Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 6, 2025 - Viva & Barnes

01:51:04

Guest "Misfit Patriot" on Andrew Tate & Casey Anthony! Canada Goes Full Trade War! ACB = DEI?

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The White House, you never know who you are going to run into.
	Today, it was the newest and youngest member of the Secret Service.
	During his address to Congress last night, you saw President Trump make 13-year-old cancer survivor DJ Daniel an honorary agent.
	Today, we spotted DJ and his dad outside of the West Wing.
	You know what's crazy?
	What? You know who I caught in the White House?
	Who? Who made the testes.
	Elon, you saw him?
	Yes, I was caught in the hallway.
	Did you say hi to him?
	Mm-hmm.
	And what did he say?
	I said, can you do me a big favor?
	Let me get back to Houston.
	Houston has a Cybertruck down there.
	And did Elon Musk say he'd send you a Tesla?
	Mm-hmm.
	A Cybertruck?
	Mm-hmm.
	I love it.
	The White House, you never know who you are going to run into.
	Today, it was the newest and youngest member of the Secret Service.
	During his address to Congress last week, I'm trying to find a clip.
	What's absolutely amazing, double standards, people.
	If they didn't have double standards, they would have no standards at all.
	I'm trying to find the clip.
	It was out there, and it doesn't really matter.
	Where the left...
	Was faulting the right conservatives, the GOP, for using DJ Daniel.
	I cannot say his name without thinking of him as a DJ, but DJ Daniel as using him as a photo op.
	And someone I saw on Twitter was like, how many times are they going to use this kid?
	They got the memo.
	They got to use the kid as a photo op.
	When the GOP does it, when members of Congress do it, there it's a photo op.
	When Caitlin Collins gets the call from her higher ups and they say, they say, hey, hey guys.
	It turns out not standing for a kid who survived brain cancer is a bad move.
	We got to go fix this.
	Caitlin, go find the kid and do a fluff piece, a little encouraging piece.
	Oh, and then they go do it, and then it's all fun and games.
	Then they get to interview the kid.
	Then they get to do what they ought to have done the first time around.
	praise of, you know, sing that kid's praises for having survived brain cancer.
	...dj and his dad outside of the West Wing.
	Thank you.
	You know what's crazy?
	There's such a bunch of pathological actors.
	All of a sudden, they love the kid.
	They must have gotten the memo.
	I don't know who's in charge of Caitlin Collins.
	Forget if she's at CNN or MSNBC.
	They must have gotten the memo.
	Guys, you're really screwed up.
	It turns out being sour, bitter, and not standing for a child who survived brain cancer.
	That's gonna...
	We just did the polls, people.
	We have the live people that are doing the trackers.
	Democrats are happy, happy, happy.
	Don't stand for a kid with brain cancer?
	Boom! Make it up, Caitlin Collins.
	Go get this kid.
	Oh, what's that?
	Did he just praise Elon Musk?
	That son of a...
	That kid just became public enemy number one again.
	It's an amazing thing.
	I made the joke.
	Someone else had to have made the joke, but I can safely say that...
	I don't even know.
	No, I can't safely say that I came up with it originally.
	Someone had to have inspired it.
	This is the image.
	This is the iconic image of...
	Donald Trump's State of the Union address.
	Everything about it is amazing.
	Trump facing the only half of the crowd that's worth facing.
	You zoom in on the other side here, you've got a few empty seats of people who boldly and courageously decided not to do their jobs.
	We're going to walk out.
	It's the address to Congress.
	We're not going to do our jobs.
	Fired. Get Doge in there.
	Dock their pay.
	Fire them.
	And the ones who did stay there sat on their disgusting butts the entire evening.
	And I said, Democrats, they literally stand for nothing.
	Pun intended, people.
	Oh, lordy, lordy, lordy.
	Good afternoon, everybody.
	We are going to have a special guest, surprise guest, Misfit Patriot underscore on the Twitterverse who is heavy on the...
	Lock Andrew Tate up in advance of any trial bandwagon.
	I'm strawmanning his position.
	We've had our back and forths on Twitter.
	And I said, it might be time just to...
	If you can come on, pop on.
	I send him a DM.
	He says I can make it on for one o'clock.
	So he's going to come on Misfit Patriot.
	If you forgot who he is, and I'll play this again before he comes on, not to make fun of him, just because it's fun.
	This is the guy.
	Him right here.
	You remember him?
	He thought he found the Holy Grail.
	You know, I'm seeing...
	A lot of influencers coming out and not directly defending Andrew Tate, but seemingly trying to sort of run cover.
	Run cover.
	This pesky little thing called due process.
	We're going to have a fun discussion.
	Then he found out that there's a picture of Robert Barnes with Andrew Tate and Cernovich.
	They're all in on it because it was from a 2019 CPAC conference.
	Anyhow, he's coming in at 1 o'clock.
	We're going to have some fun.
	Share the link around.
	Let me just see.
	Are we live across all of the various planes of the interwebs?
	We got an oh, fuck, from Dashman91 over on VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	And then we got MightyPassesViva.
	You posted Anthony Casey on Twitter, but Casey Anthony, child killer, on here.
	Which one are you talking about?
	Hold on one second.
	You posted Anthony Casey on Twitter?
