streamed committee hearings, findings.
	That were used in court proceedings to jail people.
	I mean, I'm fairly certain the committee report was used in...
	I'm fairly certain.
	I might be wrong, but fact check me.
	I'll Google it right now.
	I'm fairly certain the committee report was referenced or used in the conviction of the Jan Sixers.
	I'm fairly certain it was referenced and used in the Colorado removal of Trump from the ballot hearings.
	So, I mean, you're asking a court to undo something that other courts have basically...
	It's like when Tommy Robinson was talking about the Syrian kid and the hoax of the Syrian kid assault by a white nationalist racist kid in London, in Luden, where Tommy Robinson is from.
	And by the time politicians have invoked that alleged hoax of a racist hate crime incident against a Syrian refugee...
	By the time they've referenced that in global political arenas, they are never going to admit the truth because they can't.
	So I don't think anybody's...
	Unless there's a red tide, a Republican-Trump presidency, and committees set up to look into this and then penalize those who broke the law, and I think people did break the law, I don't know what happens.
	It's a long-winded answer of saying, I don't think anything's going to happen, but what the hell do I know?
	I'm just a Quebec Chinook who does my best to understand the world in which we live.
	Finboy Slick says, just leaving my latest pack of Viva Meme pictures in case you missed him.
	Rambo three times.
	Oh, look at this.
	You know what?
	A lot of people tell me I do look like Sylvester Stallone.
	We got this one.
	It's beautiful.
	Oh, we can go like this.
	This one.
	Oh, is that good?
	I kind of like those scars.
	Oh, is that beautiful?
	It's beautiful, Finboy!
	A work of art.
	So that's what's going on with Bannon.
	It's a freaking outrage and a freaking injustice.
	And why have I never asked Bannon to be on the channel?
	Hold on one second.
	Hold on one second.
	Hold on.
	Does Steve want to come on the channel this week?
	Or next week?
	I forgot it's Thursday.
	So that's what's going on with Steve Bannon.
	I'm not optimistic.
	I think he's going to go to jail.
	I mean, Navarro's already in jail.
	The decisions rendered in the Navarro case, which was based on virtually identical fact pattern, I think has set the judicial precedent that barring the Supreme Court and even then, Bannon's going to go to jail.
	I love what he said.
	He served his country in the Navy.
	He serves his country as a veteran, and he doesn't mind if he has to serving his country as a political prisoner.
	And that is exactly what he would be.
	That's exactly what Navarro is.
	That's exactly what the vast majority of the Jan Sixers are.
	And I would go a step further to say that's even what the violent Jan Sixer victims are, because in as much as any precedent had been set as to what the appropriate commensurate punishment is for even bona fide violence against cops...
	What they are going through is a two-tiered level of justice and a two-tiered level of punishment.
	And that's all I have to say about that.
	All right.
	Let's get to the other story of the day, which was Merrick.
	Well, this is not the story of today.
	This is the story of yesterday.
	And then we're going to go to what's going on with Rumble because it's actually kind of wild.
	Merrick Garland in contempt of court for refusal.
	I remember when...
	Eric Holder was found to be in contempt of Congress because he refused to produce the documents as to the illegal activity that the Obama administration was up to in the fast and furious gun running.
	Well, we have to sell guns illegally to the cartel so that we can see where they are when they kill people with those guns that we illegally sold them.
	House GOP votes to hold Garland in contempt.
	And they did it yesterday, what was it, 217 to 206 or something?
	But the bottom line, we don't need to get into the weeds or the CNN story.
	The bottom line is Congress, and not some bullshit illegally formed committee.
	Congress demanded, asked that Garland produce the recording of the interview of her with Joe Biden.
	The wild thing about this is, I don't know if they're obstructing this to create something of a smokescreen or they're obstructing and not producing the recording because it would reveal something very, very bad.
	It could be either or.
	You will recall, not Ben Hur, Robert Hur, interviewed Joe Biden, produced his report.
