All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 4, 2024 - Viva & Barnes
01:35:59
Interview with Douglass Mackey - a.k.a Ricky Vaughn! CONVICTED for a MEME! Viva Frei Live!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
People who fancy themselves as gods.
This is idolatry of oneself.
This is self-worship right here.
I've been voting for 64 years.
How many times did you vote Republican in those 64 years?
It's important.
They're telling us something important.
These aren't soft people.
Oh, no.
Look at this performative rubbish.
This man...
Just came back from the doctor.
I'm going to live.
I was not told to calm down.
I was not told to stop drinking caffeinated beverages.
I'm just going to let it play.
I'm going to shut my big mouth.
They're governors, generals, standing up against the leader of the party they spent their lives advocating for.
For many of them, this will be the first time they've ever voted for someone who doesn't have an R next to their name.
Because they know this really matters.
I can't.
I can't.
I'm sorry.
The intro video is over.
These people are performative, self-idolatry people who fancy themselves as gods.
I had something to say about that.
Oh, yeah, in the chat.
Someone said he got paid seven million bucks.
I don't know if that could be true.
So until I know that to be true, I'll Google that while we're, you know, maybe later tonight.
They are pathetic and desperate.
The point that I wanted to make with Harrison Ford coming out with his best performance ever, they're going to give Oscar awards for the best Kamala Harris endorsement.
This jackaninny is out there relying on the people who have been lying to the American people forever.
Oh, General Milley.
General Milley lied to the President of the United States.
That's seditious, treasonous behavior at best.
These are the people that Harrison Ford is listening to.
The ones who sabotage Trump's presidency are the ones coming out now and saying that they can't vote for Trump.
Of course they can't vote for Trump.
They'll be in jail if Trump gets into office and they actually prosecute people for crimes.
Real crimes.
Not fake crimes like making memes that upset lefty morons who don't know that you don't text in your vote.
Alright, we're going to get there in a second.
Douglas Mackey.
Ricky Vaughn, baby.
Ricky Vaughn is coming on, and we're going to...
I've wanted to do this one since we started covering the story.
I need to remember where Frank T.J. Mackey was from, because that's whenever I think of Douglas Mackey.
I think of Frank T.J. Mackey, and I think it was the movie.
Oh, someone on the chat will get to it.
But before we even get there, I've got to thank the two sponsors of today's show, Be Naked and Positive.
These are both Rumble Partners.
Parallel Economy, build it.
Spend your money with companies that respect you as a human.
Not even you as a client.
You as a human.
Be naked everywhere you look.
They're trying to sand down men's rough edges and serve up mediocrity like it's something to be proud of.
Low testosterone, weak mindset, participation trophies galore, and this idea that tough is outdated.
It's all part of the agenda, but if you're not interested in playing by those rules, you need naked organs.
100% pure bison organs in a supplement format.
Liver, kidney, heart.
The kind of primal fuel that built men into...
People who handle business without waiting for permission.
Loaded with B12, iron, zinc.
It's the ultimate kick in the ass to low testosterone and watered down sissy culture.
Stay strong.
Stay sharp.
Keep your edge.
Head over to BeNaked.com.
Use promo code VIVA and grab 15% off.
Time to rise above the noise and get back to being unstoppable and unapologetically male.
Masculine. Nothing to be ashamed of.
All to be proud of.
BeNaked.com.
Promo code VIVA.
And don't just take care of yourselves, people.
Take care of your pets.
Another parallel economy.
Partner of Rumble.
Positive. If you flipped over a bag of dog treats, the fine print reads like a bag of science, a fiction plot.
Artificial colors, cancer-causing preservatives, and fillers that are basically the hot dog water of the pet world.
B-H-A-B-H-T.
I can't even pronounce half of this nonsense.
It sounds like a lab experiment, not a snack.
That's why Positives Superfood Waffles are made with real, simple, human-grade ingredients, less than six in each recipe, zero artificial flavors, preservatives, and colors.
Blueberry Bliss combined with goat's milk, oats, blueberries, and bananas for brain-boosting treat, turmeric twist, and beetroot berry each use a blend of ingredients focused on joint health digestion and giving dogs the nutrients that they need.
We love our pets.
We love them as much as...
As much and sometimes more than people.
And when the government comes in and steals your squirrel and your raccoon and then euthanizes them, that can upset an entire nation.
And... Sorry, sidetrack.
If your dog needs a boost, get the bison topper made from bison organs to support healthy skin and muscle growth.
It's like a ribeye of the dog world.
Go to positive.
P-A-W-S-I-T-I-V-E dot com.
Promo code VIVA gets you 15% off.
Because if you're like me, you want your dogs to be happy, healthy, and around for as long as possible, even if they're paralyzed and blind, as both of my dogs respectively are.
Positive.com promo code VIVA for 15% off.
All right, dudes.
I've never...
Have I seen him in real life?
I've seen pictures of him.
He looks surprisingly nice for what the internet says.
Douglas Mackey, people.
You may know him from such memes as texted your vote to get four months in jail.
I shouldn't laugh at his misery, but we're going to have a bit of a laugh.
Douglas, you ready to come in?
Yes, I'm all set.
Thank you.
Sir. We've never met before, but it feels like I have been following you on the internet for many, many years now.
How goes the battle?
It's going well.
It's going fine.
We're just waiting on the court decision, but we can get on to all that.
That'll never end.
Douglas, first of all, I don't know you from a hole in the wall.
I feel like there's things that I should know about you, but I'm going to ask a lot of questions.
If any of them are too invasive, you'll let me know.
The first question is, you spell your name Douglas with two S's?
Yes, so that's a family thing.
It comes from my mom's side of the family.
If I may ask, because I love origin stories, and not to be invasive if you don't want to answer the questions, Douglas Mackey, is it of Scottish-Irish descent, or am I wrong?
Yes, Scotch-Irish.
That's a very Scottish name.
You can't get more Scottish than that.
You know, I've got some other things, German and Scandinavian and what have you, English, of course.
But yeah, that's...
The Douglas clan and the Mackie clan.
I love it.
Because, look, I've never seen it with two S's, but I had to look into it.
How many generations American?
Like, were you born?
Were you raised?
What's childhood like?
So, my family, parts of my family go way back to, you know, Pennsylvania, Dutch, German, and some of them were maybe more recent, like turn of the 19th century from Scots, like, you know, like you said, Scots-Irish.
But most of my ancestors go back pretty far in America.
I was born in D.C., but we moved to Colorado at a young age.
And then Vermont was where I spent the 2000s, which is basically middle school, high school.
I also went to college in Vermont.
And so that's sort of my background.
My parents were from Vermont.
That's why they moved back there.
Okay. Your parents are still alive?
Yes. Okay.
And won't ask siblings that...
Well, we're going to get into all this stuff because when you become prominent, I imagine the entire family starts to get harassed and berated.
May I ask how old you are?
35. 35 years young.
We're going to get into this.
We'll dabble back and forth.
But what were you doing in life when this all started?
How did the Ricky Vaughn...
Twitter handle come to be.
Was it always anonymous or was it always associated with you?
How did you get into that sphere in the first place?
It was always anonymous.
It goes back a long way to 2014.
I just signed up there to basically just read people's posts that were interesting.
I read a lot of politics, libertarian politics back in the day, going back to college.
And so I was just following those types of people.
And then sort of Trump came along and jumped onto that movement.
So that's kind of how it goes back to 2014, the Twitter account.
But I didn't really use it for a while until 2015, really.
Okay. And what are you doing in life at that point?
This is a decade ago.
So you're 27. I forgot how old you are now, but you're in your 20s at this point.
Yeah, I was pretty young, like 24, 25. So I was working and I lived in New York after college.
I moved to New York City and I spent about six or seven years there.
So I was working at a small economic consulting firm there in Brooklyn, New York, and I just living in New York City.
And this is kind of like just what I did on my free time a little bit.
All right.
What were you doing for work, if I may ask?
So I was, and I guess you could say I was an economist, but it was just sort of like an analyst.
We would do economic impact studies, mostly.
That was kind of what we did.
So I was sort of like an analyst there.
Okay, very cool.
At a, it doesn't matter size or whatever, but you're at a company where obviously you want to keep your internet activity disconnected from your professional life.
Right, yeah, yeah, absolutely.
It's a small company, very small.
How long had you been in New York for?
So I moved there in 2011.
Okay, so 2011.
And you studied economics where, again?
In New York or in Vermont?
In Vermont, Middlebury College.
I'm from Montreal, so I used to drive through there all the time, and Middlebury was not far away.
And when we turned 18, we drove to Montreal.
You didn't need to be 18 in Montreal.
You needed to look 14, and you'd get a pass, at least at the corner stores, with the depeneurs that we would call them.
So, family, conservative?
Have you always been conservative or not necessarily political?
So, my family is not necessarily very political.
I would say they're liberal to moderate, mostly.
And so, I was sort of, you know, sort of in that milieu.
So, in high school, middle school, kind of.
And Bush was president.
It was not very popular.
So, I leaned more towards liberal, but I was kind of open.
I sort of...
I was a little bit disillusioned by Barack Obama.
I didn't support Barack Obama.
I didn't support John McCain either.
That would have been the first election.
But I would have been eligible to vote.
I got more into libertarian politics at that point in time, and I followed Ron Paul for a while until they sort of moved over towards more conservative-leaning politics.
But, you know, still libertarian in the sense of American liberties and civil liberties and all that kind of stuff.
And economics, of course.
Very cool.
My goodness, the first election that you could have voted in would have been Obama.
That's right.
2008. Are you in New York at the time of Obama rising to power?
I was in college still in Vermont.
Okay. Vermont is...