	Casey? Who's Anthony Casey?
	That's in our...
	Hold on.
	Who is Anthony Casey?
	Is Anthony Casey a person?
	It seems there might be some confusion.
	Possibly due to a mix-up.
	Based on the query...
	Okay, no, it's still in the Schofield Bible.
	I definitely meant Casey Anthony.
	Because I can be a dyslexic idiot.
	Good afternoon, everybody.
	Share the link around.
	Let's get this thing going.
	It's going to be a fun show today.
	We're going to talk about an amazing thing.
	I don't know if I'm getting callous, jaded, or just realistic, and I live in a silo where I live with other reasonable people.
	I can't understand what the controversy is of the podcast.
	I'm not yet done.
	I'm only two-thirds, three-quarters of the way through.
	Ian Carroll and Joe Rogan.
	We're going to talk about it.
	I seem to be getting into trouble with people who you would think, I don't even want to play the identity politics game as a joke.
	I'm getting in trouble from both sides here.
	We're going to talk about that interview and the bombshell controversy that it is or is not.
	Amy Coney Barrett, who Jack Posobiec is referring to as a DEI hire, I think humorously, but I would suggest that Barnes called it, people, at the time, raised the flags throughout, and now it's come to fruition that Amy Coney Barrett...
	Not a wild card.
	It's a reliably unreliable card on the Supreme Court.
	Encrypt us.
	If you can find the video where she's giving the evil eye to Donald Trump, that's the video that went viral.
	I have it somewhere.
	Viva looks wet.
	Under ordinary circumstances, it would sound very, very gross.
	But yeah, I just went for a jog before the show.
	And I didn't do my push-ups.
	So I'll have to do those later, but I went for a jog.
	It's important to remain not only intellectually active, but physically active as well.
	She's compromised.
	We'll get to it.
	So we're going to get to a bunch of fun stuff, but I want to start the show first and foremost by thanking our sponsors.
	We have two sponsors for today's show.
	You are very familiar with them.
	Fieldofgreens.com.
	People, the Dems spent years forcing mandates and dictating how we manage our health.
	Now they're pushing back.
	When we try to take control of it for ourselves, that's why I'm reclaiming my own health with Field of Greens.
	Where is it?
	It's right here, actually.
	It's right here.
	Boom. See that?
	Bada bing, bada boom!
	My Field of Greens right here.
	Certain things I do, if not daily, because I sometimes forget.
	Everybody knows you're supposed to have four to five servings of raw fruits and vegetables a day.
	Most people do not have that.
	And if you take a spoonful of Field of Greens twice a day, one spoonful, one serving of fruits and vegetables.
	You get all the antioxidants, all the good stuff that you need.
	Substitute out an unhealthy habit for a healthy habit.
	It tastes delicious.
	Every fruit and vegetable in Field of Greens is doctor-selected for specific health benefits.
	There's a heart health group, lungs, kidney, and metabolism groups, even healthy weight groups.
	Field of Greens promises that your next checkup, your doctor will notice your improved health or you get your money back.
	We've got a 20% discount to get you started.
	Go to fieldofgreens.com.
	Use promo code VIVA.
	That'll get you 20% off.
	Fieldofgreens.com.
	Promo code VIVA.
	And it is delicious.
	Which one is this one?
	I can't see too good.
	This one's real organic.
	It is there.
	Stir it around.
	It looks like what we would call...
	Greenish water.
	Because it is the water of life.
	And it's delicious.
	Fieldofgreens.com.
	And when you're done with your Field of Greens, although you should have this after your morning cup of coffee, start off every day with coffee that stands for something.
	1775 coffee.
	Some coffee is weak.
	Some coffee is sad.
	Some coffee is bad.
	And tastes like it votes Democrat.
	But 1775 coffee is bold, strong, America first in every single cup.
	The dark roast hits harder than a Trump press conference.
	The medium roasts smooth, no bitterness, just like before Bidenomics.
	And the Vitality Mushroom Blend fuels your brain like a Trump debate.
	This is the coffee Patriots drink, Rumblers drink, and that I drink.
	Small farms, small batches roasted fresh in Miami every week because your coffee should be fresher than a White House press briefing trying to explain.
	How much damage Joe Biden did to this country?
	And it's being rectified right now.
	Whole bean, ground, or pods.
	They've got it all.
	Go to 1775coffee.com.
	Use promo code VIVA for 15% off.
	Start every morning with a cup of coffee that actually stands for something and that actually tastes like something.
	And every dollar you spend supporting a Rumble partner gets you entered into the draw to win the Tesla Cybertruck and $30,000 cash.
	So go and do that.
	The coffee's delicious.
	And that is it.
	Thank you to our sponsors.
	The links are in the description.
	Ian Carroll, people.
	Call me...
	Oh, we'll start with Amy Coney Barrett.
	Let's start with Amy Coney Barrett.
	Let's play this clip.
	So first of all, he shook her hand.
	This was after the press conference the other day.
	Was this after Amy Coney Barrett was pivotal in one of the rulings that ordered Trump to disperse $2 billion to some government entity that he, by virtue of his executive authority, said he wasn't going to do?
	And if you look at her, look at her closely, and that is the face that you see after someone has cooked your rabbit and served it to you for dinner.
