All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 20, 2024 - Viva & Barnes
02:08:22
A Pro-Kamala Lawyer? Did Kamala Harris DEFAME Tim Pool? Lawyers Debate - Viva Frei Live!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
To defeat that internally as well.
How do we do that?
In a nutshell.
In the 30 seconds I have left.
This certainly isn't anything that isn't new to Canada as well.
There we go.
In terms of even just like last week we saw that far right start up.
I figured we'd start with something Canadian.
Let me not talk over this.
I figured we'd start with something Canadian so I wouldn't ambush our guest today.
It's going to be fun.
I don't know who he is.
I met him yesterday online.
Okay, that sounds a little weird.
We had an exchange on Twitter yesterday.
And then he said, let's debate, or I think it was debate, the Tim Pool lawsuit.
And then I looked, and the guy seems to be a bona fide Kamala supporter.
Seems to be a practicing attorney who actually seems to be sincerely supporting Kamala Harris.
I said, this could be interesting, but I'll start with something Canadian just to get everyone up to speed on what's going on in Canada.
Forget this woman's name.
What's her name?
She's for the NDP.
Lindsay Matheson.
If anybody had any doubts that the NDP should stand for the National, I don't know, Disgusting Communists.
No, no, that's P, not C. Damn it.
They're commies.
They're as big commies up in Canada as the Liberals.
And Lindsay Matheson is right now spreading disinformation about Tenet Media.
Lauren Chan, you know, that indictment that came down a couple of weeks ago that we haven't really heard much about anymore.
They got their headlines, Tim Pool, Russian propagandist, whatever.
It's up in Canada, too.
And this is Lindsay Matheson, who's the Member of Parliament.
I'm the Member of Parliament for London Fanshawe, NDP, the National Disgrace Party.
There you go.
That's better.
Spreading disinformation.
It was a front for Putin propaganda.
That's the talking point that they run with.
By the way, not for nothing, I'm curious as to what government...
Lindsay Matheson is representing.
It's an amazing thing.
These people who accuse others of being fronts for other governments, and then lo and behold, you don't even have to go too far down into her Twitter feed to find out that, you know, oh, it might be a little bit confession through projection.
Which government are you representing in Canadian Parliament, Lindsay Matheson?
But she's not the only scoundrel scumbag of the earth that comes out of Canadian politics.
I talked about it.
Let me make sure I don't have my DMs open.
Okay. I talked about it a little while ago.
Mark Gerritsen, who's a member of parliament, who I guess is as equally loyal to a foreign country as he is to his own country that he was elected to represent.
Liberal MP for Kingston and the Islands.
Deputy government house leader.
Let's fight back alt-right populism.
Because apparently there's something wrong with populism.
And the dude who's a member of Canadian parliament has the Ukrainian flag in his bile.
Okay. He accused Kat Kanata.
Kat Canada.
Well, I've met her.
She's a wonderful person, by the way.
He accused her of being a Russian paid propagandist.
He had to block her on Twitter.
Accused her, point blank, black and white on Twitter of being a Russian paid propagandist.
And then threatened to subpoena her before Parliament to answer some questions.
And that mother effer got a very, very seriously litigious letter from Countersignal.
Saying, you better take that down, apologize, retract, and make a small donation in Kat's name to a charity of her choice, or we're going to sue your disgusting ass, you filthy POS.
And because it was malicious, it was disinformation, that disgusting scumbag Mark Gerritsen actually...
He did something of the right thing.
His next right thing is to resign from government because once you threaten to mobilize the assets of government who has a monopoly of violence to persecute your citizens that you're supposed to represent, sorry, you forfeited your right to be in government.
He apologized.
I would like to sincerely apologize to Kat Kanata underscore TM for my previous post in which I alleged that she is funded by the Russian government.
Oh, by the way, he restricted replies because he's a jackass.
Canada is a democracy.
Oh yeah, and in that context, I threaten to use government powers to prosecute the citizens.
Yada, yada, yada.
I will personally be donating $1,000 or so.
He gets the tax credit.
Good for him.
To Loaves and Fishes Community Food Bank.
Chosen by Kat.
Oh, and then, you know, because the disinformation lasts longer than the information.
She is funded by the Russian government, though, says some other guy there.
All right.
I figured I'd put that on blast because Mark Gerritsen is a wild POS who has no place in Canadian government.
Okay. Now, I'm going to bring in Pisco.
Hold on.
There's a couple of things.
Oh, there's definitely something I forgot to do before I bring in Pisco.
Hold on.
Hold on, hold on, hold on.
Let me just...
Flipping thing.
Make sure that we're live across all of the interwebs of the planes of the digital universes.
And I know that...
Computer, so damn slow.
So damn slow.
I know that Pisco is, I believe, cross-streaming to his platforms, which is going to be good.
Let me just do...
Yeah, there you go.
I forgot to do that.
Oh, you...
Oh, my goodness.
It's... I don't know if it's the internet or my computer, but I'm going to blame the internet because then it's not my fault.
Alright, we've done that and I'll figure out the rest afterwards.
I'll put the link in there.
Pisco, you ready?
Thumbs up.
He's bringing in.
Pisco, sir.
Let me see.
If I zoom in like this.
Oh my god.
Satisfy my neuroses and tilt your camera down a little bit.
Okay. One second.
Maybe if I back up a little bit.
Is that a little better?
Hang on.
I could do it like this.
Do we prefer this?
I prefer that, but if it's...
No, no, no.
We'll leave it.
We're wasting real estate, but it doesn't matter.
When I bring up the chat, it won't cover our faces.
Look, I don't know what you share with the world in terms of name.
Do I call you Pisco?
Pisco is fine.
Pisco is a Peruvian liquor.
It's from Peru.
No, it's okay, because people also call me like Piss Corporation, Piss Company, so it's okay.
I don't mind it, but the actual pronunciation is Pisco, but you can say whatever you want, man.
No, I'll say Pisco, because I thought it was like Pisco, like Pisces Iscariot or something.
Oh, no, no, no.
I thought it meant fish or something.
Do you like Peruvian cuisine?
What would that include?
That would include things like, let's see, Lomo Saltado.
It would include things like...
Chaufa. Let me see.
Pisco Sours.
That's a, you know, type of drink.
So I can definitively say I don't know what Peruvian cuisine is.
I think when I was in, there was a place in Florida that had it, and I'm fairly certain I looked up Peru and all of the beautiful mountains and everything.
But no, look, I don't also like, I don't like garlic, I don't like onions, and I don't like eating out.
Very fair.
Pisco. Yes.
Pisco Litti is your Twitter handle.
That's right.
What is the Liddy?
Yeah, the Liddy is both a reference to litigation.
I'm a litigator, and I'm a lawyer in New York.
And also, I was a bartender, so let's get lit, and hence the Pisco.
And I'm also Peruvian, so it's all thought out.
It's all very well-structured.
But yeah, Pisco Liddy, that's why it's that.
Now, you are, in fact, an unironic, sincere Kamala Harris.
That is correct, 100%.
I've got a few questions.
Tell me if I ask one too many.
No, no, no.
You ask all the questions you'd like.
Born and raised in New York?
Born in New England and working in New York.
Families from Peru.
First generation in terms of...
I was born in the United States, but I have family in Peru and elsewhere.
So yes, in the Northeast region, but now I live and work in New York.
I won't ask what your parents do, but I presume your parents are also Democrats?
My father passed away.
He was an independent.
And I would say, yeah, pretty left-wing.
My mother, they were both pretty kind of spiritual, left-wing kind of people.
Kind of in academia a little bit, so you can draw some conclusions from that.
If I may ask and tell me, I won't pry, but these are like life-changing events.
How old were you when your father passed away?
I was 25. And how old are you now?
I'm 28. So that's just recently.
Yeah, it was pretty recently, yeah.
But yeah, pretty bad, but he was a good guy, and I know he would have liked to watch this race.
He was definitely anti-Trump when he was alive, for sure.
You are also unironically drinking out of a frickin' Joe Biden mug.
Not that there's anything wrong with it.
Oh, the dark Brandon.
Yeah, that's right.
Okay, so the joke is debate, but I'm actually just more sincerely curious in Honestly, picking the mind of someone who is a sincere Kamala Harris go for it.
Yeah, and thank you so much for having me on your program.
Oh, no, it's good.
I wanted to make sure you weren't...
I don't even care if you were the most bad faith of actors on earth, but if you're good enough for good logic, you're good enough for me.
You are a practicing attorney.
That's correct.
Litigation. Litigation, that's right.
So I took some time out of my schedule to accommodate the program.
But yeah, I've been practicing now.
I was barred in 20...
Sorry. Admitted to practice in 22. But I've been working with various...
Well, right now with my firm for a year and before that with another firm for a few years as well.
You're a baby to the practice of law as well.
A bit I am, yeah.
I would say I'm a baby lawyer.
Now, your Twitter account only was created in 2020.
That's correct.
You were 24 years old.
Something about that, yeah.
At that time, COVID was...
This is how I got involved in this space.
I was in law school when COVID hit and everything shut down.
And there's a streamer by the name of Prime Kai.
I'm sure you've never heard of him.
But you should have.
Because he was big in the space of debate panels.
Where he'd have a ton of people on.
And there were a couple times where he had some viewers.
I joined one of the panels to talk about something legal that I was learning about in class.
And ever since then, they kept inviting me back to do various stuff until I made my own Twitter in 2020.
And before that, politically active?
I would say so in the sense of in my life, people knew me as fairly left-wing.
I was pretty anti-identity politics in college.
So I was highly...
I wrote some articles that were a little bit controversial.
Even though I came from left-wing politics, I was saying things like, hey guys, you shouldn't ban these certain costumes.
You shouldn't be casting people out because they're wearing sombreros.
And that was a little bit controversial.
But yes, always with an eye towards politics involved and knowledgeable.
There's going to be so much here.
You say you're anti-identity politics, and yet you are supporting a party that can only be defined as promoting identity politics.
I was describing what my pattern was in college, where I was seeing the kind of overreaction from the left wing.
I think nowadays I've...
I've bent the knee a little bit in the sense that I recognize that it can be useful to have certain affinity groups for culture and that kind of thing.
But in general, I don't like identity politics.
And I do agree that there are a lot of cringe things about the Democrat Party and I'm sure some areas of quote-unquote wokeness that I do not agree with.
But it's not even a contest.
Wokeness between the threat of Donald Trump as well as the kind of policy differences, for me, it's not even a question.
What's the bigger threat?
Not to say that you won't get away with anything here.
Yeah, yeah.
No, keep asking.
It's all good.
No, no, no.
We're going to get into it.
The threat of Donald Trump.
That's right.
I mean, let's hear it.
Because after four years in office, this is the standard talking point.
And I want to understand how you seem reasonably intelligent, but I think you might be thoroughly brainwashed.
What is the threat of Donald Trump specifically?
Donald Trump is a threat to the structure of our Constitution.
He tried to steal the 2020 election.
He tried to steal an election that he lost.
He used the trappings of his office to attempt to steal the American election in 2020, and he will do it again if it's in his interest to do so.
Okay, so I'm going to have to take notes.
Trump steal 2020.
Let's just say that you say that he'll try to steal it again if he's elected.
Sure. If it suits him.
Or whatever, for whatever purpose.
Yeah, go ahead.
Okay. By the time you claim that he stole the 2020 election, this tyrant or threat that you deem to be a threat had already been in power for four years.
And what had he done to confirm in your mind the legitimacy of the accusation that he's a threat?
Yeah, so, for example, in the sense that he abused his power?
No, no, no.
You say he's a threat.
He was in power for four years.
What did he do to materialize that threat in your mind?
Well, at the end of his term...
No, but he had four years.
So, like, four years.
Did he do anything?
There's an election in four years, and so it makes sense that how he used his office to try to subvert democracy occurred near the end of the term when there was a transition.
So he ran...
Despite being a threat, he ran for four years and didn't do anything of a threat until 2020.
That's not true, by the way.
Okay, so there are other incidents beyond the 2020 election itself, and the best example of that is the first impeachment where he abused his office to try to get Ukrainian Prosecutor General Lipsenko, and then after that, President Poroshenko, and then after that, President Zelensky, to announce bogus investigations into the Bidens for the purpose of corrupting the 2020 election.
No legitimate purpose.
At the time, you're lucky in that you don't have a Twitter feed prior to 2020, so I can't see whether or not you fell into the lie of...
There was nothing wrong going on within the Biden family.
When did you become aware that Hunter Biden was working for Burisma and getting paid 50 G's a month to do nothing?
Or do whatever he was doing?
That was announced in 2014.
He was announced to be on the board of Burisma.
When did you first learn that?
I became aware of the connection to Burisma in 2019 when it became a public story.
After the first impeachment?
Before the first impeachment.
That the son of the president, or the son of the vice president, was working with a Ukrainian energy company.
That's correct.
When were you familiar, or when did you first see that now infamous video of what I believe is the actual impeachable quid pro quo of Joe Biden saying, you either fire the prosecutor or we withhold a billion dollars in aid?
That's in 2019 I saw that video when it was posted.
It relates to a conversation.
He's having, I think, in front of either the World Economic Forum or one of these organizations or the Atlantic Council, one of these NGOs that promotes Western kind of foreign policy.
All right.
Yes, in 2019, if you're asking the date.
It was widely circulated, that thing.
What's your impression of that video?
That that video shows no corruption whatsoever, nothing wrong being done by Joe Biden at all, and that people who fixate on that video are deeply, deeply confused.
Okay, deeply confused about what?
Did it not sound like he was dictating foreign policy of domestic policy by way of threatening to withhold foreign aid?
Yeah, for good reason.
I would want the vice president, who having been deputized by Barack Obama to deal with matters related to Ukraine and the transition after the Crimean annexation invasion by Russia, I would want him to be using the levers of power in coordination with our State Department and other officials to conduct official American policy.
And I think that threats are one such way in which that's manifested.
And I think that it was a legitimate threat and it was done for a good purpose, not for a personal motive.
And then if it turned out, in fact, that the Biden family was involved in shady dealings in Ukraine, then if that were a legitimate reason for which Trump asked to inquire, would then that change the impeachable offense into a legitimate exercise of presidential powers?
If Donald Trump's purpose in asking for announcement of investigations into the Bidens related to a genuine...
Criminal interest or a genuine issue of prosecution, then I would say that that could be legitimate.
But that is not, in fact, what the purpose was.
The fact is that the purpose was, in fact, political.
That is beyond...
Two things can be true at once, and it being political is probably a darn good justification that it was not malicious, but rather relevant to politics.
You know what Biden has been charged with criminally, correct?