Okay, well, I would make it into the transformation of Vermont because it's an interesting thing.
So you never...
Libertarian, not liberal, definitely not conservative.
Your folks would have been liberal and not libertarian?
Liberal to moderate, mostly moderate, I would say.
They're pretty down the middle.
Okay. And I've got to ask, because it's going to be on my mind, do you have siblings, if you are comfortable disclosing?
Yeah, I have two siblings, younger siblings.
Okay. I've got to know the toll that this has taken on a family.
I don't know.
Okay. All right.
So 2015 comes around.
By the way, Frank T.J. Mackey was Tom Cruise's character from...
Sorry. Was Tom Cruise's character from Magnolia, one of the greatest characters ever played.
I didn't know that.
Have you seen Magnolia?
No, no.
People will call it pretentious, and people will call me pretentious.
It's one of my top ten movies of all time.
It's beautiful, and Tom Cruise's character, it's the best character he's ever played.
And there's one scene, it's his best movie performance ever.
But I digress.
So 2015, you start getting into the internet meme world.
2016 comes around.
Now I'm trying to think of this.
Okay, so how do you develop such a massive following on Twitter?
So my whole thing was I kind of threw everything at the wall.
I posted frequently all the time.
And that was just sort of like I had a mix of humor.
And also just news, analysis, memes that were funny.
So it was just kind of like, you know, and I look back on it now, and I was younger at the time, but also sort of a, you know, Charlie Sheen's character in Major League sort of thing, where it was just like sort of peer id, like just throwing the fastball and not caring so much.
You know, now I say I've matured a little bit more, but back then it was kind of just like throwing the fastball wild pitches all over the place.
Okay, so edgy, we were all, I don't think I was actually guilty of too many edgy memes.
People forget what the internet was like back in 2010, where I don't hold very many old, edgy, or even offensive memes, tweets against people.
But it's funny how they can get weaponized when they want to get weaponized.
So the idea behind this particular tweet, the impugned tweet, does it give you distress to look at it?
No, it's fine.
You don't say like, What if I had just not done it?
Everything would be so much different.
This is the impugned tweet, or at least the image.
It says, at the Ricky Vaughn, thanks for spreading the word.
This might have been a retweet, but you put together this meme, and it says, save time, avoid the line, vote from home, text Hillary.
I don't even want to load it with my own opinion.
What motivated that, or what was the idea behind it?
What spawned the idea?
So the funny thing is that this was not even my idea.
I didn't create this meme.
I wish I had better Photoshop skills personally.
This was just a meme that was floating around on the internet.
When I saw it, I thought it was funny.
I saw it on 4chan because back then they had this thread called the Donald and I think they might still do.
But anyway, I was always looking for memes that I could post on Twitter.
So sometimes I would go on the Donald and find the memes that were funny.
And so that's what I did one day and two memes.
One was like that one in English and another was in Spanish.
And I just posted them.
And the funny thing is to this account.
My original account was suspended a month prior.
It had 62,000 followers.
That one was crazy.
The engagement was crazy.
My second account at that time only had 12,000 or 14,000, not as much engagement.
So this was definitely posted.
This was posted as an inside joke.
Maybe it can get retweeted and provoke the left or provoke the Clinton campaign.
Anytime you post something like that, there's an outside shot.
That it could provoke them?
Probably I wouldn't bet on it, but this one happened to do that.
Just for the sake of it, when did you get charged?
Oh, great question.
Seven days after Joe Biden was inaugurated.
So you got charged four years later for the tweet?
Exactly. Four years later, seven days after Biden was inaugurated, and there's a knock on the door at 7 a.m. from the FBI.
It's so...
I can swear.
It's fucking ridiculous because I'm sitting here.
I'm trying to refresh my memory on all this.
I'm like, oh no, this was the Biden election that you tweeted that.
But I remember Hillary Clinton's Facebook on the tweet and like, holy shit, they waited or waited.
They decided after four years to prosecute you for a 2016 tweet.
The election had long come and gone.
Do you remember the tweet from the...
She's an Asian stand-up comic and it's still up.
I'm trying to find her name.
Where she put up a video and said, hey guys, I've gone MAGA.
Do you remember what her name is offhand?
Yeah, it's Christina Wong.
Christina Wong.
I'm going to find that while we talk.
Not the Christina Wong from Breitbart.
Okay. That one's still up.
No charges.
So you are living life as though...
For four freaking years, you go living life and then you get a knock on the door the day after the inauguration of Joe Biden and it's the FBI.
Yeah, unbelievable.
FBI, 7 a.m., open up.
FBI, open up.
Okay. It's hard to believe.
No, no, it's hard to believe because it's so far away.
I don't want to ask what you thought they were there for because in a million years did you think they were there for the tweet.
It's not even on your radar.
No, exactly.
Exactly. And I thought, you know, they brought this new administration into power.
They're cracking down on all these J6ers running around arresting them.
And I was like, what is going on here?
You know, I was nowhere near the Capitol on January 6th.
So why are they at my door?
That is on.
Now it all actually makes a whole hell of a lot more sense.
This is the week after Biden.
This is after Jan 6th, where they're coming down, not just on Jan 6th.
OK, FBI comes.
Knocks on your...
7 o'clock in the morning?
7 o'clock in the morning.
What day of the week?
Oh, it could have been like a Wednesday.
Okay, not a Saturday or a Sunday?
No. Alright.
You open the door or do they kick it down?
No, I open the door.
And you're in pajamas.
Oh, God.
They come to your apartment because...
Oh, my goodness.
Okay. Sorry.
It's funny.
Your misery is going to be the source of at least some amusement for...
How many of them?
I had two roommates.
No, how many FBI agents?
So, good question.
This is funny.
There were two from New York who were investigating.
Two were from Florida.
I'm just going to grab my drink here.
Two were from Florida because I'm in Florida now.
I lived in Florida since 2018.
And so, you know, the local agents do the arrest.
And the New York ones just ride along.
And then they also bring along local law enforcement.
So there's like local police, five or six local police.
It's really quite a scene, a production.
And sadly, a few days prior to me getting arrested, some pedophile shot through the door and killed some Florida FBI agents.
So I think they were a little on edge.
But yeah, they came on the door, knocked seven, and there's like 10 people out there.
That is the most insane thing.
So this is 2021.
Hold on.
It's 2021.
Exactly. You're in Florida living a life that the account had still been active.
The Twitter account has still been active in the last four years?
No. So this Twitter account, it kind of came to an end in 2018.
I mean, my account was getting suspended back in the day.
Twitter accounts were getting suspended all the time.
But sort of, I ended the Ricky Vaughn persona in 2018.
Holy hell, they come...
Do they look like they feel ashamed of themselves to be there?
Or do they look like power-tripping Gestapo agents who are just reveling in what they're about to do to you?
You know, I really didn't understand.
And the Florida guys, I don't think they understood at all.
The two women who were wearing these, like, khaki pants and, like, Vans sneakers or something, they were totally sort of power-hungry.
They were really kind of mad crazy.
And, you know, it's funny.
We got the discovery from the FBI.
And then they actually left a few things out during the trial, so we were oppressing them.
They took pictures of, like, you know, religious things in my house.
And, like, they sat my roommates down on the couch.
They were like...
Oh, what do you know about this?
And my roommates, to their credit, refused to talk to these people.
But they were crazy.
And it's like, you're investigating this meme as if it's some kind of drug cartel or something.
And the funny thing is the guy, the chief prosecutor, he does white-collar crime, like fraud and stuff.
And he's digging through ridiculous memes and direct messages as evidence in trial.
And it's like, the whole thing is such a farce.
It was hard to believe.
Let me bring this up.
I found it.
I thought maybe she deleted it.
Hold on.
It's right here.
This is Christina Wong's video.
Here we go.
November 8, 2016.
Hey, everybody.
This is Christina Wong.
And I'm coming out.
I'm a Trump supporter.
And I just want to remind all my fellow Chinese Americans for Trump, people of color for Trump, to vote.
Vote for Trump on Wednesday, November 9th.
Really important day.
We're going to show this country who's boss.
And that's our man, Donald Trump.
So don't forget to vote Donald Trump on November 9th.
Now, what I'm trying to figure out is she looks like she posted on November 8th, 2016.
I don't remember what day of the week or what date the...
I'm not making excuses.
Yeah, it was in the morning.
She posted in the morning.
So she posts that...
Never anything.
It's still up.
I just watched it.
It's still on the internet.
They come to your door.
The agents...
The women look like they were happy with the power.
I can just picture you're a white, cisgender, religious male.
We got her tweet into evidence at my trial.
We actually got her tweet into evidence.
Oh, you got Christina Wong's tweet into evidence.
And it does nothing.
They'll say, if they come for Christina, we'll convict her too.
So what happens?
They show up, and then how long does it take for them to disclose that they're there for a tweet?
So I was like, so the first words out of my mouth are, for what?
You know, we have a warrant for your arrest.
For what?
Oh, boy.
You'll find out, basically, when we get down to the courthouse, whatever.
And, you know, they ask you these questions when you're in the car ride.
And the New York agents are like, so are you ready to talk?
And I'm like, the lady from New York, I'm like...
No, like, obviously, am I going to talk to you?
So, but, you know, the local guys on the way to the courthouse, you know, they ask you big questions, like, how tall are you?
You know, this kind of thing.
And so, you know, I'm able to peek at his piece of paper like this, and it's like, conspiracy against civil rights, or something like that.
And I'm just like, what is going on here?
And so we go through the whole arraignment, and the judge is like, you know, they're talking about stuff.
And then I look at the...
You know, you have the right to look at the indictment, or in this case, there wasn't even an indictment as a criminal complaint.