	If anybody knows what movie I'm talking about, congratulations, you're 40 years old or more.
	So, okay, play it once through all the way in cryptos.
	Let's see what's going on here.
	Do we have audio on this one?
	I can't hear too good.
	Amy Coney Barrett is...
	So I thought he miffed her, but he shook her hand, and then she's looking at him like she's sucking his soul out of his body.
	And now she looks very angry.
	She's going to lick her lips.
	There you go.
	All right.
	That's good.
	It's not as devastating as the media is making it out to be.
	But the bottom line, Amy Coney Barrett is now, I think...
	Burnt a couple of bridges with some of her more ardent supporters or people who had hitherto supported her.
	Where's the article that Jack Posobiec put out here?
	Here. Bada bing, bada boom.
	How do I get out of here?
	This is not ads, ads, ads.
	Okay. How do I do it?
	Close? Close?
	Jack Posobiec.
	Human events.
	Everybody knows who Jack Bersow because if you're watching this.
	Amy Coney Barrett shows the danger of Republican DEI.
	But the lone voice who warned about Amy Coney Barrett, it was human events.
	I think it was Barnes as well.
	Okay, when Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed to the Supreme Court in 2020, conservatives cheered.
	Here was a devout Catholic, mother of seven, supposed originalist in the mold of Antonin Scalia.
	Trump's gift to the right cemented just days before the election.
	Her vote to end Roe v.
	Wade. In 2022, Dobbs' decision was a monumental win, no question.
	Conservatives popped the champagne, toasted the fall of half a century, yada, yada, yada.
	Barrett's track record since then has been a rollercoaster of disappointment with too many stops on the liberal side of the tracks.
	Freshest misstep.
	This is the one that just went down the other day.
	Trump's Supreme Court ruled five to four that Trump's admin can't block nearly two billion in USAID.
	Not calling it aid because it's not.
	To foreign aid contractors, funds for work already done, sure, but cash Trump aimed to redirect under his America First agenda.
	Barrett joined Roberts and three liberals, or as it's also known, what did Barnes call them?
	He says it's three, three, and three.
	And I forget the third you got.
	Anyways. I say, my only issue with this article thus far is that Barnes called it at the time.
	I forget who he said would have been the better choice.
	I remember, chat's going to remember.
	But Barrett joined Roberts, three liberals, forcing the money out the doors despite Trump's efforts to gut a bloated agency.
	The dissent Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Thomas saw it for what it was, judicial overreach trampling executive power.
	Barrett's vote didn't just defy Trump, who gave her the robe.
	It propped up a globalist system conservatives have long despised.
	And it's not a one-off.
	It's a pattern.
	Smoking gun.
	Let's just see the other one.
	Supreme Court rejected Donald Trump's bid to delay sentencing in his New York felony case.
	34 counts tied to hush money.
	Yeah, they denied that because they said Mershaw had already announced that he wasn't going to lock Trump up, so no biggie.
	Just go through with it.
	5-4 ruling forced the president-elect to face the music before Inauguration Day.
	Who sided with it?
	Barrett alongside it, Justice Roberts.
	Okay. Then there's the January 6th cases, Fisher v.
	United States.
	The court narrowed the scope of an obstruction law used against capital-right defendants.
	Barrett dissented again, siding with the liberals to keep prosecutor tools intact.
	She argued the majority's reading was too restrictive.
	Fair enough if you're a law professor.
	But this was a real-world win for the DOJ's witch hunt against Trump supporters.
	Contrast that with her concurrence in Trump v.
	Anderson, where she refused to join the majority's full reasoning on keeping Trump off Colorado's ballot, aligning partly with the liberals' narrower take.
	What's the other one here?
	Murthy v.
	Missouri. She wrote the majority opinion dismissing claims that Biden's administration pressured a big tech.
	I remember that one.
	Ending Roe was huge.
	Barrett's vote there delivered a generational shift and returned abortion to the states where it belongs.
	But conservatism isn't a one-issue movement.
	We need justices who will run the gun rights.
	Free speech, limited government, protect from the de-state.
	Not a nod when it's safe.
	Barrett's pattern of siding with liberals in clutch moments shows she's not that justice.
	She's no radical leftist, but her principled caution too often translates to compromise with the wrong side.
	I think we might be reading too much into that video anyhow.
	It's fine.
	Especially when you slow things down.
	Everything looks a little bit more suspicious and sinister when you slow it down.
	Yeah, okay.
	Barnes, this is Duck Fat over in Rumble, said Barnes said three conservatives, three liberals, and three institutionalists.
	So you've got three conservatives, which would be Alito, Thomas, and I'm going to forget the third.
	I guess the institutionalists are going to be...
	Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett.
	And then the three liberals are going to be the other ones there.
	I see we got the chat is already going strong over on Rumble.
	Cameron Bessie, before we get to the next one.
	Innocent till proven guilty, but more soldiers in that people...
	Innocent till proven guilty, but more soldiers in that people change, people can grow from Trump to take.
	Oh, Cameron Bessie, I know who you are, but thank you for the super chat.
	Let me see here what's going on.
	Dashman over in Rumble says, I'm 100% pro-Catholic, but there are a few organizations in the church that get a bit twisted.
	Okay, I am not getting into religious discussion.