Joe Biden or Hunter Biden?
Let's start with Hunter.
Hunter Biden has been charged with a...
There's two cases.
One that's occurring in the District of Columbia, I believe, which is the gun charge, falsely certifying that he is not a drug addict when he was, in fact, a drug addict.
The others relate to tax violations for failing to report income streams from Burisma in 2015, 2016.
Just ask the obvious question.
Was the world aware of the fact that President Biden's son was receiving this much money?
Yes, there was a big hubbubaloo.
There was a public announcement by Burisma that Hunter Biden was joining the board.
There was public reporting at the time that noted the problematic nature of it.
Internally, in the State Department, there are emails, correspondents that talk about how it's a bad look.
To have Hunter Biden be a board member of a company in a country that his father is heading the response to.
I don't disagree.
It was bad for Hunter Biden to join Burisma.
It was a bad look.
But it wasn't Joe Biden's fault that he did that.
Joe Biden couldn't have stopped him if he wanted to.
He's his own person.
And it doesn't relate to any misconduct by Joe Biden.
Well, the wonderful thing about the internet is there will be no...
There'll be no convincing.
There's no there there, Viva.
Well, you just said there was.
You just said there was.
It was problematic.
They were investigating it.
It's a conflict of interest.
It looks corrupt.
But Joe Biden had nothing to say for it except for the fact that Hunter is in now disclosed text messages basically threatening reprisals unless they get their money.
I think you're confusing now the Burisma story with one Chinese investment story where he's speaking to an investor.
See, that's the problem I find with a lot of these.
I'm sorry to say, conspiracy theories.
I'm not saying that because they're bad.
They are legitimately advocating a conspiracy.
So I'm not saying conspiracy theory to say that you are a kook or anything like that or that anyone who advocates these beliefs are kooks.
One of the problems with these Hunter Biden-related stories is they all kind of get meshed into a gestalt, a kind of soup.
And so we're drawing now...
Yeah, that soup is called the Biden crime family.
That doesn't relate to any conduct by Joe Biden.
Did Joe Biden send those text messages?
I mean, imagine that I were doing this kind of thing to Trump and Trump's affiliates and Trump's...
By the way, there would be no defending Trump if he were anywhere near this level of criminal corruption.
But who was the 10% for the big guy?
That was a message not sent by Hunter Biden, not sent...
It wasn't sent by any of the Bidens.
It was sent by a Hunter Biden associate who wanted to do business with Hunter Biden and others in this kind of consortium in a deal that never materialized at no point.
Was that ever communicated to Joe Biden?
Hunter Biden never in any of the messages says, yeah, we'll give 10% for the big guy.
I do think that the big guy is a reference to Joe Biden.
But Bob Alinsky and this other kook were trying to get Joe Biden involved.
They failed because these guys are losers and they love Trump.
And so they started to make a hate of it.
But it's nothing.
It's nothing.
Joe Biden is not involved in those deals.
And no evidence exists.
When I have a discussion like this where...
You acknowledge certain things.
Like you say, it was problematic.
It was investigated.
It's a bad look.
It's a bad look.
Hang on a second.
Let's talk about this.
You are not troll.
You are sincere in your beliefs.
You would not.
I think you're surprised to have as much recall about the facts of these cases as I do.
I think that that's fair, that any left-wing person that you probably would show.
I'm surprised that you have recall, and then you say things like, yes, it was problematic at the time, and it was investigated, and they confirmed it was a bad look, and that he's federally charged now for not disclosing monies that he was receiving from Ukraine.
energy companies while blowing it on hookers, crack and guns.
And you somehow come to the conclusion at the end of the day that Joe Biden's exercise of withholding a billion dollars to fire the prosecutor from the company that his son's working for is not impeachable conduct.
I mean, I have I'm going to explain it very succinctly.
Me saying that there is the potential for an apparent conflict of interest or it could appear...
Very shady to people isn't me saying that there's any misconduct there.
So me acknowledging, hey, it's a bad idea for Hunter Biden to do this, isn't me acknowledging that, A, there's anything criminal going on, even though...
Well, there is because he got charged, so let's just stop there.
The fact that I'm saying that it's a bad look isn't an admission that there's anything criminal.
He got criminally charged for not disclosing revenue from Ukraine.
I'm about to...
Directly address your point.
Yes, he did not pay his taxes.
He did not disclose the revenues from Burisma.
That much is true.
And, you know, he's pleaded guilty to that count for sure.
And the various counts.
None of that implicates Joe Biden and none of the tax problems ever point to a notion that like the Joe Biden.
They paid for the hookers from his dad's bank account.
The connection that you need to do is the connection to the threat to withhold the loan guarantees and the issues of Joe Biden.
I'll address one thing because it's factually incorrect and it's...
I don't want to say stupid because I don't want to call you stupid.
It's stupid to say.
Hunter Biden used Air Force Two to go to China.
And yet you say his dad knew nothing of this.
His dad paid for hookers by an accidental wire transfer.
And you say that Joe Biden knew nothing about his son's illicit activities involving being paid by a Ukrainian energy company that he was demanding the prosecutor to be fired from withholding a billion dollars in aid.
I don't know that Joe Biden...
I don't allege that Joe Biden didn't know that Hunter was on the board of Burisma.
No, but you just said that he wasn't involved in or aware of.
He's flying his son.
Oh, I might have something wrong.
Hang on, hang on.
I'm having an aneurysm because I can't...
It's amazing.
I think you're coming out of my...
These ones.
Testing, testing?
Yeah, I can hear you.
Okay, sorry about that.
I don't allege that Joe Biden...
I just put on my AirPods.
I think you were coming out of there.
I don't allege that Joe Biden didn't know his son was on the board of Burisma.
He knew his son was on the board of Burisma.
The allegation you need to prove is that the withholding of the loan guarantees was related to Hunter Biden's position at Burisma.
No, I don't have to prove that.
I don't have to prove that.
I don't have to prove anything.
He said it.
Fire the prosecutor that was looking into Burisma.
Their defense was not even the defense that you're raising, Pisco.
Their defense was that, oh, we wanted an even better prosecutor who was going to really do a good job.
It's laughable.
I mean, it's like suspending disbelief stupid.
I mean, that's a problem.
What suspending disbelief stupid is to think that what was motivating Joe Biden when he was withholding loan guarantees for the purpose of getting this...
Bullshit prosecutor who wasn't prosecuting any corruption in Ukraine, as is attested to multiple times prior to any supposed call between the big guy and Hunter Biden, that this guy was no good, absolutely no good, absolutely corrupt.
What's stupid is to think that actually what he cared about, what Joe Biden cared about, was that whatever paltry amount that Hunter Biden was getting in real terms, in the grand scheme of money, that was motivating his foreign policy decision as opposed to...
The State Department, the Treasury Department, the DOJ's coordination with the Prosecutor General's Office, that obviously was not what was motivating Joe Biden.
Well, I mean, first of all, I can attack that on one of two ways.
You say it's a paltry amount of money, and I'll say millions of dollars in unpaid taxes is not paltry.
But then you'll say, well, at the political level, it's paltry because you got Obama who's raking in $600,000 an hour for speaking fees.
It's peanuts.
You know it's peanuts.
But then flip side, Pisco, let's say I concede that it's peanuts.
Yeah, they might have been doing it out of blackmail because they might have hypothetically had pictures of Hunter Biden, the presidential candidate's son, snorting coke and having...
I can make up a bunch of things that could be the case.
And I could suppose a bunch of things.
Give me one.
You need more evidence than the laptop, which you think that you're literally sending pictures of doing coke and crack and hookers and trafficking young women.
I don't need your hypotheticals.
That's the evidence.
And now, if you want to say, I don't think the money's paltry whatsoever.
But even if I want to concede that to you to argue on your premise, okay, it's paltry.
Then it's blackmail and it's not bribery.
What's the blackmail?
If you think nobody else had that laptop or had any information on Hunter Biden's illicit dealings, you're living a fantasy land, which I guess is going to expand.
As I understand the story, the story of the laptop is the laptop was given to a laptop repair guy after what you're talking about.
And you're missing the point.
The point is not the laptop.
The point is the behavior on that laptop that had gone on for years, knowingly.
To all accounts, and you think that some foreign country didn't have that.
So if the money was paltry, it's blackmail.
If the money's not paltry, it's bribery.
Bottom line, you have Joe Biden threatening to withhold aid until a prosecutor that's investigating the energy firm that his son is on the board member of is fired, and you want to just sit there and say, that's not impeachable, but Trump's...
Was the prosecutor...
Viktor Shokin, was he corrupt, yes or no?
I would concede everyone in Ukraine is corrupt.
So do you agree that Viktor Shokin was considered by our government, State Department officials, DOJ officials, Treasury officials, as well as foreign allies like the UK, that they were considered corrupt?
That he was considered corrupt.
I don't know how I can assume what other people know but I'll even argue on your premise.
Yeah, they thought he was corrupt.
Yeah, because he was corrupt.
This guy, by the way, and there's no even question about this, reasonable question.
This guy is absolutely called corrupt by Ukrainian politicians, by Ukrainian anti-corruption activists, by our own DOJ, by our own State Department, by our own Treasury Department in an interagency process.
There's no good argument that this guy was on the level.
He was corrupt.
I can tell you one thing.
The good argument that he was on the level and that he might have gotten fired because he wasn't corrupt is because everyone in that corrupt regime, including Joe Biden, didn't want this guy looking where they didn't want him looking.
I mean, that's the upside that most reasonable people would come to by way of conclusion.
Okay, so then why does the ambassador to Ukraine go to Odessa in September of 2015 and give a speech specifically calling out...
Shoken for, or sorry, the prosecutor general's office for failing to properly You know, he's actually a good guy who's investigating Burisma correctly.
Why is the ambassador to Ukraine giving this public speech in Odessa?
Calling out the prosecutor's general's office for failing to properly investigate Burisma by name.
Tell me how that makes sense.
I don't know what properly investigate means, and it might mean investigate.
I'll tell you.
Yeah. Go ahead.
Go ahead.
There was a UK investigation where assets were frozen in the UK pertaining to Zlovchewski, who was the former founder, sorry, the founder of Burisma.
Zlovchewski, that was something approaching $25 million of assets to the UK.
And the UK was asking the prosecutor general's office.
Please send us the information so that we can continue to free these assets, which we believe are, you know, absconded wealth of the Ukrainian people.
Send us the information.
Send us the information.
So much so that State Department officials are literally going to the Prosecutor General's office and saying, what the fuck?
Why aren't you giving over the information to the UK people such that they lose their ability to freeze those assets and they go to Zlovchewski?
And that was seen as an incident that was so inflammatory to the West that the Prosecutor General at that time was...
The State Department is a friend of Burisma, they're trying to do Burisma's bidding, is completely undermined by the State Department's actions, number one, trying to...
Pressure investigations into Slavicheski, and two, specifically calling out the failure to properly investigate Slavicheski in Burisma in September in Odessa in a speech by the ambassador.
And so every one of these conspiracies that relies on our State Department being the bad guy instead of a dirtbag prosecutor like Viktor Shokin, it shows you where the narrative is coming from.
It's coming from Russia.
Let me just ask you something.
Talking about conspiracy theories, the narrative is coming from Russia.
When all else fails, would you...
Wait, wait, hang on a second.
That is established that the whistleblower, or I should say, sorry, the FD1023 source that was giving bullshit information about bribes related to Zlochewski to the Justice Department, he's been indicted on making false statements to the FBI.
That's a guy by the name of Smirnov.
That's an indictment by itself.
We know that this was a Russian narrative and that there were literally a Russian agent trying to feed our Department of Justice.
Fake information about fake briberies that were never real and that our Justice Department knew not to be real.
After, by the way, Bill Barr opened up a separate line of inquiry in the Department of Justice where Rudy Giuliani, imagine the DOJ doing this, imagine Biden doing this, where Giuliani could give information to our DOJ for the purpose of going after the Bidens.
And through the course of that independent channel in the Department of Justice, we give the opportunity for a Russian agent like Smirnov to give fake fucking information.
That's why we know it's a Russian narrative.
That would be what we call the spaghetti on the wall.
What are you talking about?
That's an indictment.
We know that's true.
You know the Smirnov indictment.
First of all, I believe also, I have to go refresh my memory on the Smirnov indictment, there's a Ukrainian connection there as well.
The bottom line is, I'll ask you if you're prepared to concede one thing, is the entire government of Ukraine corrupt?
Now or then?
Let's start then, and let's come to now.
It's complicated.
Yes and no.
It's a widespread endemic problem.
This is where...
You are no longer arguing in good faith.
Why is that?
What's the prosecutor's name?
Not Poroshenko.
Shulkin. Shulkin.
He's corrupt.
The other ones, it's complicated.
I think Poroshenko's corrupt.
I think Lutsenko, the prosecutor that followed...
Is everyone...
Let me ask you.
There's a lot of corruption.
I won't ask you.
There's a lot of corruption.
Yes, there is.
You're familiar with the decade plus of reporting of Ukrainian corruption, correct?
Yes, I'm familiar with it.
I don't want to speak to say everybody.
There could be some good people, but I assume that there's a shit ton of corruption and it goes all the way to the top.
And guess what?
I believe Poroshenko was probably corrupt.
I believe Lutsenko was definitely corrupt.
That's the prosecutor general after Shokin.
And the one, Yurima, before...
He was also corrupt.
So I have no problem saying it was a corrupt country.
Okay. It's a corrupt country that now...
Because you use the corruption of the prosecutor as the justification for the quid pro quo or what some might say...
Sure, yeah.
...
impeachable bribery.
They're all corrupt.
The son of the...
who would become the president is working at a corrupt energy firm in this corrupt government, taking in millions of dollars, which you think is, you know, paltry, but whatever, not declaring, not paying taxes on it.
And you're prepared to give Joe the pass that his...
100%. What was the impeachable offense that Trump committed?
Having been told that these narratives are complete garbage.
Again, these are being vetted by the Department of Justice.
They've created a separate back channel to wander these claims.
Would you concede that the DOJ is corrupt as well or no?
Our DOJ?
No. Okay.
All right.
So then the DOJ tells Trump there's nothing to see here.
The DOJ tells Trump there's nothing to see with Hunter Biden.
Do you think the DOJ knew about Hunter's crack prostitution trafficking women?
They were investigating it at the time, but there's not a basis.
And you guys know this, right?
Because you know that if Joe Biden were caught...
There actually are some allegations.
There are people who say the fact that there was a news report that Joe Biden said he was frustrated with Merrick Garland.
You guys will pounce on that and be like, how could it be that is Joe Biden involved in the prosecution of Donald Trump?