And I can tell you why they do a criminal complaint, actually.
But we can get into all that.
Yeah, I presume that a criminal complaint, they don't have to go to a grand jury or something?
I mean, they can just, what, it takes one complainant?
Exactly. And the thing about a criminal complaint is, it's the kind of thing where it's like, you can file a criminal complaint.
Like, if, you know, the defendant or the accused is, you know, you think he's going to flee, let's say.
So you can go and arrest him on a criminal complaint.
And this is what they do.
They love doing this.
They did it for a lot of J6ers.
They'll file a criminal complaint so they can go and just have this big, showy, flashy arrest.
Holy crap.
So when do you realize and when do you fully appreciate it's because of the tweet?
Is it at the courthouse or on the way down you get the idea?
So after the arraignment...
So I'm sitting there in the holding cell for like, it felt like three hours.
It was probably like one hour.
Because of COVID, there were all these delays.
And then you go through the arraignment, there's like the AUSA, who is local at the time, she's like, oh, your honor, we found a gun in his home and stuff.
And the judge is like, well, is there any indication that it's illegal?
And he's like, no.
They're like, oh, okay.
So you have to give up your guns.
When you're indicted under these charges for a felony.
So after the whole rigmarole, all this crazy stuff, and they're like, okay, you're free to go.
And the U.S., what's it called, warden or whatever, marshal, is taking off my leg irons.
And before they do that, they slap a criminal complaint in your hand.
30-page criminal complaint.
And so I'm reading through this complaint in sheer disbelief.
And honestly, and how dishonest the criminal complaint was as well.
It was completely...
You're talking about disinformation.
I mean, I understand that's what they do.
They collect evidence and try to build a case against you no matter what it looks...
And you can look at it and you're like, this is completely ridiculous.
But that was the moment that I found out this is because of two memes that I...
It's not that I had entirely forgotten about them, but you move on to their life.
It's like two memes.
Life goes on.
You don't think it's a crime to send a joke, like a parody meme on the internet.
I also sort of got distracted at the leg irons.
They put you in leg irons.
Yeah, so at my house, they handcuffed me, right?
Of course.
I guess when you get to the courthouse...
Federal courthouse, they take you out of the handcuffs and they put you in leg irons and then they put you in a holding cell.
Did they put a face mask on you in case you're going to eat one of the agents?
Oh yeah, 2021.
No, they do a face mask because of COVID.
No, I was going with the Hannibal Lecter bars on the mouth type mask.
Yeah, exactly.
Okay, so then you get the 30 page whatever they call it, criminal complaint.
Flesh it out for us.
I remember reading through it at the time.
It's the biggest load of fiat I've ever seen.
I don't want to get you in trouble because you're going through an appeal and I have to show deference to the outrageously weaponized court system that did this to you.
Tell us, just go through it.
What did they allege and what was absolutely ridiculous of it?
What was really ridiculous about this is what they do in these conspiracies.
They're allowed to bring in all sorts of evidence that they call background.
This is how the conspiracy...
So it's like, you know, you can imagine some mobsters, they're doing conspiracy for murder or whatever.
Like, oh, yeah, you know, they met at the pizza parlor.
They do business.
But in this case, it was like they met online.
They started sharing memes in direct message groups.
And they did a meme that said that Taylor Swift was endorsing Trump and she was wearing a MAGA hat.
And then they did a meme where, you know, Hillary Clinton was going to draft our daughters to fight against Putin.
And this was the background of the criminal complaint.
Completely absurd.
And they're like, oh yeah, all these people.
And then at trial, they say, oh yeah, all that's First Amendment protected, except for this meme here with the whatever.
And then they say, if I was saying things like in 2016, which is just things that are so obvious, like if black turnout is lower, then Trump is probably going to win.
And they introduced these tweets as evidence to say like, oh, see, this tweet was targeting black women because The tweet actually has a black woman on it.
Like I said, I didn't even make the tweet.
Another one with a Spanish lady on it, and it's in Spanish.
And so they say, this is the evidence that he was trying to target.
He didn't want these people voting.
He was targeting that with his meme.
And it's a conspiracy, so they say that it was...
If I did this by myself...
If I was just sitting in my basement, 400 pounds, and just making these memes and doing it by myself, they would say it's not even a crime.
It's only a crime when there's an agreement, because it's a conspiracy law, so it's complete weaponization of the statute and abuse of it, a novel abuse of the statute.
Conspiracy? It was conspiracy to violate civil rights because it was a conspiracy to get...
Well, they had to say conspiracy because they didn't have one...
It's an example of any individual, concrete individual, who was actually duped and screwed out of their civil right, correct?
There was not one element of evidence of anyone who actually fell free.
Exactly. And this is a big problem because in criminal law, when speech is outlawed, it has to be an identifiable harm, like, for example, fraud.
If I defraud you out of your money, there's a harm there.
You lost your money.
It took your money from you.
So, you know, there's no cognizable harm here.
They just said that as soon as there was an agreement to deceive people from actually voting out of not actually voting, then there's a crime.
It's amazing.
Not one person was duped.
They had a follow-up question to that.
Yeah, and they went around.
The juicy thing is that we asked for the discovery.
We're like, show us where anybody you interviewed that texted me.
Because we knew they were going around interviewing these people, right?
And they gave us the FBI 302s, which is like interview reports.
And they would knock on someone's door and they'd be like, oh yeah, my son is autistic.
And they talk to the Sun.
He's like, I don't remember posting the meeting where they say, oh, did you think that, you know, you could vote by text?
And the person would say, look, no, I'm not stupid.
I didn't think you could vote by text.
They went around and they pulled up the people's, the people, their voter file, right?
And see if like, and you're going through these and they only interviewed like 16 people and they all, most of them voted.
The only one that didn't vote didn't have a voter record.
So it was completely absurd.
Just think about the resources that took to go around and knock on someone's door and they're freaked out, right?
Because the FBI's at their door are like, did you vote by text to the 2016 election?
And they couldn't find a single person to put on the witness stand.
It's amazing.
Douglas, what we're going to do now, I'm going to end this on YouTube because we don't need to grace the commie tube with our eyeballs any longer.
Come on over to Rumble or watch the entire thing on Viva Clips tomorrow.
They put together the conspiracy to defraud civil rights.
Exactly. They arrest you, they take you in, they let you out the same day.
Were there any terms of your release?
Yeah, there were some terms.
For example, I had to give up my guns.
There's travel restrictions.
So if I want to travel outside of a certain geographical area, then I have to ask the court's permission.
Was that within the state or was that within the country?
Southern District of Florida.
That's amazing, because when lectern guy Adam Johnson was also arrested, he couldn't leave the central Florida for a while.
Travel restrictions, firearm restrictions, and then they set your trial date.
Yeah, so it took forever to go to trial.
First of all, the government was very slow to hand over discovery.
They were investigating the case more.
That was basically what they were doing.
And we weren't in any rush either.
We filed motions.
There was a lot of motion work, obviously.
There was a motion to dismiss.
We filed for a bill of particulars also.
A bill of particulars is details, right?
Additional information.
In Quebec, we used to call it a motion for particulars, but I didn't do criminal law.
You said, I want to see all of your notes from the investigation.
They have no...
Disclosure obligations to give you everything?
Or what did they give you in addition to the criminal complaint?
So it's hard for me to remember even exactly what we were moving for.
I believe part of it was their theory of venue.
So, you know, the crazy thing is here, I was sitting in Manhattan at the time, and Brooklyn is a different district than Manhattan.
So you think to yourself, why are they bringing this case in Brooklyn?
What does that case have to do with Brooklyn?
And it turns out nothing.
It has nothing to do with Brooklyn.
So we moved for particulars regarding venue.
We might have moved for something else.
I believe that we were partially granted maybe on venue, something or other.
So they actually had to say, you know, what their theory of venue was beforehand.
I can't remember exactly.
I think that's what it was.
But that's what we moved on.
They brought this case in a district that has nothing to do with the crime.
And then they said, Well, you know, there's water around Manhattan and Brooklyn shares jurisdiction with the water.
So when the tweet goes over the water, either on the bridge or the undersea's cable, then we have jurisdiction.
It's such a joke.
Okay, so what sort of evidence did you get through disclosures or communications or requests for details?
Because you talked about a tweet from one of the...
One of the investigators.
What sort of stuff did you get?
So, there were, you know, they interviewed witnesses, which you'd think what's a witness in this case, but they don't give you those until the very end.
But they dumped, you know, this massive file of tweets and direct messages in this completely unusable format, which is like text message files with codes.
Like, who's it from?
It's like a code in the file name.
So, text files.
So, raw text files of all these DMs and all these tweets.
And then there's a code to match up the image that it goes with.
So, they dumped this on us and this would not have been possible to go through unless they had $3 million to spend on a legal defense here.
So, that was big.
Besides that, most of the stuff...
It was all just kind of tweets, mostly.
In that, it's text messages and DMs involving you and others?
Yeah, but not even text messages.
They were direct messages on Twitter and tweets.
But they were delivered to us in the form of text files.
The amazing thing is because...
All of the allegations, I guess, are sort of admitted.
You met, you retweeted, you meant to tweet it, and then the only question is, does it fall within protected speech or not?
Yeah, and was there an agreement, and was there an intent to violate?
And, you know, the statute says, it's KKK Act, 1862, 72, whatever.
Conspiracy to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate.
Any other person in the enjoyment of their civil rights, exercise their civil rights.
So we're just like, okay, so what's the operative verb here, which turns out, you know, of course, they made the case that it was injure.
So this is a conspiracy to injure.
They needed an agreement, which they didn't have, because this is just a meme.
Anybody can find a meme online and share it.