	For the truth, since Barnes will get an education in liberal NDW types in his jury pool picks, eh?
	Talking about what's going on in Seattle.
	Zvi Hansen says, did you see Grobert's interesting take on Luigi?
	I did not, Zvi Hansen, so I'll go look for that.
	But more interesting than the take on Luigi is the take on Ian Carroll on Rogan.
	It was trending.
	It's got to be a funny thing to be trending.
	I've had Ian Carroll on the chat.
	We had an in-person interview over at Locals.
	The man is...
	I like him.
	I like him.
	I think he's a decent person in as much as you know somebody.
	You never know what's going on behind closed doors.
	Someone who sits down for open discussion about childhood and discusses everything.
	I'm already inclined to have some respect for because when someone says nothing's off limits, ask whatever you want.
	And if you don't catch him in an egregious lie, you can't call him a liar and you should commend him for being open.
	Ian seems like a nice guy.
	He's doing some interesting work.
	He does his TikTok.
	And I'm not saying that to be demeaning.
	It's like become this trademark thing where, you know, they do the report and have the green screen and they point up and read through as they do it.
	He was on Rogan.
	It was trending yesterday.
	And some people are saying it's Rogan's most controversial guest that he's ever had.
	I'm about an hour and 50 minutes into the podcast.
	Let me just make sure so I'm not misspeaking.
	Yeah, I'm about an hour and 47 minutes and 35 seconds to be exact.
	Into the podcast.
	And maybe it's just because I've had Ian on and we've talked about all of this already.
	I have heard not nothing new in the sense like, oh, what's he talking about?
	Nothing controversial, nothing offensive, nothing anti-Semitic, if that word means anything anymore, which it doesn't, to the point where I do not understand the outrage.
	And I think it is...
	I'm not going to pull that it's a slow news day.
	I think it's people making hay so that they can make content for themselves to talk about.
	And I'm not sensitive to any of these things.
	I don't really take accusations of anti-Semitism very seriously, but I'm going to have to pull up one of the segments, and we'll listen to a good part of it, but not the whole thing.
	And I've asked a few people on the internet, I say, okay, it's nice.
	Call them all the names in the world.
	Call them an anti-Semite.
	Call them a conspiracy theorist.
	Call them names.
	But if you do that, at least respond substantively to the facts or the things that he's saying to say exactly what he's saying is wrong.
	Very few people do that because it takes work and it takes the facts to be on your side in order to do.
	Let's just play this for a bit.
	Out of all the information that's getting disclosed, supposedly, this administration, what do you have the least faith that we're going to come to a conclusion?
	Epstein, for sure.
	And I think it's because of Israel.
	Really? Because I think, I mean, when you really dig into Epstein, his entire network was Israel.
	It was clearly.
	Like Ehud Barak was the ex-prime minister and the ex-head of Israeli intelligence.
	Leslie Wexner was one of the most powerful pro-Israeli philanthropists.
	The whole organization was Israel.
	And I'm not saying it was all of Israel.
	It was all an intelligence gathering.
	And it was targeting Americans.
	It was targeting American officials and the American president.
	And the CIA does have interest in those targets, too.
	Elements in the CIA does.
	Certainly they had help from the CIA.
	And certainly they had help from these other organized crime and intelligence operations.
	But you don't...
	So, for example, Dan Bongino, the new...
	Was he deputy director of the FBI?
	He recently had this clip that went all around where he said on camera that he had a source that he trusted deeply.
	And he's an informed guy.
	He was at a Fox News interview, and the source told him that Epstein was working for an intelligence agency in the Middle East.
	And I don't know which one, but someone in the Middle East.
	And to be fair, we all already knew this.
	We already know who he worked for, at least I think so.
	But I'm looking at, okay, Dan, so if this giant group of Jewish billionaires...
	Is running a sex trafficking operation targeting American politicians and business people and stuff?
	You think they're working with an Arab or Muslim nation in the Middle East?
	Like, you think that Leslie Wexner is devoting his entire life to philanthropies on behalf of Israel, but then he's going to work for Saudi Arabia when he's doing this trafficking?
	Right. But if someone says to him that they're all working for a country in the Middle East, knowing he knows what that means, but not specifying, doesn't he kind of have to repeat it that same way?
	Put it on pause here, and let's steelman it for the sake of steelmanning it.
	Some people are going to get offended that Ian Carroll is focusing on Israel.
	I think, and this is working for the CIA too, mostly Israel.
	Undoubtedly, if you knew the network of not just Epstein, but running back up to Robert Maxwell and...
	I am not the expert on this.
	I've had Whitney Webb on.
	Robert Barnes and I have talked about it a lot.
	Whether or not you draw too many connections, connect too many dots that don't connect, the bottom line, people take issue with observing what is arguably but not arguably a matter of fact, or they then say, well, you're focusing on Israel.
	He was actually running intelligence or running blackmail both for Israeli intelligence, Mossad, MI6, the Five Eyes, the CIA.
	All right.
	So the qualm is that Ian thinks that there might have been a stronger connection to Mossad and Israel than to Britain, France, or the CIA.
	It is, I think, also indisputable that they were running an extortion ring, that there were distinct ties going back to intelligence, and that intelligence would include the CIA, Israeli intelligence, MI6.