You fundamentally understand why we want to have a separation between the prosecutorial authorities of our country, let alone the prosecutorial authorities of a country you say is...
Indisputably corrupt.
Like, think about that, right?
You are saying that it's acceptable, or I guess suggesting, maybe you haven't said it yet, that Donald Trump asked a corrupt country, what you consider to be a corrupt country, to investigate his political rival, as though he's going to get an honest answer.
And you say that's okay.
Like, one thing, you know, even putting aside, right, Donald Trump asking, which he did, his own Department of Justice to investigate Joe Biden, that's one thing.
You know, I believe the DOJ has some integrity.
But asking Ukraine, a country you said is corrupt, hey, announce investigations to the Bidens?
How does that not just ring every alarm bell in your head?
Well, just out of curiosity, who would conduct investigations into Biden families' involvement in Ukrainian energy firms?
Who would conduct that?
I'll tell you, there's a thing called the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
It's called the FCPA.
There was an investigation into Burisma specifically, and I believe actually into connections into the Bidens.
It was released by Chuck Grassley.
Chuck Grassley, an idiot, a moron.
All these Republicans on these committees, morons, released a memo articulating that under the Obama administration, at the exact same time that these events were occurring, the Obama DOJ opened up.
An FCPA investigation into Zlobchewski, that obviously would implicate the Bidens.
And so, yes, it is within the jurisdictional authority of the Department of Justice to investigate foreign connections with Ukraine to the extent that they impede on or affect.
The instrumentalities of the United States government, U.S. citizens, if there's a nexus in the United States, yes, these investigations happen.
People are charged under the FCPA and other statutes, money laundering, failure to register as a foreign agent.
All those are well within the domain of the Department of Justice.
Yeah, well, they're within the domain because in the hypothetical that you're talking about, they occur in the U.S. presumably, or at least have ties to.
The question I asked, which you didn't answer, who would be best to investigate?
The Department of Justice.
No one in the Ukrainian government.
Who's best positioned to investigate the corruption into Burisma?
Hang on.
Okay. Into Burisma itself, you're going to have to have Ukrainian involvement.
If you're looking into the specific books of Burisma, you're going to have to, I guess, have some kind of way to get those records and stuff.
But again, that's not what he was asking for.
What was he asking for?
He wasn't asking, hey, what was he asking for?
He was asking for an announcement of investigations into the Bidens.
That's just on the call with Zlochewski.
In the call, he says, look into the Bidens.
Separately and through Giuliani and through his proxies, he was pressuring Lutsenko to actually charge the Bidens.
That's what he wanted.
He wanted charges against the Bidens.
And if you read Lev Karnas' book, if you read what...
State Department officials have to say about this.
They don't tell you.
It's a scandal of the highest order.
And this guy is a fraud.
And you know.
I mean, in the bottom of your heart, Viva.
I mean, this is just man to man.
Do you notice how often you say you know and you know and you presume?
I'll stop doing that.
You should because when I asked you what did he ask for, you told me what he wanted.
What did Trump ask for?
On the call.
There are many different things he asked for.
On the call, he said, look into the Bidens.
I don't know if I'm quoting directly, but it's something to that effect is you should look into the Bidens.
And just hypothetically, are we talking...
Look into the Bidens at large or look into the Bidens in the involvement in the corrupt Ukrainian energy firm Burisma.
He's calling out his bullshit conspiracy of Burisma.
That's what he's doing.
You've already confirmed it's not a bullshit conspiracy.
It is confirmed by the Department of Justice when they said, this is fishy.
You acknowledge it was confirmed when he was getting paid millions of dollars from Burisma that he wasn't declaring by way of income.
Is it illegal for a U.S. citizen to be on the board of a foreign corporation?
I don't know.
Of course not.
It's not illegal to do that.
First of all, I'm not sure that that's true if they're not also lobbying or having some involvement in...
That's separate.
But hang on.
There has been a FARA investigation into Hunter Biden, but FARA relates to political activities in the United States.
All right?
If there's a FARA investigation...
It's necessarily going to involve contacts in the United States and political activities in the United States.
And there was a FARA investigation into Hunter Biden.
I mean, think about this, right?
What happened to that FARA violation?
What was that FARA investigation?
Well, there's some questions.
Blue Star Strategies, which was the consultancy group that was high.
You know I know all this.
You're shocked that I know all this, right?
You did it again?
No. I'm shocked that you're not putting together the dots that are coming out of your own mouth is what I'm shocked about.
They investigated Biden for fire violations.
They said that it was very questionable and suspicious, or at least appearance of, that he's getting paid by a corrupt Ukrainian firm.
The only person who could look into Burisma would have to be the Ukrainian government or the best positioned.
And that's basically what Trump asked him to do on the phone.
That's impeachable.
But Biden's threatening to withhold a billion unless they fire the prosecutor looking into Burisma.
That's not...
You're arguing from conclusions.
No, no, no.
I am not.
I'm telling you what the evidence exists for and what it doesn't.
And on the one hand, you're saying that Burisma...
You said it's a Russian narrative that's fake while simultaneously saying it was investigated for Farah.
They said it has the appearance of impropriety.
The fake narrative is that there's any connection to Joe Biden.
And that's a fake narrative.
And in fact, what I'm pointing to, which is laid out in the Enlightenment...
Let me stop you there.
Hypothetically. Hypothetically.
Let's just go on to hypothetical.
Zelensky has...
Videos or photos of Hunter Biden doing coke at a Ukrainian...
I don't think he went to Ukraine, so that might not be the easiest analogy.
Hypothetically, yeah.
He's never been to Ukraine, but yeah.
I know.
He's never been to Ukraine.
Don't let that...
Don't connect those dots there either, Pisco.
But hang on.
What does that tell us?
It tells us that the notion that there would be...
It tells us he's getting bribed for future political gain.
That's what it tells us to anybody with half a brain.
Now, so he's never been to Ukraine, knows nothing about energy companies, is a strung-out crackhead who's blowing...
Hand over fist dollars on hookers gets this magical gig that you think Joe Biden has nothing to do with if they had blackmail material on Hunter Biden.
Would that involve Joe Biden or no?
If they had blackmail material on Hunter Biden, would it necessarily involve Joe Biden?
No. Do you disagree with that?
Do you disagree with that?
Yes or no?
No, because you phrase it as necessarily, that's the qualifier that makes it an all or nothing.
Does it involve Joe Biden?
Not necessarily is my answer.
Okay, not necessarily, but it could possibly involve, it could possibly involve Donald Trump.
Don't you agree?
Please go, please go.
Let's not be stupid.
Hunter Biden doing crack has nothing to do with Donald Trump.
Okay, so a vice president, not in a rational brain, in an irrational Democrat brain, yes.
The son of the vice president with compromised material might explain why America is indebted to the tune of $150 billion to support Ukraine and the 30% or 70% that goes to their corrupt government that was so corrupt they just siphon off tax dollars.
That might have to do with a little bit of like, you know, why foreign policy is what it is.
But the bottom line, you say the Russian narrative is not that there was suspicious stuff going on because there was, you've conceded that.
The Russian narrative is that it involved Joe Biden.
And my question to you would be, If any foreign country had blackmail material on the vice president's son and future president's son, do you think that would potentially compromise or involve the president?
Yes or no?
It potentially would compromise the president, but that's not saying anything.
It potentially couldn't, too.
That's the problem with these kind of...
I'll say this.
Having a video of potential underage sex, I don't think there was, so I'm not asserting that, but that hypothetical?
No, because there was an investigation for sex trafficking, but not underage.
If they have blackmail material on...
If they had Hunter Biden's laptop, that necessarily, in my view, implicates Biden.
Necessarily. Would you deny that?
I would deny that in the strongest possible terms.
Well, that would be where the...
Come on, come on, come on.
Now I'm going to push you.
You think that...
If they have blackmail material from Hunter Biden, it necessarily implicates Joe Biden?
What if Joe Biden doesn't know about it?
What if Joe Biden, you know, it's never told to him?
First of all, it's not blackmail material if it's never told to anybody.
And yes, I would say having dirt that implicates Joe Biden because you do appreciate Joe Biden paid for the hookers by accidental wire transfer ones.
You do acknowledge that?
I don't actually know the chronology there.
I know a lot.
I don't know that.
Okay, well, you might want to go...
Instead of reading Lev Parnas, who's already...
I read John Solomon, too.
You act like I don't read your side.
No, no, no.
I don't have a side here.
I actually do read the propagandists so I can know what the liars are saying.
I listen to CNN.
I read New York Times, who recently had to report on, you know, admit all of this past controversial...
Potentially illegal activity.
I just want to say, I'm really enjoying this, and I'm having a lot of fun, but I want to know, did you expect me to have as much information as I do about the Burisma situation, at least the facts?
You might disagree with my interpretation, but did you expect me to know that stuff?
No, but first of all, I don't want to be insulting.
I expected you to have more and better arguments.
Not just, I acknowledge all the facts, but I just deny the conclusion.
Wait a second.
No. Yeah, sure.
I know that his son was getting money.
I know that it was deemed to be questionable.
Let's just do it step by step.
Let's just do it step by step.
Is it illegal?
Do you know it to be illegal?
Or do you or do you not know whether it is illegal for Hunter Biden to even be on the board of Burisma in the first place?
See, I don't know under what circumstances.
Under the circumstances of just being on the board for purposes of business?
Well, I don't know, but apparently even receiving financing from foreign interests is a problem.
No, that's different.
If we're going to get into tenant media, that's very different.
No, but I'm saying, you're asking, is it illegal?
I don't know.
In the normal run of things, I'm not sure.
I'm going to represent to your audience that it is not illegal for people to...
Let me just, instead of asking the questions, I'll just give an affirmative case.
Because people...
Something about the question sometimes doesn't work the way I want it to work.
It's not illegal for people on the board.
It's not the case that just because...
Because you're on a board of a company, you have subject matter expertise.
Yes, I expected the reason that Hunter Biden was on the board was to woo the West, both business leaders, both political leaders, and to try to give good ties with the West.
That doesn't mean that Hunter Biden's position on a board is not legitimate.
You go onto any board, you see people, you know, who have no subject matter.
This is idiotic.
He has no expertise.
He doesn't go to the country.
The only reason he's on the board is for political pressure or influence.
If that's your argument for legitimacy, that's my argument for corruption.
So we agree on the dots.
You just say, that's legitimate.
That's just good politics.
Corporations, as a matter of course, will invite...
People who have no subject matter expertise, either because they're just good business leaders.
I don't think that Hunter Biden's in that category.
Or because they have some other useful set of skills.
Maybe they're good at compliance.
Maybe they're good at interfacing with certain agencies.
Maybe they just have good sense of...
You know, dealing with employees or board dynamics.
There are a multitude of reasons why people are invited to the board.
In the case of Hunter Biden, I fully expect that the reason that they did it was to have a good name on the board to make it seem more legitimate and potentially to have contacts in the United States.
That's true.
That doesn't necessarily implicate any corruption.
It doesn't necessarily implicate FARA at all.
And so in order to make the case that Hunter Biden's position on the board...
Separate and apart from the tax stuff, which is completely separate from corruption.
No, it's not.
It is completely separate.
Not declaring the revenue from the foreign company is not completely separate.
It's part of the concealment.
It's his own.
Burisma didn't tell him not to report it.
No one told him not to report it.
Joe Biden didn't tell him, hey, don't report your tax.
First of all, you see what you're doing again.
You don't know what anybody told him.
So I don't need to assume what people told him or what he was thinking.
I just conclude what he did.
So, oh, there's plenty of good reasons why you would have the Biden name on a foreign corrupt Ukrainian company.
There is.
One of which would be credibility is obviously a reasonable one.
The other one would be protection from investigation.
Much like what happened when Joe Biden then said, fire this guy who's looking into Burisma.
But then the excuse that you actually want...
He wasn't looking into Burisma.
I just want to be clear.
He was not investigating Burisma.
We know that.
If you ask the deputies of Shokin, they said they were the ones trying to push Burisma investigations and that Shokin was refusing.
That they were the ones trying to push for greater corruption investigations of Burisma and they were stopped.
That's what's said by...
Shokin's own deputies.
If you ask from the Anti-Corruption Action Center, Daria, her last name's actually the K, I can never pronounce it.
She says there was no investigation into Burisma at all.
In fact, it's widespreadly known in Ukraine.
That's the allegation.
So in order for you to say...
Yes, Shokin was looking into Burisma.
That's why I was fired.
I would expect that you would trust something more than just the bare assertion of Shokin himself in a self-interested statement made probably from Moscow or some other Russian hole that that is not enough evidence for you to determine that he actually was looking into Burisma.
In fact, if you look at the Devin Archer's testimony, and I'm sure you've looked a little bit into the Devin Archer's testimony, he says, what we were told...
Was that Shokin was good for Burisma.
And so what is the evidence that Shokin was looking into Burisma, actually?
Think about that.
The evidence to me that Biden didn't want Shokin there is the specific demand that he be fired.
Come on!
That's circular.
You know that's circular.
You see, you just did it again.
I did it again.
I caught myself.
The corruption is evident and it's patent and it's there.
That's the bottom line.
That's not an argument.
That's conclusory.
It's evident.
It's there.
His son is on the board.
His son is getting paid to do nothing except levy political influence for the benefit of this corrupt Ukrainian company.
You say that Joe never got the 10% because that came from...
Oh, what's the guy's name?
Bobulinski. 10% doesn't even relate to Burisma stuff.
10% and the big guy might relate to all of the business relationship.
I mean, and it pretty much did, which might explain also...
That's your bare assertion.
That's your bare assertion.
It's not in the documents.
It's a reasonable conclusion to draw from the fact that he wasn't declaring the revenue.
I mean, it's quite an obvious conclusion to draw.
The reasonable conclusion to draw is that the 10% for the big guy was for Joe Biden for everything because Hunter Biden didn't declare the Burisma tax.
Make that make sense.
Why is that the reasonable conclusion, Viva?
Why is it the reasonable conclusion that the 10% for the big guy was not on one specific deal?
Based on the fact that Hunter Biden did tax fraud.
No. Why is that the conclusion?
The question is, why do you don't declare it?
Why you don't declare millions in revenue when you're the son of the vice president working for a corrupt Ukrainian company?
Why would you not declare it?
It's because probably he didn't want to pay taxes on it.
That's not crazy.
That's not crazy to think.
It was public knowledge he worked for Burisma.
That's public knowledge.
It was publicly announced by Burisma.
Then how would you possibly say that?
It's public knowledge that he's working for them, and yet he's not going to declare it.
Because he doesn't want to pay taxes.