But they had to prove the intent, that it was your intent, that people should actually believe it and be duped out of voting when they wanted to vote.
Yeah, exactly.
And this is pretty outrageous because it was pure political speech.
Like I said, they brought in tweets where it'd be like, Trump needs to keep the black vote below a certain point.
If he can win the election.
And, you know, there's other ways.
There's freedom of speech.
Like, you know, voter suppression, quote unquote.
If I tell you, look, you know, you shouldn't vote just because, you know, Hillary Clinton is not in your best interest, that can be a sincerely held opinion.
And it's not voter suppression if I just tell someone not to vote.
So if I run an ad saying Hillary Clinton is not good for the black community, that's not illegal voter suppression.
But they conflated that with a motive.
They brought that into circumstantial evidence of motive.
Basically, you post this tweet, and then you have all these other political tweets, and some of them edgy and in bad taste.
And then they said, well, they just tried to create a case like that.
It was completely circumstantial.
And the agreement was entirely circumstantial as well.
There was no evidence.
It's outrageous how they asserted that there was an agreement.
It's completely outrageous.
They had an Excel table, and they said, well, you can see here that the group, the DM group, used these hashtags at this time, and Mr. Mackey used it all these other times, so he must have meant to use it at the same time as these other people for this one, for this quote-unquote voter suppression meme.
It required a conspiracy with other people.
It couldn't have just been you doing it with the intent.
I presume if...
If it had just been you doing it with the intent to, it wouldn't be the conspiracy.
It would be an attempt to violate...
It would be completely legal.
It would not be illegal under federal law.
If I just was going out on my own and saying, vote on Thursday like Jimmy Kimmel or whatever, that would not be illegal.
But then they would say, if you're doing that, then the question is, well, do they have the right to dig through your entire...
Private life to try to determine your intent, which is what they assert that they are able to do under this law, which is why it needs to be overturned.
It's completely invasive and chilling to free speech.
Well, I mean, it's obvious.
And I say that, you know, people are saying Christina Wong, who made the joke.
Jimmy Kimmel just made it the other day.
I'm reading over in our locals community.
Who said it's here?
Yeah, Derpedology 101 says, how timely considering Jimmy Kimmel just told Republican voters to vote this Thursday or Friday.
Are they admitting that Kimmel's statement was obviously satirical because Republicans are smart enough to know that?
Exactly. And are they going to subpoena Jimmy Kimmel and all his writers?
They might actually find a conspiracy against the rights in there.
Right, exactly.
So what was the delay between the arrest and the actual trial?
So, you know, January 2021 was the arrest and the trial was March 2023.
Two years.
Two plus years.
Okay. In that time, what happens with the file?
I mean, there's motions to dismiss.
There's motions for whatever.
May I ask the totally impolite question as to how many digits this sunk you in by way of legal fees?
So the legal fees, personally, I'm six figures in.
You know, everything I had.
But all total, because, you know, I've had some...
Donors and some fundraisers.
And of course, we spent all that money, but that's seven figures easily.
This is six figures without the pennies.
This is hundreds of thousands of dollars that you spent to go to trial and get convicted.
That's right.
And this is not shade at your lawyers whatsoever.
Sometimes the idea is you're going to get convicted anyhow, save the money.
Trial time comes around.
You go for jury selection.
Where is this trial conducted?
So, Brooklyn Federal Courthouse.
Okay. Brooklyn Federal.
Jury selection, for those who don't know, at the federal level, I'm told it happens quickly, right?
Is this within a day or within a morning that you pick your jury?
Mine took longer, but it was like two days.
Two days to pick your jury.
What did your jury look like?
Physically, age-wise, sex-wise?
So, it was a very diverse jury.
I mean, that's part of the reason why they brought in Brooklyn, right?
So they had, you know, like a gay guy.
They had like an elderly Chinese lady, a couple of like former Soviet immigrants, like from Poland and probably Russia itself.
I'm trying to think.
There's all kinds of people on this jury.
Bangladeshi. You know, and there are some people from like Long Island, Staten Island.
So, you know, you have like Italians.
So diverse in every way, age, sex, race, religion.
So two, I was going to call them commies as a joke, not as a joke, out of reflex, but two people from a former communist regime, or at least from Eastern Europe.
Two from the former Soviet Union.
And at least one from China.
No, two from China.
Shut up!
And you get a unanimous, you still get a unanimous verdict of condemnation.
Yeah, and it took them three and a half days to come up with it on a single count, which is amazing.
It's because they didn't understand the charge and they're just being, I wonder, there had to have been one activist jury member browbeating the holdouts into agreeing to a conviction.
How long did the trial last?
So the trial, I want to say if you count the jury, the verdict, the jury deliberations, if you count jury selection, it would have been about three weeks.
We also had a recess at one point because we accused the government of improperly withholding Brady material.
Yeah, exculpatory evidence.
What was that exculpatory evidence or alleged?
Just to give the government the benefit of the doubt they don't deserve.
Right. You know, I kind of wanted to put it in the appeal, but, you know, you have to defer a lawyer's opinion.
But the allegedly exculpatory material was stuff that, you know, my defense was based upon this being the intent of shitposting, right?
So this is like, you know, this is not serious.
This is provocative.
It's shitposting.
So they had some Hillary Clinton campaign members that they interviewed and they'd be like, that vibed, let's say, with our defense that it was just shitposting and that nobody could take it seriously and that this stuff was flooding the internet all over the place.
So this vibed with our defense.
So we alleged that it was exculpatory and that was denied.
Our motion to throw out the verdict was that we didn't bring it up on appeal because they say you can only bring up so many issues on appeal.
It is amazing.
I remember reading that article.
That was from...
Let me add this back.
How do I add it back when I bring it out?
I go like this and then bring it in.
The Southern Poverty Law Center is now in affirmation of this verdict for a meme of words.
You know, relishing in the fact that the shitposting defense was not retained.
But the shitposting, it's another way of saying this was clearly a joke that no one intended to take seriously.
And by all evidence, no one took seriously.
That's what I wanted to say earlier.
That typically when it comes to words, threat, there's a victim.
Fraud, there's a victim.
When it comes to words that are spoken, there needs to be a victim.
Otherwise, you are literally...
In your case, of a First Amendment victimless crime, but it's the conspiracy to commit the crime that they have to go with because this doesn't stand on any other legs.
But not one person actually, no evidence that anyone actually believed it.
Yeah, they're trying to make a fraud case that they're shoehorning under this conspiracy to injure statue, which is completely absurd.
And the frustrating thing...
A bunch of Klansmen sitting around deciding how they're going to go scare a bunch of Black Americans out of voting.
They never do it, but there's a conspiracy.
I can understand that, I guess.
There's no victim yet because nothing has happened of their words to conspire to scare Black votes.
There has to be some kind of agreement.
Three weeks of the trial.
This is Kafka.
Jury selection, you get your jury.
I just got to ask you, how do you feel after you get a diverse jury, you get Eastern Europeans, someone from communist China, you are surely thinking to yourself, not a snowball's chance in hell, I'm going to get convicted.
So there were some Italians from Staten Island and Long Island.
And so it was kind of like, well, there was also an elderly gentleman who's a librarian who might have an appreciation of, let's say, civil rights.
So it was a mixed bag, but yeah, this was not, I wouldn't call it a favorable jury, but I would say that for, you know, I don't know whether it was the worst, it might not have been the worst possible jury, but yeah, this, like I said, this is why they brought the case in, you know, Eastern District.
Do you know who the jury for person was?
Yeah, he was a pretty intelligent guy.
He was like an architect from Staten Island.
He's the activist, if I had to guess.
It's typically the four person who's going to be the activist.
So you go through three weeks of trial.
How long?
I mean, they have to make their case.
They have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
How long did they take in chief or in prosecution?
Yeah, so the case didn't actually last that long.
The case was like four days or maybe three.
So there's opening statements, obviously.
And then their case was only like three or four days until closing statements.
So it was kind of like that week we had this jury selection.
We had the issue with the, you know, I can't remember exactly why we had to adjourn or whatever, but there were a couple of days that we just missed.
So it was kind of like the next week was the trial.
And then the following week was kind of like the deliberation.
And this is in 2023.
Are anybody on the jury wearing face masks?
Oh, yeah, yeah.
There were a couple on the jury.
Like, I can't remember exactly how many.
You know, the funny thing is, at first, they were like, you know, everybody's going to have to wear a mask at the trial, which we were going to object to.
And then the powers that be came on with a decision that you didn't have to wear a mask anymore.
So, dutifully, we didn't have to wear a mask anymore.
If I may ask, who did you call in defense?
Did you testify?
So I testified in my own defense, and I was the only one that testified.
Okay. And how long did that last?
What's that like?
I mean, you get up, I presume you say this was obviously a joke.
Nobody took it seriously as evidenced by their own prosecution.
How did the prosecution deal with you in cross-examination?
So the prosecution dealt with me.
They just brought up these old...
Tweets that, you know, they wanted to create a sense of motive that, you know, this guy really, he really just had an axe to grow on.
He really just didn't want black women to vote.
He just hated black women so much.
He didn't want them to vote Spanish, Latino women, whatever.
And so they just brought up all of these old tweets and, I don't know, maybe direct messages as well.
And, you know, it was kind of like at some point, you know, the judge let so much of the stuff in where it's kind of like, Almost like, you know, prejudicial, you know?
That's what they did.
They just brought this stuff in and were like, well, obviously, you know, he doesn't want black women to vote.
He doesn't want black people to vote.
He doesn't want Spanish women to vote, et cetera, et cetera.
It was really crazy.
None of it actually had to do with the actual meme itself or the election.
Your bad, scary, racist, anti-Semitic.