	And it's not controversial.
	What becomes controversial is when you say, you can't even suggest it.
	Or if you do, you have to spread out the blame and not look like you're focusing on one country in particular.
	Although it might still be fair to say, like, when you're talking about countries and their respective influences and intelligence as relates to their respective sizes, it might be a legitimate thing to say, well, why would a tiny country...
	Even have an equal impact on intelligence or an equal role on intelligence as massive countries that command much more by way of military economic might on a global scale.
	So thus far I've heard nothing, not only nothing false, but certainly nothing controversial.
	And I listened with an open mind.
	In fact, I listened to this and it didn't even strike me as anything until I saw the outrage on the internet.
	Here we go.
	Here we go.
	The same way.
	Well, he also has to repeat it the same way because he won't get the job if he says Israel.
	Because Israel has so much control over our government right now.
	And I'm not saying that all Jews are in on something.
	Clearly. Internet.
	Clearly. Internet.
	And Joe is definitely not saying that.
	Definitely not.
	But Israel's government is as vulnerable to the deep state effect as the American government.
	But I would argue that Israel's government way more vulnerable to it because of the people that founded Israel and the way it was founded.
	It was founded in modern time, much more recently by like it was a revolutionary founding.
	And I can totally sympathize with the Jewish desire to have that state.
	Like I get it.
	But because of the way that happened, the people that founded Israel were We're a bunch of organized crime figures in America, the Jewish mob that were helping with money and with arms trafficking to get the guns there because they had to have guns.
	And it was the Rothschild banking family sending a whole bunch of money and getting the declaration in the first place.
	And then the people that were there, the three different organizations, the Irgun, the Lehi group, and the Haganah, those were the three paramilitary groups that fought to found Israel.
	And they're like the heroes of Israel, which I understand the narrative that they're heroes.
	When Israel was officially founded, they officially designated Irgun and Lehi as terrorist organizations because they had been bombing civilians.
	They were bombing British hotels, but they gave warnings before they did it.
	All right, that is the most controversial stuff you're going to hear.
	Ian Carroll, as far as I'm concerned, is not a controversial figure.
	If he says anything that's factually incorrect, I did ask somebody on the internet, I said, okay, it's great, you call them names.
	What's the most factually incorrect thing that he said?
	And the example I got was I asked him to show the receipts for the Rothschilds.
	Funded the Schofield Bible in 1910.
	I know nothing of the Schofield Bible.
	And all I say is I had to just go look and say, what's the question about the Schofield Bible?
	And it's a disputed fact as to whether or not the Rothschilds funded the Schofield Bible or people within their orbit.
	And I don't think I care about it.
	I mean, in as much as I don't know what the Schofield Bible, the argument is that it had an impact on modern society.
	If the best you could do in the context of...
	Black male extortion, the Epsteins, Jelaine Maxwell, Robert Maxwell, Mossad Intelligence.
	Extortion scheme is that he was not correct or entirely correct on who funded the Scofield Bible in 1910?
	All right.
	If that's your strongest one, then you used up your goodwill because I'm not interested in hearing your second strongest anymore.
	All right.
	I see the guest is in the back chat here.
	Oh, yes, yes.
	The Misfit Patriot.
	I don't know what his name is.
	I know maybe I should know what his name is.
	I'm going to ask him first things first.
	Misfit, I'm going to bring you in.
	We're going to start on YouTube, and then we're going to end it and go over to Rumble, and then I'll post this entire thing to YouTube afterwards.
	Bringing you in.
	Three, two, one.
	Hey! It's Zach, by the way.
	Zach, is your last name known as well?
	Bonfilio, yeah.
	Oh, I've been doxed more than anybody on the internet.
	I was doxed yesterday.
	Well, you can't be doxed if your name is out there, because then it's already out there.
	Yeah, no, it's public information.
	Real quick, I just wanted to...
	Bon figlio, Italian, means good son.
	Just real quick before we get started, I wanted to say something about the Ian Carroll thing.
	I think that you covered it very fairly.
	I know people who know Ian.
	I've heard he's a really nice guy.
	I really don't have a problem personally with him.
	The problem I have with him and others is something you asked what the problem is with him.
	Facts without context is propaganda, and conclusions based on facts without context is conspiracy theory.
	What Ian does, you said, did he say anything unfactual?
	No. He just doesn't provide the context.
	For instance, the Rothschilds, he calls the Zionist propaganda, the Rothschilds funded this and funded that.
	The Rothschilds didn't necessarily fund anything.
	They didn't fund the founding of Israel.
	Theodore Herzl, who was the father of modern Zionism, there's this conspiracy theory that the Rothschilds worked with him, and if you go back and verify it, then they actually weren't.
	So when you're asking people that can contest him, there are plenty of people that can contest him.
	He's gaining a lot of credibility, and again, I don't want to...
	I don't want to go down his road and say conspiracy theory, but his engagement is, let's say, not normal, if that makes sense.
	So the same arguments that he makes about just asking questions, I could ask the same questions as to why a post of his that gets a million views will gain him 100,000 followers, and a post of mine that gains 10 million views will gain me about 2,000.
	We're not going to go down that road.
	I've got to stop you at least at some point.
	I want to come back to the facts without context as propaganda because that becomes the argument for everybody who wants to say, you didn't give all the context.