	You know, despite Joe Biden mishandling classified information, despite Joe Biden revealing classified information to a ghostwriter for a novel that he was getting paid eight million bucks for, no reasonable person would bring charges against him because he's a demented old fool who is unfit to stand trial.
	He didn't say it that way.
	That's my reading of it.
	It's an amazing thing, man.
	No reasonable prosecutor would bring charges against Hillary Clinton for her mishandling of classified information.
	No reasonable prosecutor would bring charges against Joe Biden for his mishandling of classified information.
	But Trump is going to face charges up the wazoo.
	It's amazing how that works.
	So, her met with Joe Biden for five hours over two days while October 7 was happening.
	So Joe Biden was giving him so many...
	Five hours over two days.
	Dude!
	Okay, whatever.
	And there were some questions as to Joe Biden's mental acuity in the context of that meeting.
	And people were railing against Robert Herr that he mischaracterized, maliciously characterized Joe Biden's answers to certain questions as relates to whether or not he remembered when his son Bo died.
	And the left-wing media was like, oh my god, how dare he mischaracterize it?
	He remembered damn well the date and Robert Herr is a liar.
	Well, why the hell would they not release the recording of that meeting?
	I mean, apparently the press wants the recording, so it's not even like it's just a purely right-wing, conservative, GOP political push for this.
	The mainstream media, legacy media, left-wing, blue checkmarked hacks, want this information as well.
	Why would Merrick Garland not produce the audio recording upon which the executive summary was based?
	The transcript!
	They have the transcript, but they don't have the audio.
	Why might they refuse?
	Did I just spit there?
	Probably did.
	Why might they refuse to provide the recording of the transcript that they've already provided?
	How is it logically consistent to say you don't have a right to the audio, but we've given you the transcript?
	Might it be because the transcript doesn't match the audio?
	Probably.
	So anyways, Garland refused to comply with a congressional subpoena to produce it, and they voted yesterday.
	Let me see here.
	The House of Representatives voted Wednesday to hold U.S. Attorney Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over subpoenaed audio recordings.
	The recordings are of Joe Biden's interview with former Special Counsel Robert Herr, who investigated Biden's mishandling decline to bring charges.
	White House have previously pointed out that the Department of Justice has already provided transcripts and has complied with the other aspects, so send us the audio so that we can see if the audio matches the transcripts.
	And the vote was 206 to 207.
	Now the question is, I asked...
	Phil Holloway.
	Who's going to bring the charges against Merrick Garland?
	Well, that would be him.
	I have brought charges.
	I mean, it would be an amazing thing to say, screw it.
	I'll bring charges against myself, and I'll make sure I...
	I'll submit myself to justice.
	It's not going to happen.
	No one's above the law.
	Except Hillary.
	Except Biden.
	Except Garland.
	Except Eric Holder.
	So, we'll see where that goes.
	It's...
	It illustrates the double standard hypocrisy.
	Not that any of us needed any more evidence of that, but that's where it's at.
	Let me see here.
	Okay, I'm not reading that.
	I'm just checking out the chat here.
	I'm going to go back to Viva Barnes Law before we get into the rumble.
	Actually, hold on.
	I'll read this one because it might be a good segue.
	Crash Bandit says, I have been trading Rumble, that's Rumble, over the last six months.
	I've invested my union vacation fund into it in October, and I think I am up $4,000 or $5,000 invested.
	So is it back on sale?
	No one is above the law, says Jacob Castro.
	But who is the blob?
	Okay, fine.
	But on the topic of Rumble, so it's an amazing thing.
	Chris put this out the other day.
	Oh, he put this out today.
	I put out a bunch of tweets today.
	Rumble is going after Google for a number of reasons.
	They're suing them.
	And they're suing them for anti-monopolistic practices or monopolistic practices, anti-free market practices, alleging that Google is skewering search results.