Because he's an idiot.
What do you want me to say?
You're saying to himself he's a crackhead.
His brother just died of cancer and he's smoking crack every day.
And you're like, wow, I can't believe this guy did this.
One of the logical reasons is that you don't want to declare it.
You don't want people seeing where the money is coming from and how much of it is coming from there and where it's going once it gets here.
And now once you understand that the father, Joe Biden, was literally wiring for hookers and drugs accidentally from his own bank account, and then you at the end of the day want to say, I mean, there's no other way to get to it.
I don't know what to say.
Okay, so at this point we have now four investigations.
The DOJ has investigated this matter.
They have not determined that there's anything corruption with Joe Biden.
In the first impeachment...
One of the main defenses of Trump was that this was, in fact, a legitimate purpose for the reasons you stated, because there was actual corruption.
It was investigated by the various committees there.
There was a dedicated investigation by Senate Republicans in 2019, prior to the 2020 election, that also came to the conclusion that they have no evidence of Joe Biden's corruption or involvement whatsoever in the burisma matter.
And finally now...
Let me just finish this.
Now, finally, you have the impeachment inquiry, the official impeachment inquiry, specifically on these matters.
They're not going to impeach him, and they have not come and produced any evidence whatsoever that Joe Biden's involved in the Ukrainian matter with Burisma.
When do we get to let sleeping dogs lie?
When will we have enough investigations to determine that, hey, maybe Joe Biden really didn't have anything to do with Burisma?
What will convince you?
If all these investigations are failing to turn up any kind of evidence that shows that he was connected to Burisma, what's it going to take to convince you that maybe there's not?
What's it going to take to convince me that there's nothing there?
At the point where I know that the son was receiving money for nothing, not declaring the taxes, that the dad was paying for drugs and hookers, he was spending millions of dollars cash over the course of months.
Sorry, the DOJ is not investigating at that point.
They're attempting to cover it up.
And the fact that foreign countries and foreign interests most certainly had prejudicial information on the Biden family.
Is most certainly something that I will never believe them to say, no, it's all clean and kosher.
Because after all, the same intelligence officers came out later and said the Hunter Biden laptop story was earmarks of Russian information camp.
So this is what it actually does require.
And I agree that this conclusion does follow from your perspective.
I think it requires you to believe that the DOJ is corrupt.
It requires me to trust the people who I know definitively have been lying to me.
I mean, it's funny.
It's good, but we'll put a bow in this one because, yeah, it requires me to trust the people who I know.
I have confirmation have been lying to me repeatedly over an extended period of time.
And your evidence of that is a Hunter Biden laptop.
Why is that?
Why is that?
Hunter Biden laptop.
I mean, how far back do you want to go?
The evidence would be weapons of mass destruction.
The evidence would be the Hunter Biden laptop.
The evidence would be everything related to, well, to COVID in particular.
But the evidence would be...
A history and a pattern of lying.
Corruption, weaponized prosecution, and weaponized exoneration.
So if you're going to deny that...
I mean, that proves too much because now any conspiracy I allege that involves or implicates the DOJ being corrupt, I can use all that evidence to demonstrate...
In recent memory, Pisco, they lied, they falsified evidence in 2016.
They falsified, they lied about evidence in 2020.
You expect me to believe these guys are now investigating and have exonerated the people that they were lying for?
Come on!
The House Republicans, you think they're corrupt too?
Yes! The Senate Republicans?
Oh, I'm sorry.
You think I thought all...
I don't think the binary.
There is definitely a uniparty element to this.
But you are relying on the people who have lied and falsified evidence within the last eight years.
To exonerate the people that they were falsifying evidence to protect by way of politics.
I mean, how stupid can you be?
Come on, Viva.
I mean, these guys hate Biden.
You know, James Comer, he fucking hates Joe Biden.
That was a great pivot.
You asked me to rely on the conclusions of the very same people.
It's a deflection.
The people who you were saying rely on, they investigated and said there's nothing here.
Literally falsified evidence to sink Trump.
After he got elected, they literally lied about evidence to get Joe Biden.
Or maybe they don't like Joe Biden.
Let me give you what you want.
Wait, I can give you what you want.
I acknowledge that there absolutely was Kevin Clinesmith, someone who lied with respect to evidence to obtain a renewal of a FISA warrant in the crossfire hurricane.
Do you know what he lied about?
Yes, it was related to whether or not...
Carter Page was ever an informant of the CIA.
I think it was the CIA or some other organization.
Whether or not he was ever a Russian asset.
No, no, no.
The lie actually was about whether or not another government organization had used him as a source before.
And the answer was, yes, they had.
It would tend to exonerate Carter Page.
It would tend to be exonerative evidence.
The lie fabricated a Russian angle to things.
From the very same people who you now are saying, This might not be even a fruitful one to get into because we're getting into above and beyond.
The FBI lawyer falsifying evidence.
I'm happy to follow your lead, by the way, Viva, if you want to move on.
There's only so many rabbit holes you can go down.
I don't think that you're dodging.
I just acknowledge you have to run a show and those are realities.
No, forget that.
It's not a question of dodging.
It's a question of that being immaterial to the underlying point right now is you say DOJ investigated and you trust them.
And then I say, well, the DOJ is fundamentally corrupt.
And you say, well, that's great.
Then you never trust them.
I was like, no, I'm not going to trust them for conclusions they came to that are beneficial to the very same people they were fabricating evidence for within the same time frame.
And in order to do that, You have to be willfully blind or worse, or just say, I tolerate the corruption, and I'm going to turn a blind eye when they do it, and I'm going to trust them when they say that my guy's all good and clean.
I think that there's a useful approach to skepticism of organizations, and I think that there are some people on my side who are too quick to be like, and I include, by the way, Destiny in this.
I love Destiny.
He's a good guy.
He's my friend.
But sometimes he's just too quick to be like, oh, I'm sure there's a reason for that.
I'm sure there's an explanation.
I acknowledge.
That it's good to have some healthy skepticism, and so I appreciate that input.
And I agree.
In even some of the cases that you did, there was criminality involved in aspects of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, and that's all good.
What I'm trying to bring to bear is I don't see this kind of level of systemic corruption.
Such that I should constantly doubt their conclusions when, for example, you have Hunter Biden himself being fucking charged and is now going to be in jail probably for years unless he gets pardoned by Joe Biden, which I think would be corrupt.
And I would absolutely condemn Joe Biden if he were to...
Now, I still think he would be a good president, but if he were to pardon Hunter Biden, I think that would be totally bad and corrupt to do.
That said...
To me, it doesn't strike me as the DOJ is covering shit up.
When they do have improprieties, they release Inspector General reports.
They prosecute their own.
And so I trust way more the self-correcting systems of the DOJ than fucking Victor Shokin.
Come on!
You see, that would be the disingenuous comparison.
You don't need to trust them more than someone who you don't trust.
The question is whether or not you trust the people who literally falsified evidence, lied to courts, and obtained unlawful spy awards.
And then prosecuted the people who did that.
Oh, yeah, yeah, no, they definitely prosecuted all of the people who did that, because I'm sure it was only Kevin Kleinsmith.
And do you know what his punishment was, by the way, just in terms of, like, trusting the system?
Yeah, yeah, he got some...
Oh, yeah, no, he's good, he's good, but stick to January 6th and he's doing it for, like, 15 years.
I trust them to do it, and I trust them to do it here.
Okay, and by the way, the reason why we can bring this all the way back to the beginning now is because you start off with Trump being a threat.
And the two examples you gave of Trump's threatedness...
Only occur in 2019 and 2020 after he was a president for three years where he could have rounded up everybody and shipped them off to camps if he wanted to.
So your evidence that Trump is a threat if he ever gets reelected is that in the last two years of his presidency, or the last year, he did things that you don't agree with, but in the first three years he did nothing to exemplify this threat that you call him?
So I think that there's a little nuance there.
I would agree that as his presidency continued, the threat to democracy kind of argument that I'm doing manifested in more obvious ways.
And I think that much is true, for sure.
I don't say, by the way, that his first years he was not a threat.
And there are many policy reasons by which I disagree with Trump.
I think in general, he had a tendency for trying to use the trappings of government office in improper ways.
And these examples, I think, are the most obvious and threatening ways.
But even if it were just the case that this occurred on a single week or even a single month or whatever of his presidency, it alone is disqualified.
And I'm going to ask you directly, if it were the case that how I'm describing January 6th and his attempt to steal the election, Really occurred.
So take on board my interpretation of events in January 6th and his attempts to steal the election, just for the sake of the hypothetical.
You've got to flesh that out, to steal the election.
The notion that Donald Trump, I guess, first I'll ask, do you believe Donald Trump lost the election?
On paper?
I mean, it's a question.
Who was the legitimate winner of the 2020 election, in your opinion?
That would be also the wrong question.
Who would be the legitimate winner to something that didn't happen?
It's the question I asked, whether it's the right or the wrong.
Was the 2020 election clean and kosher?
And the answer is going to be a big fat no.
And anybody who says otherwise is a liar.
So who do you think, do you have an opinion of who were the legitimate winner of the 2020 election?
Who would have won had Time Magazine not, had they not done what Time Magazine said they did?
That sounds like a pivot.
No, no, no.
You asked me, it's like saying, well, the guy who took steroids won the fight.
Who would have won had the guy not been on steroids?
I don't know.
But the guy on steroids cheated, and therefore it invalidates the results.
So you believe Joe Biden cheated?
Joe Biden himself or the very same system that you are now saying you rely on for the investigations into Joe Biden?
The system cheated absolutely 1,000%.
Okay, so the 2020 election, you think the 2020 election was illegitimate?
Again, using, I'm telling you that the 2020 election was improper.
It was tinkered with and it was manipulated.
And in an unlawful manner, in an election interference manner.
And I'll simplify it for you because I do believe that the way they changed the rules, the way they implemented those rules, and I think some of it was unlawful, if for no other reason the 2020 election was interfered with as a result of the very same intelligence that you're relying on to exonerate Joe Biden, having manipulated and lied about the Hunter Biden story and censored social media to take it down.
If only for that, and if you don't think that had an impact on the election, then we'll have to disagree as a matter of fact.
I'll get back to those specific claims, I guess.
But say, for example, that you thought, as I did, that in every election, there are lies.
In every election, there are problems in terms of communication, what's a true narrative, a false narrative.
Let me rephrase it.
In every election, there's some cheating.
In the way that you're describing cheating, right?
Where things happen.
Say, for example, that you thought, as I did, that, however...
This election was run at the bare minimum as fairly as the 2016 election was.
And I agree that Trump won the 2016 election and that Trump was the legitimate winner of the 2016 election.
And not every blue MAGA person thinks this.
There are people who say Trump actually lost in 2016.
No. Trump won in 2016.
And I believe strongly that people who say...
He actually lost or he wasn't really the president.
That's all bullshit cope, okay?
But take on board my position that Trump lost legitimately and then Trump tried to change the results of an election he lost.
In your opinion, if that were true, that he lost, he knew he lost, and he legitimately lost, but he tried to change the result, wouldn't you agree, sir?
That it would be disqualifying whether or not anything else in his presidency beforehand had risen to that level or even a similar level.
Here might be a question that the people you talk with will not ask you to clarify your question.
You tried to change the results?
Through what means?
Through what means, if I may ask?
Various means.
Okay, but various lawful means?
Various lawful means?
Some means which were lawful.
Changing the result, though, of an election he lost.
He sought lawful means to change the results of an election.
Some were lawful.
Some were lawful, some were unlawful.
Put that aside.
Let's get concrete.
Assume that they were lawful.
If I assume that his means of challenging the outcome of an election that you call legitimate were lawful means, you want me to call that disqualifying?
I just want to get that on the record.
We've challenged the outcome of elections.
Over and over again through lawful means.
That's the definition of doing it lawfully.
I'm just going to put it this way.
Supposing that Trump lost, legitimately lost, and he knew he lost.
All right?
Just assume.
I'm not saying that you believe that.
He legitimately lost, and he knew that he lost.
Knew that he lost.
You see, you did it again.
Well, it's a...
It's an irrelevant hypothetical.
Let's just even say that he legitimately lost.
I'm trying to put you in my brain.
But your brain is broken.
I don't want to be there.
He legitimately lost.
He knew that he legitimately lost.
He knew that he was doing something illegal.
What kind of stupid question is that?
I'm trying to tell you why it can be the case that someone, even irrespective of his first three years, which I'm not going to agree were good or perfect or didn't represent a threat.
I just want to be clear about that.
You haven't provided any evidence.
We can talk about that, but I'm just saying, even if you were to say the first three years were great, even up to the election, they were great, there was no threat, and I actually even agree that all the impeachment stuff was bogus and actually the Bidens were corrupt in Ukraine.
Notwithstanding that fact, can't you understand that someone...
Not necessarily you, who has the belief that he knew he legitimately lost the election, but he tried to stay on anyway, whether it was to lawful or unlawful means, that that would be disqualified.
Do you know what I would tell anybody who says, you know that you lost, and you know that what you're doing is illegal right now?
You know what I would call that person?
You're not a mind reader.
I'd say, you're not a mind reader, you're an idiot, and go read Scott Adams' loser thing, because that is exactly what people who can't prove what they say say.
Oh my god.
So, oh, no, you know it.
You know it.
I mean, you see how many times you've done it.
You presume the requisite culpability so that you could then come to your conclusions of culpability.
And you didn't do that with Joe Biden?
No, I most certainly...
And you didn't do that with Hunter Biden?
No, no, no, no, no, no.
You're reading his mind.
How do you know that he's doing it?
I'm not reading his mind.
I'm reading his tax books as to what he didn't file.
I'm reading the Marco Polo laptop from hell in terms of him hiring hookers, paying them cash.
Spending millions of dollars over the course of months.
I'm looking at the books of Joe Biden.
How do you know that when Joe Biden did the quick pro quo?
Do you have any video recording like we have with Joe Biden saying, my God, the son of a bitch.
Oh, we sure do.
Video recording of Donald Trump saying, I know I lost the election.
Well, it's called circumstantial evidence of intent.
We actually do have statements of insiders who say that he acknowledges that he lost the election.
Insiders, dude.
Yeah, the same ones who said suckers and losers and he didn't go to the feudal.
And we actually have his statements which could be construed and I would construe as admissions where he says, I narrowly lost the election.
We do have those statements and you could try to clean them up later and be like, I was being sarcastic.
No, not being sarcastic.
that yes they got 11 000 more votes or whatever because they didn't signature match properly yeah they'll say that the bottom line though you say that you say it's a threat to democracy and disqualifying if he's using lawful means to challenge the election and the way you get around that to impute the the the mens rea is to say he's using lawful means to do something that he knows is not...