	You don't have to give all of it.
	Facts without context almost seems...
	I don't want to say it sounds like an oxymoron because a fact you would think does not mean the context.
	I'll give you an example if this helps, right?
	Facts without context.
	Epstein has ties to Mossad.
	Fact, okay?
	Epstein's ties to Mossad is from the previous administration, Ehud Barak, which everyone in Israel currently agrees is essentially like the deep state of America.
	It would be like saying...
	America's corrupt, even though Donald Trump is the president, because Joe Biden was corrupt.
	Do you understand?
	So he's creating a false equivalency between the current administration, government corruption, and how the entire system of Israel is corrupt and controls America.
	Another fact he gives without context.
	Hold on, let's stop at the first one.
	To me, it sounds like you want context to be explaining away the fact.
	I don't want it to explain away.
	If it's factually correct that Epstein has ties to Mossad, your context is only going to either attenuate or attempt to attenuate or attempt to normalize that fact.
	But everyone does it, so therefore it's in context not that big of a deal.
	No, I'm not doing whataboutism.
	I'm saying that if you specifically deliver a fact, right?
	Without providing at least some context on both sides, or at least contextualizing it to the point where you can argue the other side, then I believe you are spreading propaganda.
	I believe if you're trying to make a point, then you can make it based off of limited facts.
	Like, again, another fact without context from Ian is this AIPAC.
	Everybody's like, AIPAC.
	AIPAC controls Congress.
	AIPAC controls Congress.
	APAC is number 20th in lobbying.
	They're 199th.
	In lobbying 20th in financial, the National Association of Realtors is number one.
	So by the same logic, you could say the National Association of Realtors is responsible for the California wildfires.
	That's what I'm saying.
	The National Association of Realtors is the number one contributor, right?
	They have the most influence over our Congress.
	That's a fact because they're the number one contributor.
	But jumping to a conclusion based off of that fact without context is what I'm saying.
	It's a conspiracy theory.
	If he can prove it...
	Then he would provide full context to back up his claim.
	And in his own interview with Joe Rogan, he says, look, hey, you guys should fact check me because I don't know if what I'm saying is actually true.
	That's not what he said.
	He says, fact check me to make sure that what I'm saying is true.
	And if it's not, I'll happily correct myself.
	Well, I just did.
	I mean, that's what I'm saying.
	He's got the platform.
	You might not be proving the point you think you're proving either, that if the APAC is not...
	I'm looking it up.
	I know it's...
	It's substantial, but I don't know, it doesn't seem to be top 10. If they're not top 10 and yet still command a disproportionate amount of influence, again, not look.
	How do they command an influence, though?
	You're just saying they have influence, right?
	There's no proof that they have influence.
	The A in AIPAC stands for American.
	It's American Israelis.
	It's not Israel.
	It's Americans.
	It's American citizens.
	And listen, by the way, I think all PACs should either be illegal or they should all be on the same level playing field where they all have a donation amount that they can cap out at.
	Like if it's a million dollars for a PAC, it should be a million dollars for the National Association of Realtors.
	I'm not here to defend PACs.
	What I'm saying is the hyperfixation on one PAC when we have a PAC, right?
	There's a PAC.
	Which is 1A.
	There's AAPAC, which is the Arab American Political Action Committee.
	Nobody talks about the influence that the Arab American Political Action Committee has, like Qatar donating millions of dollars to schools and institutions in America.
	What I'm saying is I keep hearing that you can't ask questions, right?
	You can't ask questions about Israel.
	That's all they're fucking doing.
	I mean, that's all I'm seeing is people asking questions about Israel.
	But that's all they're doing.
	They're not asking.
	They're asking leading questions.
	All right?
	Find answers.
	I'm way more comfortable with you finding answers than asking questions.
	And it's nothing against Ian.
	It's nothing against you or anybody else that asks them.
	My question is, why aren't you asking all of the questions?
	But that's, again, it's a copy.
	And when people say, you know, you only criticize APEC.
	No, people criticize the pharma influence every day of the week, including Ian.
	So it's not true to say that he's only picking on one.
	He's picking on the ones that he thinks are morally or patriotically offensive.
	And so people rightly pick on the pharma influence.
	So wouldn't you agree that if that's what he's doing, then he's looking for confirmation bias, right?
	Because he's picking on...
	He's picking the...
	He's finding the PAC he wants to talk about, highlighting the influence that PAC has over Congress.
	Yeah, it's called picking a topic for an essay.
	Absolutely. Yeah, it's what I do with a lot of my content, with Tate's, with everything.
	Come back to the other thing where you're just asking questions.
	You say, he puts up a post, it gets 1 million views and gains him 100,000 followers.
	You put up when it gets 10 million views, it only gets 2,000.
	It might be because your post is rage-baiting but not substantive, and his are substantive and not rage-baiting.
	Oh, it very well could be.
	I've looked through the disproportionate analytics, and his doesn't line up with any standard.
	Also, as somebody that's gone back and forth with him personally and had the bot farm attacks, it's very different when I get from him.
	That's subjective.
	That's me just interpreting it.
	I'm not making an accusation.
	I really am not.
	I'm not even asking a question.