	Google is, I won't say parasitically, but Google is misdirecting traffic to YouTube away from Rumble because they have the largest search engine on earth, Google.
	Which owns the largest video hosting platform on earth, YouTube.
	And when you go search for a video that is otherwise only on Rumble, the results default go to YouTube.
	How that happens, who the hell knows?
	And there's a number of arguments that they're raising, saying that Google has been screwing them, misappropriating funds from them in terms of what revenues would be generated if they gave honest search results that would generate traffic for Rumble, among other things.
	Listen to this.
	Listen to this.
	This is what Google had unearthed by way of a video.
	Going back...
	Let me see here.
	This is Chris Pavlovsky.
	He says, breaking news.
	Our legal team has unearthed...
	Stop it.
	Don't play it.
	Has unearthed the video of Google's former VP of search products, Marissa Mayer, laughing to Google recruits about preferencing Google-owned products in Google search.
	This, I think, is going to be more in the anti-monopolistic...
	Or the anti...
	The monopolistic abuses lawsuit where they're saying Google is acting as a monopoly, maliciously so, and actually driving up the cost of advertising for the victims of their monopolistic practices.
	This will be exhibit one in our self-preferencing antitrust lawsuit against Google.
	Listen to this.
	It's actually quite wild.
	So the question was, on our stock quotes, when you type in different tickers, you see little charts here on the top of the page.
	And we used to have Yahoo first, and now Google is first.
	And I think the answer was that, if I recall history correctly, we didn't actually have Google Finance until about a year ago.
	So up until then, we were actually ordering the links.
	Based on various published metrics like CommScore and Media Metrics.
	So we had the five top finance sites in their order of popularity listed there.
	So when we rolled a Google Finance, we did put the Google link first.
	So it's only fair, right?
	We do all the work for the search page and all these other things.
	So we do put it first.
	And that's actually been a policy that, because of finance, we implemented it in other places.
	So for Google Maps, again, it's the first link, and so on and so forth.
	And after that, it's ranked usually by popularity.
	You know what's amazing?
	It's like, they've been telling us what they've been doing forever, but unless you're looking for it, or unless you're looking to, you know, unless it's relevant to you, you miss it.
	And they're like, when someone tells you who they are, listen.
	Look, I'm able to think like a scoundrel.
	And it's not because I am one.
	It's because I used to be a lawyer for a long time.
	And holy crap, be a lawyer for as long as it takes to build character, but not long enough to destroy your soul.
	I can think like a scoundrel.
	And what's Google going to say?
	That's an old video.
	We don't do that anymore.
	They built their company off these principles.
	They built their company off exploiting their...
	Some people might object to the term monopoly, but they fraudulently skewed results based on their market domination.
	Whether or not you want to call that anti- or monopolistic practices, anti-free market practices, it is at the most charitable, they made money and they exploited their market dominance to fraudulently misrepresent search results.
	And they're alleged to be doing basically that to their own benefit now.
	As far as marketing goes, as far as advertising goes, as far as preferring, preferencing Google's own products.
	And they unearth that.
	So they're going to say, oh, we don't do that anymore.
	Well, that certainly opens the door to some discovery.
	And they say, oh, if you're going to say that that's not what you do anymore.
	Well, then you're admitting that it was a policy at a given point in time.
	Can we see when it ceased being a company policy?
	Can we see when you remedied the fraudulent unlawfulness of what, what was her name?
	Marissa Mayer admitted to in this video.
	And oh my goodness, what if they haven't?
	What if they've just found different ways of doing it?
	So that was why it's a fantastic clip.
	That will certainly lend some credence to the allegations in that lawsuit.
	Even if the scoundrel defense is going to be, we don't do that anymore.
	It was right about it at the time when we stopped using the motto, don't be evil, that we stopped being evil.
	We took away the model because we had attained the epiphany of not being evil.
	We no longer needed the reminder of not being evil.
	I'm going to give everybody a link to that so you can share it around.