I remember the one that you took some flack for at the time where like everyone was coming to me.
I'm saying, Viva, didn't you see the one he posted of the octopus over the globe?
It was one of the ones that led to the accusations of white supremacy or anti-Semitism with the octopus and it has the Star of David and it's got its tentacles around the globe.
First of all, I don't give a crap about that.
I'm not a six-year-old kid.
And B, you don't lock people up for that period.
You want to show proof of character.
Did they bring that one up during the trial?
No, because they're not allowed to bring character evidence to the trial.
And then, of course, but they did that through the motive thing.
Obviously, what they were doing.
They shouldn't have got away with it, I don't think.
Did they get away with presenting anything that was objected to and they say, oh, but it was already done in front of the jury, so damage done?
Were there any dirty tricks like that?
Not that I recall.
There was nothing where it was like we had to strike that from the record.
Because we made it very...
There was a lot of motions in Lemonade.
We were obviously fighting tooth and nail in Lemonade.
They didn't try any dirty tricks like that.
They didn't try other dirty tricks.
For three and a half days, you're sitting there waiting for the verdict.
Tell me how it feels.
I've never been in this position.
Touch wood, I will never be in such a position.
You're sitting there.
You don't know what your...
You understand what your exposure for jail time is, but do you seriously expect to get convicted the longer that goes on?
So I probably did not expect an acquittal.
I was expecting a conviction or a hung jury.
I think a hung jury almost happened.
Unfortunately, there's this thing in federal court called the Allen Charge.
The jury deadlocked twice.
And then in federal court, what they do is they give you like a...
A soft Allen charge, which is kind of like, well, you know, you shouldn't change your sincerely held conviction, but you should really go back and try to come up with a verdict and just really try hard.
And then if they do that again, then they give you the Allen charge, which is this federal case where the Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutional, where they can just say, look, here we are.
We all spent so much money, so much time presenting a case, and we really think it would be good if you came up with a verdict.
Don't change your sincerely held conviction or anything like that.
But if somebody convinces you otherwise, then try to come up with a verdict.
And it's unbelievable, too.
You see the psychological effect this has on the jury.
These people who are just so calm and comfortable most of the time, and then they come in, they get the hard Allen charge, and they're squirming around in their seat.
It's almost like they feel like they're on trial.
And then after that, they go back and they...
Whatever it was, they were able to come up with a verdict after three and a half days.
So, you know, it's really crazy how it works in federal court.
They don't declare a mistrial just because the jury deadlocks twice and they don't declare a mistrial.
It's only after a Hart Allen charge do they declare a mistrial.
I can envision what happened in there.
I have no doubt that the foreman, the foreperson, was not the one who was the holdout.
I mean, it wouldn't make sense.
And you know that you got people who were browbeaten into convicting.
An innocent man for innocuous words.
After the conviction.
So how does it happen?
They convict, okay, you go home and come back for sentencing?
Yeah, exactly.
They do it in three months, but it can get pushed back for motion practice.
But yeah, let me just point out, first of all, how boring it is just sitting in their courtroom for three and a half days.
You don't have your iPhone or anything.
You can go around and buy a paper, and you're sitting there in these...
Wooden benches.
It's so uncomfortable.
It's the most boring thing and it's just kind of like you're just sitting there with your supporters.
You have to explain this because I don't think people appreciate.
You're in the courtroom.
The judge, I presume, goes up to his chambers and says, call me if there's a verdict.
He's out.
You're sitting there.
You're not allowed recording.
You're not allowed doing anything that violates decorum of the courtroom.
And you sit there like it's some form of the most boring, uninsightful church on earth.
And you're sitting just doing nothing or reading or twiddling your thumbs for three days.
And you can leave the courtroom, but you don't really want to leave the courthouse because even if the jury just passes a note to the judge, everybody gets called back.
So my lawyer would get a phone call on his cell phone and be like, okay, yeah, the jury just passed the judge a note and we all have to go back into the court.
And so it's like you can't really leave the courthouse because you'd be too far away.
If something happened.
So you just have to sit there in the courthouse walking around the halls or whatever.
And so it's just the most boring, weird thing.
And I would say at that point, it's so exhausting.
It's very exhausted at that point.
So it was crazy.
And then you get the verdict.
And yeah, let's come back for sentencing.
And so we had post...
Go ahead.
I'm just going to try to make you laugh for a second.
This is coming from our locals community.
You've grown some facial hair.
They can't use the old picture anymore.
You look too nice and innocent.
Now they're going to go with the facial hair and make you look like a hardened criminal.
Sorry, what were you about to say?
Oh, yeah.
No, I was just saying, yeah, we made some motions, obviously, for a direct verdict.
Yeah. Because we had, you know, it wasn't just your typical argument that gets swatted down.
Who was your judge?
So the judge was actually a substitute because the first judge got COVID.
So the judge was Judge Donnelly in the Eastern District of New York.
And yeah, she's like a nice lady and everything.
So she was appointed by Obama.
I was looking that up right as he spoke.
Let me see here.
I think I got it.
Judge Donnelly, another nice Irish name who's sending Judge Ann Donnelly education.
Okay, so appointed by Obama, and Obama is notorious for having appointed activist judges, directly or indirectly.
Okay. Yeah, I don't know if she's an activist or not.
I'm sorry, I should not say this.
These are my words.
I don't want to get you in trouble because this is...
I'll say it's a rumor for Obama because we've discussed this many times.
But you get...
Look, I have, as a layperson, I'm not a layperson, as a lawyer, I have difficulty looking at this and seeing it as anything other than activism threatening people to exercise, you know, legit, God-given First Amendment rights, to scare people into silence, and to punish the people who are ideologically not aligned.
This entire trial is an absolute absurd joke, and you're sentenced.
It's an absolute absurd joke.
So, I'm sorry, those are my words.
It's so partisan.
So, for example, any Democrat sees what Jimmy Cummings said or Christina Wong, oh, obviously it's a joke, right?
And then, you know, they see my tweet and any Republican says, it's obviously a joke.
And any Democrat says, this is illegal voter, you know, tampering or whatever.
And it's so partisan, unfortunately.
Well, it's...
It's dishonest.
I mean, it's the thing that I've noticed is why they try to scare people out of making jokes.
They understand it's a joke.
They pretend not to.
I mean, the example I always give, I ran for office in Canada, and the leader of the party, a guy named Maxime Bernier, he tweeted out, Maoists and communists have infiltrated the Canadian government.
And it made it into a newspaper.
It was a French newspaper.
They pretend not to get that it was a joke to call him some crazy conspiracy theorist.
But when they make the jokes, you know, it's the same thing goes for violence.
They can say, punch him in the face.
Oh, it's just a figure of speech.
And then someone says, bloodbath, and they turn it into a call to violence.
So, no, it's beautiful.
Oh, yeah, 100%.
And crazy idea.
Let's just not prosecute people with jokes so we don't have this kind of partisan divide.
But that's not what happened the past four years, obviously.
No, because it's a method of maintaining control and terrorizing ideological dissidents.
Exactly. So you get convicted.
You say, come back for sentencing.
You go on your way.
This time, you're still living in Florida, but you have to spend all of this time in New York for the trial.
When you go back, you come back for sentencing.
What was the range of sentencing?
Because I don't know what the prosecution was asking for, to jail you.
So the maximum on the statutory maximum was 10 years.
Because it's intended to cover serious crimes.
That's the underlying reality.
In this statute, it's actually said that it's 10 years maximum sentence or death penalty if death results.
Because this is the KKK Act.
We're talking about either injuring people or kidnapping them or, God forbid, even murdering people who are, let's say...
Just going to their polling place.
This is a KKK.
It's never been used against speech.
The idea is conspiracy to burn down a building to scare them out of voting.
If someone happens to be in that building and dies, you can understand that's conspiracy to commit murder.
Exactly. Never been used against speech, which is a big part of our appeal, obviously.
Never been used against speech.
Only been used against conduct.
When the jury, not the jury, the judge, when she comes down and now we know that she sentences you to seven months, I forget, you'll tell us who gives you the bond pending appeal.
Does she give a, not a soliloquy, but does she read a statement to say what a bad boy you've been and how terrible this is and you need to send a message?
Does she justify it, rationalize it?
Yeah, most judges do that.
And the other side of the prosecution will say like...
This was a conspiracy to defraud, to steal votes.
And they used the worst possible language, obviously.
And yeah, most judges, they got to give some kind of rationale for their sentence.
So she did something like that.
And, you know, you just got to sit through that and take it, whatever.
And then, so my attorney's like, so it's kind of crazy because we were just thinking, yeah, we're just going to move for a bond.
And then she's probably just going to grant it, right?
So we're just like, oh, yeah.
So, you know, obviously we filed a motion for a directed verdict, which laid out all of these very substantial appellate points, appeal arguments.
And, you know, she wrote like a 50 page opinion and denied those, which is fine.
I mean, judges, that's what they do.
There's no problem with that.
But then we said, OK, so we've clearly raised, you know, substantial issues here and close call, you know, that are close.
And so we're moving for an appeal bond.
And then the judge is like, okay, it was the government's position.
And they're like, they opposed it, which was surprising.
But it makes sense if you consider that the prosecution, they can't just like go after people and prosecute these cases and they get up there and say, this is so serious.
This is voter fraud.
This is an assault on democracy.
And then be like, oh yeah, you know, we'll give him a bond.
We don't care.
They say.
No, no.
We oppose their move for a bond.
And she just denies it outright.
Not like, okay, let's have some motion practice or file a motion.
She just denied it outright from the bench.
Okay, and that means that you get to remain free while you appeal this decision.
Yeah, exactly.
That's what we were moving for.