	I'm saying that Ian has blown up very quickly for somebody that would be in that space.
	He's immediately got...
	Going on Infowars, Joe Rogan, and he's spreading this.
	So a lot of people are asking that question.
	Is this a PSYOP?
	Is this manufactured?
	Is he being placed there to spread anti-Israel propaganda?
	Because that's exactly what he would say if he was looking at it from the other side.
	True. And I might say...
	Those people who say his growth is inorganic are jealous that their content is not catching as much and it's not converting as much.
	It's what everybody says.
	And I try to avoid doing that myself.
	Like, oh, this post didn't get as much traction as I thought it should get.
	I don't care about views.
	I really want to be very clear about that.
	It's not jealousy.
	Do you have a cat in the background?
	I have a dog.
	Okay, fine.
	You saved one point of a negative and then gained one point of a positive.
	What kind of dog?
	A little bull terrier.
	He's the man.
	Okay, you just got two points.
	Okay. And by the way, I want to do this over on Rumble, but not because I want to...
	Oh no, I love Rumble.
	I'm going to end it on Commitube and then I'll post the entire thing afterwards.
	We will go in a fair bit of detail about other things.
	So hold on.
	I'm just going to end this on Commitube, which is right here.
	And come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	It's not members only, so everybody can...
	It's not supporters only, so you can go there.
	Or Rumble.
	Get the link.
	Did I send the link up?
	Let me just get the link to everybody.
	Because we're going to get into this stuff now.
	Link. Boom.
	Here. And one more here.
	Link. Da-da-da.
	Here. May I ask what you do for a living?
	Oh, yeah, sure.
	I do kitchen and bathroom remodeling.
	I own a company.
	I was actually doing a shower today, and I had to run out to get material.
	I'm on my lunch break, essentially.
	I can go back whenever.
	There's no rush.
	Customer's not there today.
	But I do custom kitchen and bathroom remodeling, basically.
	There's no doxing for you.
	This is publicity.
	And I say that not strictly.
	You know what, dude?
	They've tried.
	When I was first attacked, it was the radical left.
	Now I'm sort of getting attacked from the radical right.
	And it's very similar.
	A few years ago, I've been banned more than any person on the internet.
	They've banned over 360 TikTok accounts when I was doing it because what they would do is mass report and harass me.
	But they left over 700 negative business reviews on my business page.
	They tried stalking me and getting me fired.
	I would get phone calls to my cell phone, which is my business line, and they would be like, your employees are racist.
	And I was like, what are you talking about?
	Oh, he's fired.
	I've dealt with the full weight of the internet more than once, which is why I think that I'm so unfazed at Tate supporters coming at me.
	From my experience, the Tate haters are by far more vitriolic than the Tate supporters.
	I mean, you're on one side of it.
	I would make an argument.
	I'm not on either side of it.
	It seems that you sit in the middle, and I'm not trying to sit on the fence for anyone not to take a position.
	People don't assess their own conduct.
	Hold on a second.
	Just one more question.
	How old are you?
	How old am I?
	39. Okay.
	Okay, now we're bringing it on over to Rumble and the other platforms.
	Ending on ComedyTube.
	Come on over, people.
	See ya.
	All right, man.
	So you have an actual job, an actual business.
	You do this stuff for fun.
	I'm not making an accusation, and there's no but to this.
	I figured I would wait until I discussed in person.
	I was told, or at least I get DMs, he had his TikTok accounts taken down because he was stalking people, and I'm like, I'm not jumping on that anymore than I'm jumping on the Tates.
	But I figured you could probably answer that question.
	I don't know your history, and if you lie here, I presume people are going to find out.
	Just like Ian Carroll said, you can fact check me.
	No, no, no.
	I went after one of these radical left creators who was basically just doxing people.
	Who was it?
	The Modern Warrior.
	Lance something.
	Native American guy.
	And what he would do was...
	You know, like some girl would wear like a Pocahontas, a white girl would wear a Pocahontas outfit for Halloween.
	And he would, he had 4 million followers and he would be like, this is, this is Christina something and she lives in blah, blah, blah.
	And then those people would go attack that person.
	And I, I made a joke, which was, it really was a joke.
	And I was like, hey, is there any evidence that this dude's a pedophile?
	Because what he's doing is he's accusing everybody of being racist.
	Why can't I just accuse him of being a pedophile?
	And then he immediately, the first post he made was, this is Zach Bonfilio of San Antonio, Texas.
	This is his business.
	And then I just got inundated with a bunch of hate.
	And instead of doing what most people do, which is leaving the internet, because on TikTok, it's very easy to ban somebody.
	You just mass report them.
	I made another account.
	I had 118,000 followers.
	Within a week, I had 50,000 followers on the new one.
	That one got banned, made another one.
	That one got banned, made another one.
	And then I just sort of refused to leave.
	I would make 10 accounts a day.
	They would just mass report them.
	And it sort of became a little game of cat and mouse over about a year.
	And, you know, I went through all of the propaganda campaigns.
	People would, like, you know...
	To me, this strikes me as very bizarre behavior.
	Why are you making 10 accounts, and what are you doing with those accounts once you create them?
	It's actually a funny story.
	A lawyer reached out to me while this was all going on, and we sort of were trying to collect sort of a data set to see if TikTok was violating, at the time, and it's still...