	Link to tweet.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	Check out the NSA's data farm in Utah.
	Okay.
	It's fluid, Viva says, damn it, Janet.
	But that's not even the wildest thing.
	So it's a fantastic clip.
	Rumble is going to kick some serious ass.
	Can you imagine?
	Chris Pavlovsky, I've known him for years personally, but I've known Rumble since before it was what it is today.
	I knew Rumble, I'll see if I can find the video in a second, for like a decade.
	And it was the alternative...
	Cat, cute cat, cute dog video hosting platform to rumble back in the day.
	Chris Pavlovsky is the tip of the spear when it comes to the fight for free speech and the fight against technological authoritarianism.
	And this guy, a humble, modest, wonderful person from, I think he's outside of Toronto, Canadian, is now at the forefront of fighting governments, fighting big tech, And fighting for free speech in the world.
	And fighting tech giants.
	It's wild.
	And feeling the brunt of the corruption across the world.
	Remember when certain scandals happen and they try to go after Rumble?
	Rumble's hosting people who say terrible things.
	We've got to shut them down.
	Shut them down.
	Or don't list them.
	If you're interested in this.
	So this is another thing.
	I've never heard of the Russell 3000, but I do not pay attention to the market anymore because obsessive-compulsive disorder makes for a lot of anxiety.
	And when you sit there refreshing markets, it can cause more stress than it relieves.
	So Russell 3000, I guess it's sort of like a...
	Oh, it's the London Stock Exchange.
	The Russell 3000 apparently amalgamates 3,000 of the biggest tech companies on one...
	What's the word I'm looking for?
	One exchange.
	And apparently, they're not accepting Rumble into the $3,000, despite Rumble apparently meeting the criteria.
	Rumble is a publicly traded company.
	I believe the market cap was $6 billion.
	Last I checked, let me see what the market cap is.
	Market cap Rumble.
	Five point...
	No, that's the price per share.
	I do not own one share in Rumble, and I will tell the world if and when I ever do.
	It's a market cap.
	Market cap is 1.62 billion.
	It's not a small company.
	It's the best company on Earth, with the best CEO on Earth.
	Let me get the letter here.
	Okay.
	So Pavlosky tweets out, despite meeting the criteria for the Russell 3000, the London stock exchange group LSEG Place has deliberately decided to exclude Rumble from their index.
	What's more disturbing is their reason why, which is detailed in our letter to their CEO.
	Let's read this, shall we?
	I love this.
	I haven't read this yet.
	Rumble.
	David Schwimmer.
	Oh, so that's what he's doing after France.
	That's good for him.
	He's doing very well.
	I'm joking.
	It's not the same David Schwimmer.
	Dear Mr. Schwimmer, I would like to alert you to errors by the staff of the London Stock Exchange Group in connection with the determination of the Russell 3000 Index.
	Despite our repeated requests, LSEG staff have failed to address obvious errors in calculations of the voting rights of Rumble Inc., leading to potential exclusions of Rumble from the Russell 3000 Index.
	Excuse me.
	I urge you to correct this error immediately before the LSEG finalizes the Russell 3000 Index and publishes misleading information to investors and the public.
	When the London Stock Exchange, what is that, group, published the preliminary Russell 3000 Index in late May 2024, we noticed the omission of Rumble.
	We inquired with the staff who informed us that Rumble was not included on the list because Rumble did not meet the indexes of minimum voting rights requirement.
	Upon investigation, we discovered...
	That the LSEG staff's calculations were incorrect.
	Using the LSEG's formula and methodology, publicly held shares of Rumble make up 5% of the total voting rights of the company, placing Rumble above the Russell 3000 minimum threshold of 5%.
	The error in the math should have been avoided.
	Should have been obvious to the LSG staff.
	Under their calculation, only 13 million shares of Rumble Class A common stock are in public hands.
	However, a quick glance at Rumble's file proxy statement disclosed that approximately 16 million shares are controlled by Dan Bongino.