That was part of the hypothetical.
I think he used very unlawful means to try to steal the lawful means.
Which ones?
Which ones?
I believe that the conspiracy to use Fake slates of electors was an unlawful means.
You know that's a Democrat legal theory that they use in Hawaii with Nixon and JFK.
First of all, as you're aware, there are distinctions that I can draw, and we can go down this line if you want.
I just want to say, even if it were, I'm not bound.
By what they did in 1960, I could very well easily...
You're not bound by that, but...
And I would say that was illegal and unlawful.
I would say that, 100%.
You can say everything you want.
It's called precedent.
So you might think it's an unlawful precedent, but if he's invoking...
Past precedent, you can call it unlawful all you want, and he'll call it precedent.
And if you think you're going to go get a conviction of culpability, guilt, because he's using a precedent that your Democrat counterparts used back in the day, well, my goodness, that's great.
I know there's a decision that says that from 100 years ago, but today's- There's no decision.
So what happened was it just happened.
You don't need to summarize what happened.
We all know what happened.
I don't know, but what I'm saying is it occurred.
It's not like we have legal precedent on it.
It's factual precedent, which was never- I'm not going to sit here and say that I'm bound by the interpretation of what the Hawaiian electors did.
What you're doing is you're telling me he's criminally guilty, notwithstanding this factual precedent of a tactic that was used by his political adversaries barely 50 years ago.
First of all, you guys love Kennedy.
You love Kennedy.
Saying that they're political adversaries is so bizarre.
It's anachronistic.
That's a neither here nor there.
It's not true anyhow because he was a Democrat killed by the very same...
Entity that you still choose to trust this day, but that's another can of worms.
The bottom line, your hypothetical question presupposes that he's either using unlawful means or that he's using lawful means to do something that you say he knows is not true as a matter of fact.
You know what I do believe?
I believe the 2020 election was in fact stolen, exactly how they describe it in the Time magazine.
Changing rules, changing regulations, controlling information, and that is election interference.
And I believe that a lot of the absentee, not the absentee, but the mail-in ballots for indefinite confinement were not constitutional votes.
Period. I believe that the Georgia ballots...
Wait, wait, wait!
Are you talking about the Wisconsin law?
Yes. I'm talking about the...
In that case, I don't want to do what I accuse others of doing.
Wisconsin, the indefinite confinement, I believe that was constitutionally invalid.
Okay, but we've decided that issue.
I'm not sure that we did, but you are presuming that the means through which that was done, which would be the lawful means, would be unlawful because Trump knew that he lost.
So it's crazy to me that we can have...
And by the way, Destiny, I guess, is watching.
And if you would like to talk to him, he's offering it.
But again, we don't have to...
No, I'm not bringing in Destiny.
Okay, cool.
Awesome. And as much as I'm a proponent of free speech, some of the rhetoric about the Trump assassination...
I felt that I had to relay it.
That said, it's striking to me that you would assume...
The intent of Joe Biden when it comes to why it is the fact that he's, like, signing this quid pro quo with respect to Burisma.
You know for a fact that it was for him to help his son.
You didn't listen to me when I said it the first time.
It doesn't matter the why.
The what is what we have a recording of.
Period. Okay, so why can't I say it doesn't matter the why?
Donald Trump lost those contests and he tried to change it.
It doesn't matter what he knew.
Why isn't that enough?
I'll agree with that.
It doesn't matter what he knew.
It matters whether or not the means that he invoked were lawful means.
And they were.
Period. Okay, do you think that the vice president declaring Trump having won the election is a lawful means to win the election?
I believe that it was a legitimate legal theory that had been contemplated that would have worked its way through the courts.
Do you believe it's a lawful means to do that?
You have to listen to the answer.
Sure. It is a legal theory that has been floated that would have been tested through the courts had it occurred and had the courts decided to hear it.
Whether it would have been tested or not, is your opinion that it would be lawful for vice president?
No! Whether or not it's lawful is determined by it going through the courts.
You want to ask me if it's lawful and you say it's not going to go through the course to find out if it's lawful?
Okay, so then here's a question.
If Donald Trump had literally sent his military in for a coup d'etat, sorry, the American military, for a coup d'etat and said, I actually have the legal right to do so, you would agree that that would be presumed to be lawful until and unless the Supreme Court says otherwise?
Yes or no?
Yes or no?
No, but yes or no, we're both lawyers, unless you don't know that I'm also a lawyer.
I know you're a lawyer, yeah.
The hypotheticals, I'm going to object to the hypothetical, because I don't even...
Come on, that's what lawyers do, you know that?
First of all, it's what bad lawyers do, and it's what bad witnesses do, is answer hypotheticals that are absolutely insane hypotheticals.
I mean, it's irrelevant as a hypothetical, and I don't even understand it as a hypothetical.
You don't understand it as a hypothetical?
I'll say it.
If he calls in the National Guard?
Why would that be an unlawful means?
Why would it be an unlawful means to call in?
At gunpoint, hold Congress and say, you will gavel in Donald Trump or we will shoot.
That's our legal theory.
Why is that unlawful?
The threat of murder.
Why is that unlawful?
That's unlawful because I can presume that the court cannot remedy the execution of someone who refuses to do something.
But this is where these idiotic and insane hypotheticals become irrelevant.
I think that was a slippery dodge.
The bottom line is, you presuppose the unlawful nature of the means through which he was going to contest it when the courts didn't even adjudicate on a legal theory, contentious as it may be.
Is nonetheless a legal theory that predated...
The Pence card was not created in December.
That legal theory existed for quite some time.
Alternate slates of electors are not fraudulent slates of electors.
And you'll notice it's the tactic of the left.
You control the...
Illegals voting.
That's what it was.
It was illegals voting.
The real vote for president is the Electoral College, and they let illegals vote.
I don't know.
I'm not sure what you're talking about.
Yeah, so these people weren't legitimate voters.
Imagine, for example, that Joe Biden...
The electors were the result of fraudulent elections and that they want to submit an alternate slate of electors to reflect the actual will of the people, which they believe would have been properly reflected had it not been for...
drop boxes, which are arguably unlawful.
Had it not been for counting indefinitely confined votes, which was arguably unlawful.
Had it not been for not matching signature verifications, which have still not been done, arguably unlawfully.
Yeah, that's called the alternate slate of electors.
Would you have supported if Pence had declared Trump the victor?
Would you have supported that?
I would certainly have assumed that that would go through the courts.
Would you have supported that action by Pence?
What does it mean, supported?
Would you have complimented and agreed with his action?
I'll ask it more simply.
If you were Pence, would you have done what Trump asked, yes or no?
If I were Pence, would I have refused to certify the electors?
Would you have gaveled in Trump as the victor and refused to certify the electors?
I might have refused to certify.
You're not sure whether you would or wouldn't?
No, no.
I'm not sure that I would have gabbled in Trump.
I might have refused to certify and then had hearings on the issues that the court refused to hear.
That might be what I would have done.
Because you seem like a fun person that I could get a beer with and we could chill and shit.
That's fucked up!
That you're like...
I'm considering not certifying this election.
Hold on.
Why did you ask me a question if you were going to tell me the answer that you didn't like is fucked up?
Well, I'm just expressing to you...
I'm telling you that I think...
I know that that's your answer.
I'm not denying that that's your answer.
Instead of telling me that it's fucked up, go ahead and tell me why it's fucked up.
Why would I certify the electors that I believe were the result of fraud?
It's fucked up because we have processes for determining whether or not your legal challenges are successful.
And you're saying, for example, hey, We've got to defer to the court to determine what's lawful.
We'd already done that, and he had lost.
And notwithstanding that fact, that there had been a determination as a matter of law that there was insufficient evidence in various cases, or the legal grounds were insufficient, or it was brought in a procedurally improper way for these claims to be heard, you'd say, I would still not defer to those decisions, not defer to the determination by the states, and I would just gavel in whatever I want and not certify.
Did they do the signature verification in Georgia?
They did verify signatures, didn't they?
No, they didn't.
They did not do...
This is where, as a matter of fact, if you'll...
Prove that they did the signature verification.
Proper signature verification in Georgia, they did not.
Oh, proper signature verification as opposed to improper signature verification.
Yeah, because there's a difference between just recounting the votes and actually comparing the signatures on the voting ballots to the on-votes.
How are you going to, once they've been, once the ballots have been removed from their- This is a longer debate, which we will not go into right now.
But suffice it to say, now you're going to say, they did it, but they didn't do it because they couldn't do it because by that point they could no longer do it.
Bottom line?
Bottom line, there was a legitimate, lawful, contentious legal theory to refuse to certify and then have the courts deal with it properly.
And you would have been a part of it.
What you're telling us is if you were there, if you were the VP, you would have not deferred to the courts.
You would have not deferred to the state governments.
I would have entertained the idea of not certifying the slate of electors on the allegation that it resulted from.
Even though the courts did not agree with you, and even though the state governments did not agree with you.
Which cases went to the merits?
The cases related to indefinitely confined...
Wait, no, that wasn't addressed on the merits, but there wasn't a discussion about...
Why wasn't it addressed on the merits?
The controlling opinion there is by, I believe, Judge Hanagorn.
Brian Hanagorn.
You're surprised I know this shit!
But I know it because I'm a fucking god.
Your chat can't deny I'm a god.
I don't care that you know their names.
Give me the legal theory on which the lawsuit was dismissed.
In that specific case, it was far too late to bring this to me.
Latches. Latches.
You can't get the truth out of your mouth because you don't like it.
You give me the name of the judge I don't care about.
Latches. So they didn't hear it.
They said no standing.
But there was a conversation.
If you read the actual opinion.
I read it.
I don't care about the names.
I'm not saying that it's holding.
I agree.
It was lack of standing and it was latches.
I agree that there's dicta, but they do talk about the indefinitely confined issue.
And now that we actually have an opinion on the merits on the indefinitely confined issue by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
And so, you know, you might not like it.
But these procedures exist for a reason, so you cannot just sleep on your claims.
You cannot bring stale claims to the court.
You can't sleep on your remedies.
It's not ripe, then it's not ripe by spring, then rotten by November, whatever.
There's an expression that Robert Barnes and I frequently use.
So now hold on a second.
We started with the threat because this all started with the accusation that Trump is a threat.
Thus far, you did not provide any evidence of threats until 2019.
The evidence that Trump is a threat is that he left office on January 17 as required by law, but he challenged the outcome in a way that you didn't like and submitted an alternate slate of electors.
I'm just going to address this point real quick.
If he had tried to do a military coup d'etat and it failed, but then he left on the constitutionally ordered process, would you say what you just said?
No, if he tried to do a military coup d'etat, then left after he failed the military coup d'etat...
Have you listened to your question?
Yeah! Because...
Okay, had he started the war...
Whether he failed or not isn't the issue.
The issue is he tried.
Whether he left after he failed, who the fuck cares?
He tried what?
Like, you gotta be specific.
Okay. He tried to steal the 2020 election.
Steal is a conclusion and it's not a fact.
Because he lost it.
Because it is a conclusion that Joe Biden won.
So he lost.
He lost.
Therefore, anything he did would have been theft.
Therefore, you've argued from your conclusion and there's no way to get around it.
Congratulations, Pisco.
Why even have the discussion?
I don't know.
How are we ever going to get...
How are we going to move on as a society?
We moved on already.
He left office.
If we can't accept that Joe Biden won the 2020 election.
He was such a threat that he left office peacefully.
I mean, it's crazy.
He's a real threat.
You would never say this of anybody who attempted to stay in power in a way that you view as obviously unlawful, like a coup d'etat.
How old were you with the hanging chads?
I would have been five.
So, it's not the first time elections have been challenged and that people fight.
True. Legally and politically, and then leave on January 7th.
True. Let me just ask you, if he's a threat, what kind of a sorry-ass threat is he that he left, was allowed to be deplatformed, was allowed to be law-fared?
He's such a threat that...
He's allowed to be law-fared.
He's out of his control.
Oh. I'm sorry.
He didn't have the power.
But you want to give him the power.
You want to give him the power to try again.
I'm sorry.
He's the threat.
Who's being the victim of that which is beyond his control lawfare.
And he's the threat.
He's the victim of criminal indictments and complaints because he did crimes.
What do you want me to say?
Oh, he did crimes now.
He did crimes.
Yeah, he did crimes.
I don't know what to say.
You don't think he didn't do crimes?
I think he did not do crimes.
I think he did not do crimes.
Which crimes do you think he did, specifically?
I specifically think he falsified business records.
Do you agree?
Which one?
In New York?
In New York, I agree.
I specifically disagree with that.
Okay. Did he, in fact, falsify...
Pay a retainer to his lawyer?
Yes, he did.
You believe he paid a retainer?
That's where it went.
Wait a second.
You think he paid a retainer?
Okay. For legal services rendered?
Yes. You think that Cohen was...
Giving legal fees or rendering legal services during the time period?
It was all fake!
You know it's fake.
That wasn't for legal services.
It was a reimbursement.
Pisco, Pisco, Pisco.
You know it's fake.
You don't even see yourself doing it.
Sorry, sorry, sorry.
Don't you agree it's fake?
What is fake?
Michael Cohen was doing what Michael Cohen did, and if Michael Cohen was taking care of a Stormy Daniels problem, probably taking his own piece of the pie as well.
That's what he was invoicing for.
You think that Michael Cohen stole money from Trump?
I won't say.
Whatever I think is irrelevant.
What I know is that Michael Cohen was invoicing and Donald Trump was paying the retainer.
That's how it went.
Whatever Michael Cohen did with the money, good for him.
Period. So the evidence that was put on...
That showed that this was a reimbursement.
The fact that the calculation is drawn on a fucking napkin, not a napkin.
You do realize that...
I was going to weigh my words in terms of Michael Cohen.
You know Michael Cohen admitted to stealing from Trump or Red Hat, whichever one it was, right?
The tech company?
So you're saying that Donald Trump was structuring a payment in order to be stolen from?
Wait, you actually think that he stole money?
Michael Cohen, I have to go refresh my memory on this, that he did not give the money...
To the tech company that he was supposed to within the $480,000 that he was paid.
Oh, great!
You agree that it was a reimbursement?
Because that theory only works if it was a reimbursement.
The stealing theory only works if it was a reimbursement.
Otherwise, it's just a retainer fee.
Just so you know, the stealing theory only worked.
The reason why he admitted to it is because that's what it was, because it was a reimbursement.
But if it's just a retainer for legal fees, then there was no theft.
But you're alleging that he committed theft.
Therefore, it's obvious it was a reimbursement.