You got better treatment than Steve Bannon did, where they don't grant him a bond or bail pending his appeal, and now he's served his time, and if he wins on appeal, congrats, Steve.
Yeah, crazy.
I mean, I know what goes into the appeal.
You draft an appeal fact, a memorandum, whatever you call it.
What's the time frame on that?
I know what you say in it, but if you want to flesh out those arguments, what does the prosecution say, and what's the time frame?
Do you have any idea?
Yeah, so, well, fortunately, we won the motion for bond pending appeal at the appellate court.
So the judge enters her decision.
She denies the bond pending appeal.
We are then entitled to go to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
And we went there, which, by the way, just costs that much more money.
Because now you've got to draft an appeal, a motion for a bond pending appeal.
The government files their opposition.
You have to respond to that.
And then the attorneys go.
Not every circuit court does this, but I guess they do.
Well, maybe not always, but they call for a hearing for oral arguments.
So there were oral arguments for the bond pending appeal.
And so we actually won that, which wasn't, you know, this was the first time when the government was actually on its heels.
It's a very intelligent senior judge for a Democrat.
By the way, and he actually won a case a while back in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals when he was a defense attorney on the same exact thing, venue.
That venue was not proper in the district.
It was unconstitutional.
So this is the first time where a judge was sort of like pushing back on the government and sort of putting them on their heels.
And so we won that motion for bond penning appeal.
Filed all of our papers and...
Like you said, the government replies, we respond, blah, blah, blah.
And we had oral arguments on April 5th in the Second Circuit.
Three-judge panel, and now we're just waiting for their decision.
Okay, so maybe I did make a mistake or misunderstood.
The presiding judge is the one who allows you to remain free after the verdict?
Yeah, so they can take you into custody right after the verdict.
That's for violent criminals who are a danger to the community.
So obviously, in my case, that wasn't going to happen.
You say that, but meanwhile, it happened to Tina Peters out of Colorado.
Yeah, it's crazy.
I guess state court is a whole other animal.
State court is different.
A lot of times, they will take you into custody.
And then you've got to bond your way out.
But in federal court, usually you get the bond pending appeal unless you're like some kind of danger to the society, whatever.
So you're like, okay, we'll push the report date back past the holidays, whatever.
I don't think the judge thought that there was any question that they would uphold the denial.
But January 18th was the report date, but we actually won the appeal bond, I want to say on December 5th or something.
So we won that.
And yeah, so you have your report date for federal prison and you got to go to prison.
However, they do let you have your appeal before they make your report.
Okay. Okay.
So it's like the appeals court.
They denied the bond appeal.
Yeah. And you're waiting for the judgment to come down now.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah, that's right.
That's so wild.
So you argued in April, May, June, July, August, September, October.
I thought it was typically a six-month limit.
I don't know what the rules are.
Yeah, there's no limit.
Okay. When you get that judgment, are you going to start from the conclusion or are you going to torture yourself and read from page one and leave the suspense of the verdict?
Oh, yeah.
Of the ruling?
Well, you know what?
They kind of start their rulings with the conclusion, right?
At least in the States.
They will say, ordered and held, blah, blah, blah, blah.
And then they'll explain their reasoning.
In civil Quebec stuff, I always just tortured myself.
I would read through the entire thing and they'd go back and forth.
Like, oh, I'm going to win.
I'm going to lose.
Then you get to the end and your heart gets ripped out of your ass.
Okay, that's a question from our locals community.
It was Jigem Gigem who did the meme.
Boopsie says, my question to Doug, are you sad?
Are you furious?
Have you lost your mind, lost hope, and do you have support from close friends and family besides us?
You are a religious man, right?
Yeah, I'm a religious man.
And I say that seems to help a lot of people.
That seems to help people more than losing faith and everything.
But yeah, how have you dealt with this on a personal level?
This is very difficult.
Catholic faith has helped me a lot.
Faith has helped me a lot.
In sort of dealing with, you know, life is difficult.
You go through trials.
You have to endure suffering.
And, you know, hopefully in the end, there's a meaning to it.
And then, you know, there's redemption.
But that helps a lot.
But it doesn't help.
You know, you still go through all of the agony, the sadness, the anger, everything else.
Fortunately, by the time the trial came around, I had a lot of family and friends that are supporters.
And I have a loving wife who's extremely supportive.
So fortunately, I did have that support, which I'm really grateful for.
Not to mention a lot of patriots that I don't even know.
A lot of them who are actually giving money, sometimes large amounts, to the legal defense, which is memedefensefund.com.
Shameless plug here.
memedefensefund.com.
No shameless whatsoever.
Memedefense with an S. Memedefensefund.com It's very expensive federal appeal and of course we spent all the money in the trial so we need more money so memedefensefund.com Let me just get this up.
I'm going to put it in the chat.
I'm going to bring it up if it gets up here.
Meme defense.
Here we go.
Yeah, Ricky Vaughn.
It's a shame what happens to actors.
I forget what Charlie Sheen's up to these days but a lot of these actors they had such great characters in movies and now they're Selling their soul for Kamala Harris.
The stealing of time is the truly unforgivable part.
A close second to that is just stealing of money.
Do you have any kids?
Yeah, I have a kid.
He's about one year old now.
It's taking food, education, opportunities from your kid because the state has endless amount of resources to prosecute, persecute, and harass its citizens.
You're still in Florida now?
Yes. Without disclosing exact location, are you on the southeast side?
Are you inland on the gulf side?
No, I'm in Palm Beach County.
Okay, cool.
We're not far from each other at all.
Oh, yeah, yeah.
I'm in Boca.
Oh, yeah.
There's a lot of us down here in Boca area.
It's amazing.
Okay, so hold on.
I want to make sure I got everything.
I think I've gotten everything.
You're working now?
What are you doing for a living now?
Are you working economic stuff?
So I have a different sort of gig now.
I'm self-employed.
It's kind of like something that we didn't really want to bring up at the trial.
No, don't bring it up now.
It's under wraps.
But yeah, unfortunately, I'm very fortunate to be self-employed.
You appreciate it.
You're going to be a piece of, not internet history, you're going to be a piece of American history, hopefully for the right reasons, but that image of Adam Johnson stealing the lectern.
This. This is American history.
Everything that's gone down with January 6th, everything that's gone down with the weaponization of the legal process is part of American history, and may this be...
To me, it's an absolute legal no-brainer, but you can take that with a grain of salt from a Canadian...
I'm a civil lawyer who's never practiced American criminal law.
I just think I've dabbled enough now in following this stuff for damn near a decade that there's only one logical answer for this case to come up with as a final verdict, final judgment.
Well, it doesn't matter.
Lawyers give probabilities of success.
Hypothetically, you win.
Did your lawyer say this?
Oh, great question.
That's a possibility.
You have to consider that's a possibility.
And I think a lot of that's going to depend on who occupies the White House.
Because this case, like you said, they had to put this case on the shelf because Donald Trump was the president.
And Republicans, who are not even necessarily MAGA, so to speak, like Attorney Bill Barr.
Are looking at this case and, you know, a case like this, they have to bring it all the way up to the top to get approval because this is not just like your average, you know, low-level fraud case or whatever.
So they were not allowed to bring the case under Bill Barr.
And obviously, once Bill Barr resigned, they basically finished up.
They put the bow on it so that they could get the arrest warrant.
And I don't know what they were trying to do.
I don't know what they were thinking, whether they were trying to show off for Joe Biden or whether they thought they were going to uncover some kind of Russian conspiracy or something.
But for whatever reason, they rushed it out as soon as Joe Biden got inaugurated.
They rushed out the arrest warrant.
They rushed out the arrest.
And so it was really weird.
It was really crazy.
But yeah, if Trump gets elected, I don't expect that the government is not going to appeal.
Well, it's federal.
I mean, you can even get, I don't know, a pardon, or just drop the case entirely, I guess, because pardon would still implicate or involve some sort of element of culpability.
Yeah, too late to drop the case, but if we get a favorable ruling in the Second Circuit Court, then a Trump DOJ is not going to appeal that.
A Harris DOJ, it's crazy to think that they could go and appeal this case.
I mean, you'd think that they would lose the Supreme Court, but they could actually go and appeal this case.
They could appeal it en banc.
And then you have two choices.
Go to jail for seven months, or you incur whatever.
It's going to be another $100,000 to take this to the Supreme Court if you lose, or if you win and they decide to, and certainly if you lose.
Oh yeah, absolutely.
I mean, we're going to take it to the Supreme Court.
There's no question about it if we don't lose at this level.
There were two recent cases that came down, Fisher and, you know, I don't remember the name of it, Snyder, possibly.
It says about bribery.
The Fisher was the obstruction one in Jan 6th.
What was the principle in Snyder?
I'll see if I can remember it offhand.
The Snyder was bribery, and it was one of these cases where the DOJ really sort of stretched the letter of the law.
And it was about, like, you know...
Bribes versus gifts after the fact, blah, blah, blah.
Bribes are illegal, but they don't necessarily...
It's kind of like that.
There's something to do with where they wanted to fit this case into a certain statute, alleging that the guy took some kind of quid pro quo.
So all these cases have something in common, which is the Supreme Court for the past 20 years or so has said that the federal government cannot...
Create these vast interpretations of the law that goes against the rights of the defendant, obviously.
It's like they're not allowed to just limitless.
And that's what they said in Fisher.
That's what they said in Snyder as well.
It's actually what the panel said in the Trump case out of New York, too, where they're referring to it as not scope creep, but let's call it legislation creep.
Has this ever been applied to a case in which there were no victims?
In which it was pure speech.
Like, this is pure speech.
This is the type of thing where even, you know, Ketanji Jackson Brown would be on board because this is stuff that they just don't understand.