	Mr. Bongino is an unaffiliated third-party shareholder who reported his holdings on Schedule 13G.
	Furthermore, shareholders of the Special Purpose Acquisition Company That Rumble combined with when it went public in September 2022 hold approximately 30 million Class A shares, none of which are held by company insiders.
	These two easily discernible facts alone show that the LSEG's claim of 13 million shares of Rumble, Class A stock in public hands, is wrong on its face.
	Let's bring this to page two.
	On multiple occasions...
	Since the release of the Pulmonary Index, Rumble has sent emails noting the error, offered to place calls, yada, yada, yada.
	Every time LSG staff have been unwilling to correct their mistake, citing the need to, quote, stay consistent, end quote, with their process.
	Their refusal to correct an obvious error does disservice to investors of the Russell 3000 Index.
	If LSG is unwilling to correct an obvious mistake related to Rumble, how many other companies are erroneously included in the Russell 3000 Index or are erroneously excluded from it?
	Is it playing politics?
	Anyone considering whether to invest in the Russell 3000 Index deserves to know the answer, yet without diligent investigation, the public may never know the extent to which the Russell 3000 Index is contaminated by flawed or misleading information because its management chose to prioritize the consistency of its process over the accuracy of publicized data.
	That's a damn well-written letter.
	Before finalizing the Russell 3000 Index, I hope you take this opportunity to rectify the deficiencies in the LSG's process and correct the calculations, yada, yada, yada.
	Our team is available anytime to provide additional details or explanation.
	Michael J. Ellis, a man who I also know very well and who is a wonderful, fantastic person.
	Politics ruins everything.
	Which shirt am I wearing today, people?
	Politics ruins everything.
	Politics infuses everything.
	And if you don't take an interest in politics, it doesn't mean that politics will not take an interest in you.
	Because it probably will.
	Ah.
	Ah.
	Okay, I hear some kids making noise.
	Alright, I'm saving the last story, a couple of stories, for vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	The dog is coming in.
	The dog ate gelatin.
	Wait.
	In the garbage.
	And leave her in here and close the door and I'll be out in a second.
	Is it working?
	Yeah.
	Get out.
	Yeah, it's working.
	Get out.
	Close the door, please.
	Apparently the dog is going to be pooping Jell-O.
	Yeah, Pudge ate some Jell-O.
	Or gelatin.
	Okay, people.
	Did I mention that it's summertime in Florida and the kids are off school and I now have many children?
	Without my wife for the next week until we make our way back to behind the commie rainbow.
	Oh my goodness.
	Everybody, come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Link to locals.
	Yeah, no, no.
	The shop vac says Bill H. Harrison.
	The problem is not the shop vac.
	The problem is going to be what is Pudge's poop going to look like after having consumed gelatin powder?
	Okay, everybody, thank you for being here.
	I'll be live tomorrow.
	I'm not sure at what time.
	We're going to have our Sunday show for sure on Sunday.
	What else?
	Go check out the Russell Brand interview and share it away because I think it was great.
	I think it was fantastic.
	I've been getting very, very good feedback even from very, very tough critics of mine.
	So go check it out.
	Make sure that you are subscribed.
	Hit the notification.
	All that other stuff.
	VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com for the after party.
	Come on over there.
	We're going to be there for a bit.
	And that's it.
	Otherwise, I will see you all tomorrow.
	Link one again.
	King of Biltong says, please remember to send me that email, Viva.
	Yes.
	That email.
	I have to remind myself as to what that email was.
	All right.
	Doesn't matter.
	We are going to end on Rumble and we're going to take this party on over to VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com for the after party.
	And that is it.
	Share my channel.
	You know what to do.
	All that other stuff.
	See you tomorrow.
	Locals, here I comes.
	Now can I explain how nervous I am?
	That dog ate Jell-O.
	Her poop is going to be gelatin.
	I mean, maybe it'll smell good at least.

▲