You do understand that even the monies that were paid to Michael Cohen were broken down.
They were itemized to some extent, and there was no itemized being paid.
They were itemized in such a way to overpay Michael Cohen for something where he was stealing money.
To compensate it for what he was going to have to pay for taxes.
Because it was a reimbursement.
Because that's obvious what it was.
It was a lie.
You do recognize that Michael Cohen admitted to not remitting, I think it was $30,000 to the tech company that he was supposed to?
Yes, that's how he stole it.
Okay, so that's how he stole it.
So you're then saying that he stole from the monies that were a reimbursement to him?
Yes, but it doesn't work.
But then he's stealing from himself?
No, no, no.
Sorry, no.
He's stealing from Trump because he's overestimating the actual amount that he paid to the tech company for the different ad to buy.
Yeah, so he's stealing from Trump.
That is theft, 100%.
Okay. It's only theft if you agree it's a reimbursement.
If it's a retainer for legal services, then it's not theft because then it's just paying legal services.
But the fact that you're doing the Redfinch thing, the fact that you're doing the Redfinch thing, it means that you're using as evidence the calculation that necessarily proves that this was a reimbursement as opposed to a payment for legal services.
If it was a reimbursement, then how does he steal from it?
Sorry, the theft theory is he was...
He admitted to stealing from them!
He admitted it in the trial, Pisco!
I understand.
The theft theory is premised on the notion...
It's not a theory!
It's an admission!
He took it out in cash and he stole from Trump!
How does he steal from Trump if it's a reimbursement?
Because it's a reimbursement.
The theft is he was reimbursed and he asked for more money than he actually paid.
And so he was overgrossing his reimbursement.
That's the theft.
But if it's just a retainer, if all these payments of these various amounts, consistent amounts, are retainers, then there is no theft.
And so the notion that this is theft undermines the notion that this is a retainer.
By the way, I don't even care if it's true.
Pisco's reading responses from Cuck AI's Destiny GPT.
I don't even care.
I don't even care.
Do it.
If I'm playing chess with somebody and they're cheating, I don't even care.
You think I'm doing that?
No, but no, I don't even care if you are because if that's the best chat AI can do or whatever that is, it's still pretty bad.
So the bottom line...
And we can agree to disagree on this, but I don't think he committed a crime in New York.
And I'll concede, though, to some point, just so that it'll facilitate the argument, that even if he did, and it was a mischaracterization of payments, at best it would be a misdemeanor that would have been a long time long.
Not if it's in furtherance of another crime.
I know that.
What was the federal crime?
And how does the state prosecute a federal crime?
Hold on there.
Hold your horses there.
There was another state crime, which was the furtherance crime, and that was election law, I think, 17152.
I could be wrong about that.
But that is to promote an election by unlawful means.
State or federal election?
Well, that's the question for New York State law that the Court of Appeals is going to have to review.
Pisco, are you not...
However, the judge had a learned ruling.
Let me pat myself on the back.
Do you think you're going to pull this shit over me just because I'm a Quebec attorney and you don't think I know this?
You don't think I know how deceitful people are going to argue?
They might have been charging for a state crime in a federal election.
And then you're also ignoring the fact that there were federal crimes that they were arguing.
And you're also ignoring the fact that the judge didn't even know which of the three predicate crimes it had to be.
Just pick one of them, jury.
There was a learned decision by Judge Mershon.
A learned.
Nothing ever came out of Mershon's mouth is learned.
Except for, you know...
Nothing. That was going to be a dirty joke.
Hey, hey, hey, hey.
There was a learned decision by Judge Marchand that addresses the issue of the three predicate offenses.
There's a case called People v.
Mack. That case establishes that, for example, in a robbery crime, you understand that robbery is the breaking and entering of a dwelling for the purpose to commit a crime therein, that there could be multiple theories of what crime you were committing in burglary.
That's the New York theory for why there can be multiple predicate offenses.
That's going to be the issue for the New York Court of Appeals.
I think it'll be resolved favorably in the favor of the district attorney.
You want to make a bet right now?
Well, I think the Supreme Court might have something to say about it.
So you're banking on the learned Marchand's corruption so you can run with the...
No, I'm banking on this U.S. Supreme Court giving every possible excuse to get Donald Trump whatever kind of immunity he wants.
I'm betting on this Supreme Court to give every excuse for Donald Trump in any of his matters.
So yes, that's what I'm banking on, whether or not I believe or agree with it.
So yes, I think that it's possible either on the underlying predicate.
You do understand that even Bragg's own office said that this was all bullshit, politically motivated.
No, the SDNY is not Bragg's office.
Come on, man.
You think I don't know all your talking points?
I memorize your talking points.
Who said it was politically motivated bullshit?
The SDNY, one of the PR people for the SDNY.
So the most corrupt district in America, maybe tied with DC, comes out and says, this is a politically motivated persecution.
And you're not just going to write it off because Alvin Bragg says, no, it's good.
We finally found- It's a different office.
I don't have to agree with what the SDNY said.
And that guy said he was just trying to talk.
That guy just said he was trying to talk up a girl and he said something stupid.
And he agrees with it.
You write off the SDNY, the learned Mershaw.
I don't write off the SDNY.
That guy was drunk at a party.
Bottom line, even if I concede that it was a crime, it's political persecution bullshit.
And even if I concede it's a crime, just for the sake of it, what we have is...
And you're not conceding that, to be clear.
No, no, I'm not conceding it as a matter of fact.
I'm just going to concede it as a matter of rhetoric so that I can get you on the other point, which I'm sure you're going to know also.
Okay, fine.
Selective prosecution is a thing as well.
And do you think that this is material?
Do you think what Hillary Clinton did?
I mean, I know you know this is where it's going.
I know, you know, I know.
Yeah, so was hers worse, better, or are you going to find a way to justify that one thing?
I don't believe there was any crime with Hillary Clinton, unless you can say otherwise.
You don't believe there was any crime in terms of mischaracterizing the payments that went to the Steele dossier?
I don't believe there was any crime associated with that.
I don't believe that there are...
The crime was mislabeling the payments.
They concealed the payment.
They were fined for it.
You agree that they were included in the reports under the payments of their law?
They were mislabeled in the reports in exactly the same way...
I think that that is more of a gray area in terms of whether or not payments...
And you understand this?
Sorry, I have to stop doing that.
Good. Hey, I'm learning.
I'm learning, Viva.
Law firms hire external vendors all the time.
And again, it's not Hillary, but whoever the secretary was of Hillary for America, the notion that that person or the campaign itself...
You know, didn't know to separately itemize the vendor payment from the law firm payment.
That, to me, is not nearly on the same level as the kind of fraud that was occurring, knowing fraud, mislabeling of, not just mislabeling, intentional hiding.
They funded bogus opposition research that they then funneled to the FBI.
Their lawyer lied about.
Who paid him for the meeting?
Why wasn't he convicted?
Why wasn't he convicted?
Corruption in D.C. is why, and you know damn well.
They lied about the payment.
They lied about the funding.
They concealed the funding.
They used that fake, bogus opposition research to launch this investigation, and that gets a pass in your mind.
Crossfire Hurricane was not started on behalf or because of the Steele dossier.
Did it serve a purpose in it?
Did it not serve a purpose in terms of getting spy warrants?
For FISA warrants, but at the beginning of the investigation, as you're aware, I'm just trying to correct the record.
No, no.
It's intimately related.
There might not be one cause.
Intimately related.
They financed fake research.
Lied about...
It's payment.
Leaked it to the FBI, who then leaked it to Yahoo, in a meeting that they paid, that the guy billed the Clinton campaign for.
Wrong about that.
The FBI didn't leak it to Yahoo.
The FBI didn't leak it.
It was Christopher Steele who gave it to BuzzFeed.
No, first of all, no, it was Yahoo that reported it.
And if I'm mistaken on it being the FBI that leaked it to Yahoo so that they could then invoke it, I'll correct myself, but I don't think I'm wrong on that.
You know what?
I could be wrong about that as well.
I'm just saying the FBI is not alleged to have leaked the story to anybody.
The FBI, by the way...
I'm fairly certain.
It doesn't matter because that's also not the issue.
You think they're all corrupt anyway?
They are all corrupt.
I don't need to think it.
They falsified evidence to get spy war.
I know it because they have the proof for it.
And where does that come from, in fact?
That comes from, among other things, the Durham report.
The Durham report, which is a component of the DOJ because it's a special counsel's office.
It comes from the lawyer admitting to having falsified evidence to submit to a secret file.
And no evidence that it goes beyond himself or that it goes to any of the higher brass at all.
That's the problem with your assumptions and your conjecture.
It's not an assumption.
It's not conjecture.
This is confession through projection.
Mine is just concrete evidence.
The entire bureau is corrupt because if you think that nobody knew what Clinesmith was doing and that he's just a lone wolf doing this out of his own TDS heart, set aside Peter Stroke and his insurance policy with Ricardo and Lisa Page.
You think he's committed a crime?
I don't know.
That's a separate discussion.
I'll think about that before I answer that.
You should ask Tim Pool because Tim Pool says they should all be going to jail for seditious conspiracy.
Hey, dude, there's a lot easier of an argument to build for seditious conspiracy there than for recently in Georgia.
But now let me ask you one thing.
Let me ask you one thing.
Because I do want to get to a bunch of the superchats.
How does it feel to be lied to?
Like, straight up lied to by your political party?
And I know you'll ask me the same question, but how does it feel to be lied to?
It doesn't feel good to be lied to.
You'd have to point to a specific instance for me to tell you.
Good for another four years.
Joe Biden's senility is absolutely not an issue.
I saw you tweeting out, you know, Biden for president, and then three weeks later, sorry, we lied to you.
How does it feel to be treated like an idiot?
Yeah, I think that there were people who lied to the American people about...
No, but you were lied to.
You believed it.
You pushed their lie.
How does it feel that they lied to you and that you were an idiot that fell for their lies?
We thought that Biden had cognitive decline, but I think that there was a withholding of information about the level of it from insiders.
You're pleading ignorance that there was not sufficient information for you to know that he was in severe cognitive decline.
Yeah, so I don't think that right now he has dementia.
I think he has serious levels of cognitive decline.
When did you realize that?
Maybe I'm wrong about you.
Maybe you genuinely thought...
I mean, you can watch my reaction to the first debate, because I've streamed it.
You can see my face when he starts talking, and I'm like, that's my face when he starts talking.
Because you had no indication that he was mentally ill.
Well, I knew that he was...
I did not know the extent to which...
You can write off certain situations, right, Viva?
Sorry. People will agree with this, that you can write off certain situations.
Oh, he was bad.
I just want to finish my thought real quick.
You can write off certain things.
Oh, he's on the stage, this or that.
But this was a specific event that he prepared for specifically and that he worked.
He had like a 10-day period where he was just focusing on this.
And for him to have all that lead time, all that prep time, and to come off as bad as he did, yeah, I think that it was more serious than we were led on to believe.
And I don't appreciate that.
I don't appreciate that we were lied to.
Let me ask you this.
It's not an accusatory question, and there's no but.
You get revenue from your social media, and you actually have a job as a lawyer.
A little bit.
I got like $20 from Twitter.
And you're a practicing lawyer.
That's my main source of revenue.
You don't get anything directly or indirectly from Kamala or Democrats.
Zero. So I could even tell you, I make like a couple hundred bucks probably a month on Twitch and 20 to 50 bucks on Twitter.
That's it.
I don't care about the amount.
And I'll believe you.
I wouldn't necessarily believe in the Krasnestein's.
So you're not getting paid for this.
You're doing it out of the goodness of your own heart.
I love this country, Viva.
The emptiness of your own head.
You love this country.
I love this country, and I don't want to see it go back to the hands of someone who tried to steal our democracy.
And you might not agree with me on those facts, but that is the truth.
That might be the truth.
That might be your truth.
Do you hear that noise, by the way?
Just let me know if anybody...
It's a vacuum cleaner.
It doesn't matter.
Okay, good.
Oh, I have, like, construction as well.
No, no, it's mine.
I just heard a little buzzing.
I don't know if it's going through the mic.
That may be the truth.
I mean, that may be your truth, and I'm using the your truth, not the...
Yeah, I do appreciate it.
But it might also be just an absolutely untenable truth to assert.
I mean, it's an amazing thing.
Like, the fear-mongering for Trump, I never understand it, because the best anybody ever comes up with is the best, and I can steel man it, January 6th insurrection, in quotes.
It's the best.
He left the office.
They call him a tyrant.
They call him a Hitler.
If he ever gets into power, he's going to do exactly what the Democrat, DOJ, whatever, is doing right now.
Set aside all of this.
Do you have a problem?
No, no.
He's going to drop his own cases.
You agree?
He'll immediately drop the criminal investigations.
First of all, all of those cases should be dropped.
You think that he should?
Absolutely. E. Jean Carroll's case should be overturned.
Leticia James' case should be dropped.
They should be sanctioned.
She should be disbarred.
And Judge Engeron should be disbarred.
Marchand should be disbarred.
And that case should be tossed as well.
Everyone is corrupt except for Trump.
I mean, it's crazy.
You know what's crazy?
That the man made it for 50 years in New York real estate and nothing hit the fan until two years ago.
Isn't that crazy?
I don't agree with that.
He had lawsuits up the ass the entirety of his life.
He's a scammer.
First of all, that's a conclusion.
I won't ask if you have any unpaid bills, but I suspect most of us have unpaid bills.
I guess, in a sense, unpaid bills.
No, no, I know.
And, you know, everybody's like, oh, you're bankrupt at six companies.
Anybody who's been in small business or entrepreneurial business knows that, you know, if you don't go bankrupt, you're not trying.
And to think that you're going to shame Trump, people don't realize that that doesn't resonate.
I didn't mention bankruptcy.
That's not what I'm talking about.
No, I know, I know.
I was thinking more like Kamala Harris, which she said yesterday.
But let me ask you this, because I genuinely think all that you and every one of your ideological ilk have to rely on is the fear that Trump will be worse.
How do you feel about the border?
Do you acknowledge that there's a border problem?
There's a border crisis, yes.
When did you first acknowledge that?
I think when after the Title 42 was stopped related to the health exclusions.
At the border, you saw a big rise, a huge rise in unlawful crossings and in border stoppings.
When was that?
Give me a date.
I believe the end of Title 42 was in late 2022 or early 2023.
Something like that.
It might have been last year, in fact.
As a mere statistical fact, the numbers have been...
You know, relatively sky high for the last, say, three and a half years.
It's following a trend that was increasing under Donald Trump.
All right.
And yeah, I mean, he had...