I mean, they do understand that this thing is never going to be weaponized against them.
Someone in our locals community, let me see, not someone, it was dreary or spider.
Question for Doug.
So how do you think the oral arguments went?
Trump mentioned, Trump has mentioned the case.
Does he know if a pardon is possible?
Pardons, yeah, we've got that, but how did oral arguments go?
So we really felt like they went well on the question.
They went the best for us on the question of venue.
Because to say that if a tweet passes over wires, that this creates venue for a conspiracy, that creates essentially nationwide jurisdiction.
Because what's to stop the DOJ from going and bringing evidence that the tweet passed through Wyoming?
There has to be...
So, I mean, it should be...
Open and shut when it comes to venue.
And this is something that a Democrat judge and a conservative judge can agree on.
So there was one Democrat-appointed judge and two Republican-appointed judges.
So the venue thing just seems open and shut.
They should be able to agree on that.
And the idea of the venue would be it ought to have been brought in where?
Florida? It could have been brought in Manhattan.
If they wanted to, they could have said, oh, we got a guy, a co-conspirator.
We can't even get into all this.
They brought a cooperating witness onto the witness stand.
If they said there was a cooperating witness in Montana, let's just say, then they could bring it in Montana.
That's pretty much what we argue.
There has to be a nexus.
There has to be a physical nexus because you can't just have 98...
They could have brought in D.C. Like, hey, great.
The wires pass through D.C., let's get you before a jury of your peers in D.C. That's exactly right.
The closest place that would have had D.C. mentality, I guess, as opposed to Manhattan.
Okay, and then the idea would have been, tough nuggies, you should have tried it in the right place, and maybe you would have gotten a conviction had you done it in the right place.
Too late.
I don't know if it's double jeopardy as a principle, but vacate the decision and learn your lesson for the next time.
Yeah, exactly.
And there is a little bit of nuance here.
The panel could come up with a more narrower ruling, which is to say that the jury instructions were improper on venue.
And then that would be a little bit, to be honest with you, they could actually then go and say, okay, we're going to retry the case in Brooklyn.
And try to prove, according to the new standards set by the appeals court, that the venue is proper in Brooklyn.
If the case is dismissed in the East, it's called the Eastern District of New York, then it's really, I don't think it's settled law whether they could even go and bring a case in, let's say, the Southern District of New York because of the statute of limitations.
It's not really clear, you know, if the case gets dismissed in...
A certain district, can they go and bring it after the fact, after the statute of limitations has expired?
What was it?
Was it seven years in this?
This is five years.
So they really got you just under the wire because you were going on five at the time they arrested you or they brought the charges?
Exactly. Hold on.
There was one more question.
The appeal.
While it...
Recycles back in my head.
Boopsie over in Local says, thank you, Doug.
I'm Catholic too.
May our sufferings be joined with the sufferings of Christ and be beneficial to our redemption and the redemption of the whole world.
The idea that you...
But you're, say, a martyr of sorts, but rather just...
Making an example of you where you could have just done your time now and moved on and just been a victim of a totally statist regime that's gone totally...
It could end up being the best case law ever of stating the most obvious interpretation of the most black and white letter of the law, and that'll be your victory in this.
Exactly. And that would be the best way to be part of history, absolutely.
If this becomes controlling case law, I would hate to say the Supreme Court because that entails a whole other round of appeals, but at least in the Second Circuit of...
New York would be wonderful.
That would be a great way to go to the history.
That would be only on venue, though.
On the merits.
You obviously raised the argument that no reasonable jury could have come to this decision.
This is an unlawful interpretation.
That's nice.
To get out of it on venue, that's like a double kick in the nuts because they can still try to do this to somebody else.
I know, which would be terrible.
Hopefully they come out with some decision.
The first part of our argument is it's not entirely like a free speech argument, but it is sort of in a respect because it's not only that the statute doesn't apply to this kind of a case because of its pure speech, right? Its speech.
And not only that, there's no fair notice.
So fair notice is like...
When there's no possible way that the average person would think this conduct violates the law, right?
I mean, obviously, you can't argue that.
If you go steal someone's money or hurt somebody...
The law needs to be sufficiently clear so that people know what conduct is prohibited.
Exactly. I'll send this one to you afterwards.
Yeah, so listen, you have to know what the prohibited conduct is.
If you don't know and you're always like, well, is this tweet bad or is this tweet good?
And it's not like, okay.
Exactly, exactly.
I'm not going to ask how you're voting tomorrow, but how are you feeling for the future of America?
So, you know, I'm optimistic about Trump's chances, but it's very difficult because I believe that...
They do cheat a lot in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.
Maybe. And he needs to win one of those states, right?
I'm very confident that he's going to win North Carolina, Georgia, even Arizona.
But he needs to go and win, let's say, Wisconsin or Pennsylvania to put him over the top.
Unless he somehow wins Virginia and Nevada.
But that's even more unlikely.
So it's very difficult.
But I am very optimistic because I think that...
You know, it's very hard to say.
The polls are never correct.
So are they going to be in our favor this time?
If they're in our favor this time, which they were the last two times, then Trump wins.
They're never correct because, you know, they said that Clinton was going to win and she didn't.
They said Biden was basically going to win easily.
And he barely won.
He barely scraped by, especially in a state like Wisconsin, where he won by like 20,000 votes.
So I'm very optimistic.
I'm confident that Trump's going to win.
Still a little bit anxious about these states where they just have unaccountable mail-in ballots and basically unsecured mail-in ballots.
Florida, they have...
Down here in Florida, we have secured mail-in ballots.
They used to do the same thing that they did in Pennsylvania and Florida until Ron DeSantis changed the law.
And from what I understand, Florida can actually count their mail-ins the day of and not go overnight and into weeks where they're announcing nonsense out of Pennsylvania.
And the biggest change to the law in Florida is that counties have to report how many ballots they have at 7 p.m.
Actually, no.
They have to report how many ballots they have as they come in.
So if Broward County says that they have 150,000 mail-in ballots...
And they're not allowed to go find 50,000 more.
So that's the biggest law that secures the elections here in Florida, is that they can't go and find more after the fact.
Now, I've asked the chat if they had any questions for you that I might have missed.
I don't think I missed any, but over on Rumble, SwitzerlandPlayIT is asking, Viva, why is Michelle Obama called Big Mike?
That is abusing of the tagging of my name to get a question.
Rogan, this is from Sith22, says, Rogan did a great job platforming Trump and Vance.
He can sit on the fence all he wants, but it's great.
There's a lot of things that are different this election than 2020, obviously, and also different than 2016, but the tools of exposure now, like we've seen what happens in Pennsylvania, there's all eyes are on them and nobody's suppressing the information on Twitter and the biggest podcasts on Earth are on Rumble right now, so it's a totally different game and just may it go the way it should.
Let me just make sure in locals here that I'm not missing anything.
I think I've gotten everything, man.
Have I missed anything?
No, you haven't missed anything except for, I would say, the cooperating witness in this case was absolutely crazy.
Who's the cooperating witness?
He's a former friend of mine.
A friend of mine is really stretching it.
This is a guy that was in some DM groups with me.
The crazy thing is they brought these groups.
These messages into evidence without even proving that I read any of the DMs.
Because, you know, back then and even today, I got to confess, I'm in like four different DM groups right now.
And I don't read the messages because it's like just an endless flood of messages.
So they brought all these DM messages into evidence.
I was seeing them for the first time.
Is the name of the cooperating witness public?
I don't want to dox anybody.
I just want to check something.
The name is not public.
The cooperating witness was allowed to testify under a pseudonym, which is outrageous.
The pseudonym is Microchip.
Let me ask you the obvious question that I suspect you are asking.
How the hell do you know that this guy is not an agent or some sort of informant CHS?
Someone in there to frame you for the crime that they then charge you with.
Well, that's the crazy thing, is we don't know.
I mean, the FBI is supposed to admit that if they paid them or whatever, so this guy confessed.
He pled guilty to this crime, quote-unquote.
And they said that because the, you know, outright or MAGA or whatever is so dangerous, you know, and the...
Quote, unquote, online harassment and threats and whatever, and it's just nonsense.
That, therefore, Mr. Microchip needs to be allowed to testify under his pseudonym, which courts typically only grant that request in the case of, let's say, drug cartels or Al-Qaeda, ISIS. And maybe, I don't even think, I honestly think that, you know, Italian mobsters had to go up there and testify under their real name.
And they're saying this guy might, somebody might send him a mean message online.
It was really ridiculous.
It was really crazy, the fact that this was even granted.
He goes up there and he's, you know, called Mr. Microchip.
And he sang the song that the FBI asked him to sing.
They interviewed him for like 16 times or like 20 times.
We have all the 302s every time they interview this guy.
And at first they go up to him and they're like, yeah, what about this tweet, blah, blah, blah.
He's like, oh yeah, there was no grand conspiracy.
There was nothing like that.
This was just, I can't remember what he called it, or just get riled people up or whatever.
It was exactly my defense.
He said it was just shitposting, essentially.
There was no grand scheme to deceive voters.
And then over time the FBI said, and then on cross-examination we obviously pinned him down and the government goes up there and said, Well, did, you know, viewing the messages refresh your memory?
And he's like, yes, refresh your memory.
And at one point, they ask him the most obvious question, which is like, was there a grand conspiracy or whatever?
And he's like this.
Thinking about, like, what he's supposed to say for, like, seconds go by.
And then he's like, yes, yes, yes.
Is this an element on appeal that you have the right to confront your...
He's testifying in person.
You see his face, right?
No, this is another thing where I kind of think that we should have appealed.
On this basis, but like I said, the attorneys say, you know, you have to choose your best three arguments or whatever on appeal.
So we're not actually appealing that, unfortunately.
Did he testify in person?
You know what he looks like?
Yeah, yeah, he testified in person.
I know what he looks like.
Do you know his name or not?
I don't want to know it, but do you know his name?
So I don't know his name, but I am aware that it's not necessarily some big secret.
Like, there are people that know his name.
I don't know his name, though.
And obviously, I'm under whatever it is.
It's gag order.
Not a gag order, but whatever it is.
You sign a piece of paper when you do discovery that you're not going to...
I can't remember what it's called.
I want to say it's not a non-disclosure, but it's not a...
Whatever it is.
You're not allowed to divulge it.
But did he serve time for his pleading guilty?
So we don't...
Okay, this is crazy.
So he's satisfying anonymously.
So obviously his case is under seal, right?
Because if it was not under seal, everybody would know what he was doing.
So he's under seal.
So who knows?
He agreed to some plea agreement where the government wouldn't ask for more than, let's say, six months in federal prison.
But he very easily could have just gotten probation.
We don't really know.
You don't know if the guy served jail time.
No, we don't know that.
And the public should have the right to know.
I think this guy's an agent.
I know a lawyer in New York.
I think the guy's, if I had to guess, I'd say this guy's an agent.
He's the plant.
He's the guy that's in there.
I'm going to read that article from the New York Times.
I did not know this.
This is a brand new factory that I'm going to look into.
He smells like a Fed, like an agent who's in there.
And oh yeah, they'll put him through the interview.
This guy was so full of crap.
He goes up there and he creates this mystique about how he hacks elections, which is total BS, right?
He claims that he hacks into algorithms and controls people's minds and it's completely ridiculous.
But of course...
The government is so credulous or it's in their own interest that they actually buy it.
And so all these liberal journalists go to the trial expecting, they're expecting like these bombshells about how these right-wing hackers stole the election.
And it's so mundane.
And the guy was so full of crap.
And it was such a farce.
Holy cows.
Gigum Gigum gave the meme, which I brought that one up.
Boops, he says I should compliment your beard.
Hold on one second.
Yes, it is.
It has surprisingly little gray in it for a man who's nearing his 40s, sir.
Do you color your beard?
No, no.
I can't.
That was a joke.
It's quite clear you don't.
Holy cows.
I'm going down that rabbit hole after we're done.
Microchip. He seems to be a known...
Holy crap.
So he testifies.
Jury doesn't know his name.
There's no way of verifying what his history is, whether or not he actually works with anybody.
You don't know if he goes to jail.
And he's basically the linchpin of the prosecution's evidence against you.
And I'm curious, when does his case get unsealed?
I thought this was America.
You can't just go to federal prison and have your case under seal.
It's crazy.
No, because the MAGA Republicans are all about going to exact vengeance against other alleged cocons.
People would feel bad for him.
If he's a legit victim of this too, and he's a bit of a coward and decides to save his own ass, People would probably still feel bad for him.
They might call him a coward.
No one's going to harass him.
Nobody harassed him.
I mean, this guy, Marco Jim, nobody harassed him.
Nobody harassed anybody.
So the courthouse has security, obviously.
You go on the door, there's security, obviously.
There was a second metal detector outside of the courtroom, specifically for my case.
Because, I don't know, the bunch of deplorables, violent deplorables were going to show up.
Completely absurd.
There was nothing, you know, nobody was threatened.
Nobody was doxxed or anything.
I mean, it was completely absurd.
Two layers of security.
They don't do that.
They don't put two layers of security in trials.
They left the fences up in Washington.
It was after January 6th because they had to make it look all dangerous.
I forget what it was.
Yeah. Holy hell.
And so that...
My goodness.
So we had to take a belt off twice, you know, going into the court.
It was insane.
This is wild.
So the decisions should be coming down.
Man, are they going to wait?
Well, they're obviously going to wait until after the election.
It's tomorrow!
Douglas, what are you doing to celebrate?
Or what are you doing to not celebrate the outcome?
What are you doing tomorrow?
You're going to be just a regular day.
You've already voted, I presume?
So I can't vote, unfortunately, unless, you know, the court throws out my case.
As of right now, I'm a convicted felon, so I can't vote.
Obviously, if my conviction gets thrown out, then that can change.
But yeah, I can't vote, so I didn't vote.
But I don't know what I'm going to do.
I'm just going to take it in from home.
I want to smash something.
You say, oh shit!
You have your right, your constitutional right, because nobody should be disenfranchised, stripped of you, for this felony conviction, for this bullshit case.
Felony meme, which is a complete...
Some of these states have statutes that could potentially say, you know, maybe you could argue it could cover this, but not really.
They don't really cover this crime still.
But even they have some kind of, like, statute where, you know, you can't...
I don't know exactly what, but for example, a guy in New Hampshire, they jam the poll lines for people that want to call to get a ride to the polls.
They jam the lines so that people can't...
And he got...
I'm in some trouble for that, but they're state-level statutes, and it's like a misdemeanor, like punishable up to one year in prison, misdemeanor crime, with a statute of limitations that's like one year, you know, like a misdemeanor statute of limitations, like one year.
And they're scouring the federal code to try to come up with some, you know, and this is the crime they find, which is a federal felony.
So, I mean, it's completely absurd.
Boopsie in our local screen says, Trump voted because he hasn't been sentenced yet.
Yeah, exactly.
There's no final judgment in New York.
So he can vote.
I hope you see the humor in all of this.
The only thing that really, really pisses me off in this...
The time is one thing, but you could consider this like sort of an education.
What's really, really irritating is the setting of money on fire and the good that could have been done with that money, either just at a purely personal level or at a broader...
Burning it.
And if you don't want to do it, well, then you'd be sitting in jail right now, and you'd have saved all the money, but you'd have gotten what no representation would buy.
Oh, yeah, and lied, you know, because if you sign a plea agreement, you're basically lying.
If I was to say, oh, yeah, I agreed to disenfranchised voters, and I intended to disenfranchise voters.
You're bearing false witness to yourself.
It's a lie, absolutely, yeah.
I had James O'Keefe on a number of times, but the first time he said his biggest regret was bearing false witness to himself when he agreed to a plea deal.
And he said he'd never do it again.
And you empower them in their abuse by ratifying their lie.
It's very easy to say to someone who's not been in your shoes.
First of all, I'm glad we finally met after all of this.
I'm going down the microchip rabbit hole tonight because I did not know that element.
That's wild.
That's the most shocking thing.
Mr. Microchip, as my attorney would say.
Let me make sure I did not forget any chat, any questions, and I think we're good.
Douglas, we'll say our proper goodbyes afterwards.
A felony meme seems like an oxymoron, says a Einstein universe.
Felony meme.
Okay, we're going to talk after.
I'm going to shut this down.
We're going to say our proper goodbyes offline.
And Douglas, thank you very much.
So I'm going to share the link.
It's Meme Defense Fund, because you still need to...
Gosh, I don't want to say it.
I'm sharing the link with everybody.
And I'll post it in the pinned comments.
Are you back to...
You're obviously back to the handle.
Are you scared to tweet?
So, my handle is at Doug Mackey Case.
Obviously, the Ricky Vaughn thing was...
Yeah, this whole thing is crazy.
I haven't posted under the pseudonym Ricky Vaughn.
I know that guy.
Since 2018, right?
So, for a while, I wasn't even on Twitter.
I restarted up Twitter in 2023 because I wanted to publicize the case, raise awareness, and also, of course, raise money to fight the case.
So they've driven me back on Twitter.
It's at Doug Mackey Case.
I'm going to put both the link to the fundraiser for updates of the case and your Twitter handle as well.
Anywhere else that you want people to find you?
That's pretty much it.
DouglasMackey.substack.com You know, I probably need to be better at updating this, but I send out updates on that website.
DouglasMackey.substack.com And like you said, Douglas has two S's.
Like Frederick Douglas.
I'll put that one up.
I'm going to put all three of those up in the pinned comment.
Doug, we will keep in touch.
Obviously, I'm going to be following this.
Oh, I'm going to read that decision.
I'm going to read it.
I'm going to torture myself.
I'm going to skip the order and just get through the body.
You know, I can send you all the court filings if you really want to geek out on it.
Yeah, that could be fun.
We'll look at it and use the aggregate brains of our locals community to see if we can't uncover anything interesting.
Yeah, I'll try to get it.
I'll send it to you if you want, and I'll try to put them up on Substack so people can read all the appellate briefs.
Okay, amazing.
Doug, stick around.
I'm going to hit end stream, which means we'll still be able to see each other, everyone out there.
Tomorrow's the day.
Get out and vote.
I think I'm going to be on Alex Jones at 1.30 tomorrow, and I'm trying to figure out what the evening schedule is going to be, but we're going to be live, and I'll be bouncing around people's streams, but tomorrow's the day, people.
Seeds of the day.
Carpe diem.
Carpe diem.
Are you...
U.S. citizen?
Can you vote?
No, no, no.
Still Canadian.
Everything is very much delayed because the, I don't know if it's the priority, but the resources are not on legal immigrant applications.
Oh, yeah, that's for sure.
It keeps you impartial.
No, I think, see, I was thinking of this.
I'm unbiased, but I'm unbiased.
I think I'm objective.
But I think there's objectively a right and a wrong decision this time around.
I despise Joe Biden, despise Kamala Harris, despise Justin Trudeau.
I can still assess them honestly.
And honestly, they are just awful, terrible regimes and they're destroying the world.
People vote according to their conscience, but fingers crossed for tomorrow.
Doug, thank you very much.
Everyone out there, I will see you tomorrow without a doubt.
Enjoy the night.
▲
Export Selection