And you agree with this because you agree that there was a border crisis under Donald Trump the entirety of his time.
There was a border issue that he was trying to resolve, but he was being sued.
When did it become a crisis in your mind?
Well, when it...
I don't know.
When Biden got an office.
That's what it feels like.
That's what it feels like.
That's what the numbers...
I just have to go get the numbers.
That's when the numbers spike.
Period. They were spiking under Trump.
Let me phrase it.
Spiking is subjective.
My spiking is comparative.
Comparatively speaking, they spiked under Biden compared to Trump.
Period. They comparatively spiked?
Yes. If you say spiked in the abstractum, it doesn't mean anything.
I don't think it relates to genuine changes in policy.
This administration is deporting record numbers of people, and the border is not quote-unquote open.
How many illegal immigrants do you think have crossed?
This year?
No, say in the last three and a half years, four years.
Since Biden took office.
Probably a couple million.
I think that's wrong.
How many illegals crossed under...
I think the official number is 10 million.
That's just my estimate.
I think the official number is 10 million.
10 million crossings?
Even according to Snopes, it says 7.2 million.
And that was in February.
So we're at 10...
7.2 migrants have illegally crossed U.S. border under Biden.
That's crossing the border also.
That doesn't include planes.
Exceeding the...
They say it's true.
So we're at 10 million.
Then it's more than I thought.
Then it's more than I thought.
Isn't that a problem, though?
It's not more than you thought.
It's more than you knew.
I mean, isn't that a problem?
I was just estimating.
I didn't know it offhand.
I know that there are about a million.
You were off by 400%.
I was within the same order of magnitude.
I'm talking about in the realm of millions.
Two and a half million to ten million is off by an order of magnitude.
I thought it was seven.
No, it was seven point change in February.
That's a year ago now.
Okay, so you think that there were three million in the last year?
Do the math.
Maybe. I'm not sure.
I don't have a high degree of confidence.
That number is wildly.
Below is wildly underestimated.
So it's just an amazing thing to not have issues where you lack, you know, basic factual information.
And that's a problem.
Come on, bro.
I was giving you my good faith, you know, two million.
That's what I thought was the case.
No, but it's a very interesting thing.
I'm wrong, I'm wrong.
It's very interesting that that's your reflexive.
It's sort of like I'm wrong sometimes also where because I think something's a bigger issue, I will over inflate the number.
I genuinely was trying to be honest and be like, I guess a few million.
Because I know that there are, that's the order of magnitude of like deportations and exclusions and that kind of thing.
That's what my estimate was based on.
It's a problem.
I acknowledge it's a problem.
And guess what?
Joe Biden had a plan to try to solve it and Trump fucked it over.
So what am I to make of that?
What was that plan?
The bipartisan border bill?
Yes, that plan was called the bipartisan border bill.
And the one thing that I'll definitely criticize Joe Biden on is his illegal order at the moment purporting to close the border in certain respects.
I believe that to be an illegal order, and I condemn him for it.
So yeah, I think there's a lot of issues with the border.
You need Congress to solve it.
Just out of curiosity, it's a bipartisan border bill.
Why is there $60 billion in Ukraine coming right back to the beginning?
Why is there $60 billion in foreign aid to Ukraine in it?
Come on, bro.
You serious right now?
I'm getting serious.
It was packaged together with the foreign aid.
It was part of a package, but we did that independently.
And so clearly, you guys did more about the foreign aid than you did about the border bill.
You did it independently afterwards.
My issue with the border bill was twofold.
It's like fivefold.
A, it was not a border bill.
It was a foreign aid bill.
B, it ratified illegal crossings up to 5,000 a day, which is 1.8 million.
Why did the Border Patrol support it?
First of all, I don't know that they did, and I don't care if they did.
They did!
They're public about it.
But here, Pisco, I don't care, I don't know, and I don't care if that's the case.
You don't care what the Border Patrol says about border safety.
People can make bad decisions.
Okay. And they might also be...
They hate Biden, by the way.
Border Patrol hates Biden.
And ask them if they understood the border bill.
Ask them if they understood that the border bill gave...
I presume the Border Patrol aren't...
I wouldn't presume anything.
Where are they getting their information from?
You acknowledge that the bipartisan border bill gave exclusive jurisdiction to the D.C. courts to adjudicate...
I acknowledge that, yes.
That's a good thing or a bad thing?
Yeah, I think it's good.
I'm tired of having these contradictory...
Injunctions from circuits.
And I think that it only relates to things related to the calling of the emergency.
Only immigration.
No, no, no.
Not only immigration.
It's specific.
It relates to the provisions of the emergency, the declarations of emergency.
And that makes sense.
If you're having a declaration of emergency, you want one place to adjudicate those emergencies.
Where else are you going to do it?
Fifth Circuit?
That's what you want.
I would go with the status quo before giving exclusive jurisdiction to D.C. So everyone can have jurisdiction over the emergency thing.
Does that make sense to you?
Let me ask you another thing.
Do you think that was good or bad for Biden to give exclusive jurisdiction to D.C. courts?
I think it was good.
I think it was a good idea to have one court system to it.
We agree.
No, no, I didn't say one court system.
I said that court system.
So you agree it's good for Biden?
It's a power that he didn't have before.
Because, one, D.C. has some of the smartest judges, as you know, that circuit.
It's a fast track.
Most of the major issues are going to be heard to the Supreme Court anyway, which is very conservative, and so it's not a big deal.
Do you think that the D.C. court system is mildly partisan?
Mildly partisan.
They tend to lean more left than the Fifth Circuit, for sure.
That's your question.
Do you believe that the D.C. court system is corrupt?
No. Judicially corrupt, I should say.
I don't know what the distinction is between judicially corrupt and corrupt.
It would go to political bias and political prejudice.
I'm not sure.
Do you think the D.C. is more pro-Trump or more pro-Biden?
They're definitely more pro-Biden.
Okay. They voted like 80-90% for Biden.
Okay. And now you also agree that until that bipartisan border bill was proposed, D.C. did not have exclusive jurisdiction as was proposed in that bill.
So it would have given D.C. more powers than it had before.
Okay, but it would only relate, again, to the provision of that bill.
Yeah, so other immigration issues would still go up the normal process.
It was just related to the emergency stuff.
I'm not sure about that.
Or the constitutionality of the statute itself.
So that's mildly broader than what you just said.
Yeah, it's mildly broader.
Let me see here.
You think Kamala Harris is a decent candidate?
I think she's an excellent candidate.
Now, do you mind if I go?
I don't ordinarily do that.
I want to do all the super chats and the tips.
Yeah, go for it.
I'm leaving probably 20 minutes.
And if you don't mind, I'll stay on afterwards.
I'm going to go to my local studio.
This is a lot of fun, though.
And I really enjoy talking to people I disagree with.
I think it's more fun than just being sometimes with all the...
I have this panel called Lib and Learn.
And I really enjoy Lib and Learn.
But sometimes we just agree on everything.
And so I like having these kinds of interactions.
I think living and learning are...
I don't really think along the left and right paradigm as much as I say I do.
I appreciate that.
But I do think it's red-pilled and blue-pilled.
I'm assuming that you're of good faith and that you're not doing this for attention and you're not doing it just for the sake of playing devil's advocate.
So I'm not attributing ill intent or monetary intent.
I just think you're wildly wrong.
I think you're wrong on your own premises.
Pisco is bad.
You see, I'm...
Pisco is bad.
Ask Rob Knorr or just watch the recent eight-person debate panel with Andrew Wilson.
Don't be offended.
I'm not watching it because I'm...
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I'm out.
Oh, that was from...
I'll go as fast as I can here.
Contemporary compendium.
We've got old guy's opinion.
Go commie, comrade, comma.
Timmy tampon balls, no walls.
Okay, that's funny stuff.
Hunter Biden used Air Force 2 to attend China meeting.
That's from Wuxia.
You're right.
But that was a separate issue.
Admittedly, he didn't use Air Force Two to go to Ukraine because he never went to Ukraine.
Olga's opinion.
Conjuring up change charges and prosecuting Trump in New York, Georgia, and Florida.
None of this is...
There is no there there.
Then let's withhold paper proper secret service in June.
All criminal political by the administration.
I happen to agree with that.
FBI knew it was real.
51 intel experts.
We got that one, too.
Yep. They're not currents, though.
Some of them were, but bottom line, they used intelligence to pressure social media to suppress the story.
That alone is election interference.
Or good politics, depending on who you ask.
In Ukraine, is Ukraine part of Interpol?
If not, then they have no obligation to cooperate with any other country's law enforcement agency.
I don't know if it is.
Is it part of Interpol?
I'm not sure, but the DOJ was interfacing with the Prosecutor General's Office after the expulsion of Yanukovych.
Yeah, but it was only a question of part of Interpol.
I don't know if you're going to find that out fast enough.
It was only a question of where you go if you want to invest.
Yes, Ukraine is a member of Interpol since 1992, so that resolves that one.
Let's go down here.
Red herring argument expert from the lefty lawyer.
He's a lawyer.
I presume he's a real lawyer.
I'm a lawyer.
Bad faith.
It's not...
Okay, bad faith through and through.
I'm not going into faith.
I'm not going into intentions, although I will call it out when I...
Quit yelling Harris capital.
Okay, dude.
This is my crowd, so they're probably not going to be very friendly.
Listen, I love it.
I am not offended.
You guys talk all your shit.
Neither am I. I know that wherever you're streaming this, people are probably calling me all sorts of names.
Yeah, they all like me, so...
This guy is a Nimrod smart enough to question, but not smart enough to understand.
Oh, see, I love those comments, because those are like...
You know he's a real one.
He can fight with Viva.
Wow, what a gotcha, Harry.
Okay, come on.
Let me go.
Quit! Patting yourself on the back, cat boy.
One old guy's opinion.
He's gone crazy.
His daddy at the time was VP.
He was directed by President Obama to oversee Ukrainian affairs.
It is possible, plausible for the power companies to hire the VP's son on the board.
That's all you got.
Possible, plausible, maybe.
I call it patent-in-your-face corruption.
Hillary Clinton wiped hard drives, smashed servers.
Yep, got nothing.
What was the purpose of the shell companies then?
Stephanie Hall asks.
Fair question.
The shell company, Hunter Biden shell companies?
Yeah. I mean, I have to refresh my memory on that offhand.
I'm not sure where- There were different entities for different purposes.
Some were for private ventures.
Sometimes you have shell entities for- For different investments.
He had different things going on.
That's how you would structure it if it were a legitimate business.
Comer has shell entities.
Trump has shell entities.
Everybody has corporate tax reasons.
As a nurse, I'm concerned why are Pisco's eyes crossed?
They're not crossed.
Why are they crossed at the start of the discussion?
Destiny, you come in later.
Right now, it's mail time.
I don't know what that is.
The political coup d'etat was overseen by VP Biden in 2014.
That's beyond the scope of what we're talking about.
Yeah, we did not get into Maidan and all that stuff.
Prosecuting over...
Okay. Old God's opinion.
Thank you for the support.
There's a lot of...
Harris Catboy is an asset.
Okay. He loves you.
He loves you.
Bride Pie.
Leftist logic.
Challenging our control over the levers of power equals insurrection.
I agree with that assessment as well.
Contemporary compendium.
Pisco is...
A god, but strangely- Oh, I call myself a god, and that's- Andrew Wilson.
Well, that's very sacrilegious.
I'm not running from Andrew.
What are you talking about?
He's making me pay him.
I don't know who Andrew is, but military coup, meaning that which Pelosi and Bowser purposely set up to try and frame Trump- Oh my god, you don't even believe that.
No, well, I do believe that.
I believe that if he called in the national- You believe that they set it up, that it was a setup?
Well, it was a let it happen on purpose, at the very least.
I mean, did you ever, you know who Tarek Johnson is?
I don't know who Tarek Johnson is.
He's one of the Capitol Police officers.
He has a different theory as to why it was a let it happen on purpose, whether or not it's negligence or incompetence.
I think it's malice and that this was a long play.
Let it happen.
Egg them on.
Ray Epstein.
Oh my god.
Dude, we can have a separate discussion.
Pisco's reading response.
Andrew Wilson smoked his dude in the debate the other night.
I totally wiped the floor with Andrew.
There is no such thing as your truth, my truth, only the truth.
I agree with that.
Old guy.
Old guy's opinion.
Ask a Border Patrol agent when the numbers grew compared to Trump.
No, they are not deporting, but giving out record numbers of notice to appear.
I think that's correct as well.
Hang on a second.
This is stupid.
You get a notice to appear for any kind of initiation of removal proceedings.
So, of course, they're giving record out numbers of notices to appear.
There are record numbers of deportations.
It's true.
Get over it.
I don't know what the record numbers of deportations are.
I just know there's record numbers of entries and we're seeing the commensurate problems with that.
Oh, let's just do a...
I don't want to keep you here.
I got more.
No, that's cool.
I have probably eight more minutes.
Okay, good.
Border mic drop.
I'm going to go see what that is afterwards.
Snuggle Struggle says, Pisco admits to Biden's decline.
That's a start.
People were pointing out that back in 2018, his classified dog issue.
Here's what I don't understand about that real quick, just because I acknowledge that he's declining.
I don't think that he's a mental patient like that, but if your point is that it was so obvious that he was an incompetent for so long, then how can you say that they were hiding, right?
That's what I mean.
No, no, because they were lying to you.
I think that there was some deceit going on and withholding of information.
I do think that, but I don't think that it's this obvious thing that he was a mental patient.
You're admitting that the party that you're supporting...
I think the Democrats were duped by people as well in the inner circle.
I think that's true.
I'd just say, by the way, you scratch your face.
Body language-wise, I'd say you don't believe that.
I don't want to presume and say...
I 100% believe that based on the reaction.
Let me take this out so it doesn't...
Hold on, I'm going to come back to this.
If you believe that there were people within the Biden administration that were duped, you're either passing the buck.
Who was doing the duping then?
Kamala Harris?
I think his inner circle.
Do you think Kamala Harris came from last year?
I don't think Kamala wasn't in the inner circle, to be honest with you.
I think if there's a group of three or four...
I think people are just going to say this is two-dimensional thinking.
Give me my opinion.
It's an ill-founded one, and that's one that's untenable by the facts, but it doesn't matter.
That's my opinion.
Your shipment delivered yesterday from King of Biltong.
By the way, Pisco, you might like this if you like Biltong.
South African beef jerky.
It's like prosciutto made out of beef.
Biltong, I got it.
I got a bottle of brandy.
I'm such an idiot.
I took a picture and I wanted to send you the video yesterday.
King of Biltong sent me a bottle of brandy, which is delicious.
A little slice for the long piece of meat and a biltong.
It's flipping delicious.
Period. Period.
Hell yeah.
It's amazing.
I won't mention our products because I don't want certain soy.
Let me read it because it's funny.
I don't want a certain soy-infused people to have access to that kind of power.
I will just say, happy Viva, happy Friday.
It's delicious protein, B12 zinc.
It's amazing.
I can never read the red on black.
It says...
Mighty Steph is now a member.
Welcome to the party.
Rivka the Gay Jamer.
Pisco, do you believe that the executive and judicial branches of the states have the authority to change or create new election procedures?
It depends.
If you're referencing state authorities, then we have the case.
It's called, oh my God, this recent one about the independent state legislature theory that says if they're authorized to do so by state constitutional law or by state legislature, that yes, they're within their authority to do so.
And that's just a matter of state law and that the phrase...
State legislature in the presidential electors clause does not mean and only the state legislature.
It just means using the legislative authority of the state.
Regarding J6, Bowser and Pelosi both refused to secure the Capitol to try and frame Trump.
They definitely wanted Trump to...
Oh, dude, that's 100%.
Big time lies.
Truth. All right, now, let me see if I got...
The last one, which I can't bring up is I can't share the screen all that easily.
Let's see if there's any questions in our locals community.
And locals, I'm going to come to you after Pisco checks out.
Sammy says five bucks.
Well, I don't know.
I'd like to go back affording groceries and my homeowner's insurance, which has now doubled.
That's not Biden's fault.
That's global inflation.
We have now brought it back down thanks to the work of the Fed and Biden's great economic policies.
But Pisco, you're not even parroting the talking points that they told you to parrot.
It was Putin inflation.
It was Putin inflation.
No, I think that exacerbated things a little bit, but there was inflation before that.
So it's not Putin's fault.
But they blame Putin.
The administration blamed Putin.
That's a bit of a talking point, and you guys have to know that it's a bit of a song and dance.
And don't be so naive all the time.
I know you guys are smarter than this.
So you're saying that they're lying to you, but you shouldn't be so naive to believe them.
It absolutely is the case that the invasion of Ukraine exacerbates food prices and energy prices, but it's not the root cause of the global cost of living prices.
The invasion of Ukraine or the sanctions that Biden imposed afterwards?
Both. Ukraine is a source of energy and food, and the war necessarily implicates their ability to export it, and additionally, the sanctions limit the Russian food and energy exports as well, so both.
You've now at three times acknowledged that your own party is lying to you.
No. Someone tricked someone within the party as to Biden's mental decline.
I agree with that.
It's a talking point to blame the inflation on Putin, but they did it anyhow, so they're treating you like an idiot.
At what point do you get a little offended that your party that you're supporting continues to treat you like a gullible idiot?
Bro! Trump just said that they're eating cats and dogs and pets in Springfield.
Are you shitting me?
Are we really having this conversation because they're emphasizing the Russian thing?
We'll have it.
Do you know that the city manager said that back in March?
I can't with this.
I can't with this.
Are you telling me that you believe that Trump wasn't lying when he said that?
Not only do I not believe that Trump was lying when he said it, I believe that people were saying it because I got the video on the backdrop if you want to see it.
In March, the city manager was talking about...
Let me see here.
The editorial?
I have too many windows open.
They're eating the dogs.
They're eating the cats.
They're eating...
Not this one.
Holy shit, you had it ready.
No, no, no.
I bring up the...
Let me see which one it is, for goodness sake.
The problem is I have too many windows open.
It was a city manager who said, Ron, you know I'm hearing this, and he says, why don't they want to talk about it?
Hearsay, Your Honor.
It might be hearsay, but hearsay is still evidence, Your Honor.
It might not be the best direct evidence, but it's still evidence.
Hold on.
Olivia Juliana, not her.
Embedded. I want to read a comment from...
Wait, I think it's fair for me to read a comment from my...
Oh, please.
Bring it up.
Share the screen if you want.
Wait, wait, wait.
Before you bring it up, let me just play this.
Let me just play this.
And, you know, culture is 180 degrees different than what they're used to.
And one of the things that I heard that bothered me very much, I've actually had quite a few people contact me here lately.
Quite a few people.
Is some pretty horrid things occurring to a domesticated animal in the neighborhood.
We've had some stuff in the park.
The ducks.
Again, they're being taken advantage of for reasons other than...
You shake your head, Brian.
No, no.
I asked me if there was proof.
People that have confided in me have asked me for anonymity.
I can't give their names up.
I mean, we haven't seen the proof that you're talking about.
Oh, by the way, he's heard about it too.
This debunks you.
No, it doesn't debunk me at all.
You said that Trump was lying.
Yeah, they've been making these kind of fake allegations for a little bit.
So you're saying Trump is lying, but there's video evidence of people complaining in city council meetings where even the guy, whoever Brian was, says, I've heard the same thing.
Do you think it's true or not?
It is hearsay.
So this is my comment.
This is the one comment I'll read.
For fuck's sake, Pisco, stop being so fucking nice to this asshole.
Sorry. I just felt that it was, you know, we have to have some parody.
If they're calling me little soy boy, they get to call you an asshole.
I've been called worse.
I know.
I know you have.
I think that if you're going to compare lies, I do think that some people in his inner circle were misrepresenting the level of cognitive decline.
I think that's true.
I don't think that the Russia thing is a lie.
I think that the emphasis is a bit of a song and dance in the sense that it's signaling to their global partners.
It is true, but the true basis of inflation is really the COVID lockdowns and the supply chain crisis is related to COVID.
Gant it in our local screen.
He says, by Cohen's own admission, he paid Stormy Daniels of his own volition and went to Trump for reimbursement.
I think that's also true because he mortgaged his house or something.
He admitted on the stand that the trial that he was stealing from Trump and that the funds came from Trump's trust fund.
The fact that he's admitting that he's stealing, that only works if it's a reimbursement, as I told him.
We disagree with that argument.
So I have a paralyzed dog and I know that I've gone too long on a stream.
What's his name?
Pudge is the paralyzed one, and then I got a blind one who's sitting on my feet here.
Oh my god.
Does the blind one have that little circle thing?
No, because...
He was blind from birth, so he's totally...
He bumps into...
Well, not because of the hair, but you can see the...
It's basically cataracts.
Paralyzed one just, you know, when she decides it's time to shit, she shits.
I want to say thank you so much for having me.
It was fun.
Obviously, our respective audiences are going to be frustrated at the intransigence of the other, and I think we both probably think that we are as right as I think I am, so I presume you think you're...
But it's good to have the dialogue, and it's good to keep it open, and I love discussing people who disagree with me, and this was that.
Well, I love it, because the internet will go...
Fact check.
But the thing is, at the end of the day, we agree on the facts, and then it's just a question of what conclusions we both draw from this.
I'm not okay with being lied to it.
So, okay, I won't make that joke.
But Pisco, I mean, just for anybody on my side who wants to follow you, what's your...
It's Pisco Liddy on...
Twitter and on, or X, and Twitch.
And you are Viva Lafray?
No, not Viva Lafray.
That's not bad.
Viva Fry.
Viva Fry.
V-I-V-A-F-R-E-I.
Sorry. Okay.
V-I-V-A-F-R-E-U-I.
I'm from Montreal, so it's like, I do go by Viva Lafray every now and again.
Okay. My real name is David Fryheit, and I just picked him.
Awesome. Awesome.
Well, thank you so much for the conversation.
It was a pleasure, and much love to your audience.
Go. All right.
Have a good day.
Peace out.
Bye. All right, that was fine.
I'm not done reading the...
I got a bunch of stuff we'll talk about in our after parties.
Let me go up to the top here of the...
Oh, I'm sweating like a pig here.
Encrypt this.
Viva, do you have an update on Fannie Willis?
Not sure I follow the impact of the judge's order from yesterday.
Does that mean that she's off the case or is it approved?
So the yesterday's case...
Hold on, hold on.
Oh, God.
He's fixing the AC.
Okay. Sorry about that.
Yeah, I have to go catch up on that.
They held her in contempt, and I'm not sure what the impact is.
Also, there's more news on the lack of candor on the financials from her office.
The female attorney forgot her name, kicked her ass in court yet again.
Oh, um...
Ashley... Ashley?
Is it Ashley Merchant?
Hold on, have I just put together that Merchant and Merchant...
Ashley... Ashley?
Oh my goodness.
I've never realized that the lawyer's name is Ashley Merchant and that's the Judge Merchant in...
I'm such an idiot.
How have I never pieced that together?
I just pieced it together now.
Okay. Denise Ann 2. Joe Biden literally stole the 2020 election.
Pisco, you should really look into the evidence that has been gathered.
To prove the 20 election was fraudulent.
It'll come out in 10 years.
They'll write a book about it.
It's going to be amazing.
So there's more on regurgitating left-wing lies.
How about Biden as VP demanding a lawyer be fired for investigation?
Oh, we got that.
So Obama and Biden threatening to withhold aid for foreign policy is okay, but Trump doing it is a crime.
We got to the logical impasse there.
He says Trump didn't have a lawful reason to do it, but Biden did.
I mean, that's the truism.
That's the logical circle.
What about making the same process?
What about making sure the prosecutor going after his son was fired in Ukraine?
Maria 36. Finboy Slick.
I think Viva finally memorized the serenity prayer and he was looking for a way to test himself and us in the process.
Gantet says the same DOJ, FBI and other officials in collusion with the Obama admin and Hillary Clinton that lied to illegally get FISA warrants in 2016, arguing veracity of a litigator based on corrupt officials calling on official corrupt.
How... Then we got Gantet.
It doesn't work the way you want it to work is because most of us are capable of rational thought.
Gantet says, Destiny is a subhuman piece of excrement that ridiculed a firefighter who was murdered.
That's why I'm not entertaining discussion for his political side.
Supporting that dirtbag as you have makes you worse than Destiny.
Supporting that dirtbag.
I didn't support Destiny, Gantet.
I don't think I supported this guy, but unless you're talking about him, but whatever.
He never tried to change the results.
He wanted it to be properly investigated.
Says Coddlefish agreed.
Then he sent to Pisco needs to look into the 1960 election when the Democrats had alternative electors and the judge said it was good that they did or they would have been no legal way to send different electors.
Yep. Steven Britton says, check your Twitter, DXM.
I have put some longer comments for you there.
I've had to turn this stream off because I couldn't take his insulting you and your intelligence anymore.
Don't worry, I'm thick-skinned, but I'm going to go see what you wrote.
Chat representative here, you've made a reasonable case that you're more informed than the typical liberal, but you've only demonstrated that you still know less than most of us here.
Your qualifications for God status are rejected on standing, says Finboy Silic.
I think I got to the rest of these.
I want to see Pisco debate Ivan Raiklin.
And then we got Gigams says, this was a fun one.
Kennedy on the stage with Tulsi talking about how he met Trump.
Okay, people.
I think we're going to go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
Before we do that, and I always forget to do this.
I haven't yet forgot.
There's too much stuff to do.
It just never ends.
It never ends.
Viva Fry, if you want to get some merch, people.
Make sure that you have liked, shared, and subscribed.
Before you go anywhere, hit the notification bell so that you get notifications whenever I go live, etc., etc.
If you want to get merch, people, fightmerchatvivafry.com.
You can get the Viva Barnes thingy, sticker things.
We got, what else we got down here?
It all goes down.
It goes on forever.
Don't vote for an idiot.
I'm sure, maybe I should send one of those to Pisco.
Maybe I'll do that.
All right, and if you want to support us at vivabarneslaw.locals.com, let me give everybody the link there.
Locals, because that's where we're going right now.
Holy crap, apples.
Yeah, that was fun.
Viva. Your posture this whole time has been berating, not debating.
Oh, hold on a second.
Ferris Oxide says, Viva, your posture this whole time has been berating, not debating.
This isn't how you change minds.
I know you can make stronger points.
Be kind.
Dismissed! Thank you for the super chat, but no.
I think at some point you have to have humor and call unsubstantiated and untenable ideas unsubstantiated and untenable.
Deportation by ICE and returns by CBP are not the same.
Pisco stop line.
Deportation by ICE and returns by Custom Border Patrol.
Interesting. Okay.
You need to get Rob Norah in it.
Okay. So here's what we're doing now.
The noise was coming from my place because we finally have the air conditioning fixed.
I can feel it now.
Come on over to vivabornslaw.locals.com.
I just got the last episode of our Sunday night show on podcast because I forgot to do it.
Because when I tried to do it at first, it kept on uploading a different file and not the show.
And then by Tuesday, I forgot to do it.
Everything is on Podbean.
I'm starting a Spotify like ASAP.
So there's that.
But for the time being, we're going to end on YouTube.
We're going to end on Rumble.
We're going to end on Twitter.
Come over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com for the after party.
And we have some stuff to talk about there.
So link to Viva Barnes.
If you're not coming, Sunday night show.
It's Friday.
Sunday night show is going to be awesome.
And ending on YouTube.
Now. I'll probably put out a video this afternoon.
Ending on Twitter.
Now. And Rumble.
I'd love to stay on Rumble, but come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
Make sure that you hit the thumbs up before you leave.
Viva, as of nine months ago, we had 13 million illegal immigrants.
This genius and his assumption that he pushes his fact without any chance he gets...
Doesn't allow him to really accept being wrong.
Then we got border mic drop.
What's this?
Oh, from CanCon's in the house.
Hold on.
Why am I not sharing this?
I meant to share this.
Hold on.
Share screen.
Share screen.
We got CanCon.
Is that the official CanCon?
Okay, so let me see what this was here.
That's my link here.
to see what this i wait down done what done what you know link oh Border mic drop.
And explain this email two weeks before the SOB was fired.
Yeah, let me see this here.
Bada bing, bada boom.
We're going to look at these over in Locals, people.
That's Twitter.
And let me get the second one before we end here.
CanCon, if that's you, because it has one end and not two.
That was a great one we had yesterday.
And we'll do it again.
Okay, here we go.
And I'm going to get this Twitter one up here.
And bada bing.
Okay, now we're going to end.
On Rumble.
Thank you all for being here.
If you're not coming, over to Locals.
If you're coming, you can come over.
It's not for supporters only.
It's for everybody because there is some stuff that's only for supporters there.
But try to be as democratized as possible in the uplifting of the general aggregate population to the above average element of it.
Ending on Rumble.
I will see you all this afternoon.
I'm definitely going to do a car vlog because there's a lot of stuff that I didn't get to talk about today that I have on the backdrop.
So, Rumble, if you're not coming, see you Sunday or see you tomorrow.
Locals. Here I come.
▲
Export Selection