	You know, sort of worked its way through courts.
	But there's a Texas law, House Bill 20, which is it prevents social media companies from banning people based off of their political views.
	And we would argue that that's what was happening.
	So at one point, my lawyer and I were discussing and they were like, well, why don't you just keep making accounts?
	Make them all day.
	And then I was having people.
	In different states, make an account that just said the Misfit Patriot.
	Within 10 minutes, that account would be banned.
	Yeah, because it's algorithmic.
	You're bypassing a ban, which itself is a bannable offense, whether you agree with the ban or not.
	Sure. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	But what I'm saying is it was more to expose the censorship on the app rather than putting it on me.
	If there is a ban, if your original ban is an actual community guidelines violation, if you're doing something wrong, like if I was doxing people, if I was threatening people, harassing people, if I was doing something like that, then you could make that argument that I'm avoiding a ban because I was fairly removed from the internet, which I don't really think that you can be unless you commit an actual crime.
	So it was more of a fishing expedition.
	We did it for about a year.
	Racked up 360 accounts, put together a lawsuit, and it's just very hard to sue TikTok.
	You can't really sue China.
	They have one court in California, and I would assume the judges are pretty much paid off.
	But it was fun while it lasted.
	So anyway, that's where I got my reputation.
	I am a shit-talker.
	I don't back down from a fight.
	Something similar to what I'm doing now, where I pick a topic that I think is very important.
	I think that sex trafficking, especially when it involves minors, is a huge problem.
	And when I see something that I believe is a very prolific sex trafficker infiltrating the MAGA movement, I'm going to talk about it.
	And the response from that is I'm getting dragged.
	And I think yesterday, I think the Tate Updates account said that I have been convicted.
	Multiple times of sexually abusing women.
	Completely untrue.
	Well, let me ask you that because, again, there's a chat.
	It's called, his name is Whipper7.
	It says, ask him why he's a felon.
	I'm not.
	What do they call it?
	Not turn around?
	Whatever. Fair game.
	Do you have a criminal record?
	Not really.
	I have a criminal record.
	I don't have any felonies.
	I have traffic violation.
	I got a DWI, I think, in 2018 or 2017, which is the mugshot they used to claim that I was a sexual abuser.
	I've been in some fights.
	Got some assault and batteries.
	Never convicted.
	Assault and batteries against other men fights?
	Oh, yeah.
	I was jumped by three people.
	When the cops showed up, they weren't standing, and I was.
	We're dealing with that, but I don't want to...
	I don't want to, again, it's interesting because in what you're doing with the Tates, people will do with you.
	Oh, sure.
	Hey, if you want to call out my past, my drinking and driving charge is just that.
	It's a charge.
	I went through the legal judicial process, but I will flat out, I will come out and tell you that I was drinking, and I shouldn't have been.
	And I change my behavior.
	I don't drink and drive anymore.
	I live downtown for a reason.
	And I don't even drink right now.
	I'm doing sober for 90 days just as a personal challenge.
	But even if I was drinking, I don't drive anymore.
	I learned my lesson.
	I changed my behavior.
	It's the opposite of what Andrew Tate is doing.
	I would argue that if they're guilty of what you say they are, they can change their behavior all they want.
	That won't change anything.
	I do want to highlight a bit of the absurdity.
	You were charged.
	So you were not convicted or did you plead to a deal?
	No, I wasn't convicted.
	It was brought down to a traffic violation.
	Okay. So some people say guilty of DUI.
	You can say that.
	You have a valid argument, right?
	I think that the argument that you're making is from a legal perspective.
	You're a lawyer, yeah?
	Former, but yes.
	You're a former lawyer, right?
	And the argument that I'm making is from the court of public opinion, right?
	Look, did Luigi Mangione kill the United CEO worker?
	The United Healthcare CEO?
	The video that they showed is not definitively Luigi Mangione.
	The only issue is that the defense on the left is not that he didn't do it, but that he was righteously justified in having done it.
	I do want to see better evidence of the person who pulled the trigger.
	I am suspicious of the orgy of evidence that they found on him.
	And he might just be a mentally unwell person who's an easy person to frame for whatever happened.
	Sure, sure.
	Okay, so what you're saying is you shouldn't accuse somebody unless they've been through the entire judicial process.
	No, my point is you can have whatever opinions you want.
	What is going on with the Tates in particular, to me...
	Actually, when you talk about inorganic growth and inorganic numbers for Ian, what it looks like to me is inorganic lynch mobs for anybody who would dare not even defend Tate per se.
	I know people do that, but defend due process.
	And if someone wants to get conspiratorial, they're going to say that it is a group of activists who are there to stir up shit among the right by demonizing.
	I don't consider myself on the right, but I do consider myself to be a trustworthy voice.
	By demonizing the trustworthy voices, because the number of jackasses, Misfit, who come from your account and that crayon murder guy, who come and say, Viva's defending sex traffickers, whatever her face is, last time I ever spoke to her, I mean, it doesn't seem organic, and if one wanted to impute ill intent to a divisive behavior, you're public enemy number one, not me.
	Do you not see why they have that opinion, though?
	Absolutely, I see why they have that opinion.
	Hold on.
	You and Barnes were two lawyers having a conversation on a YouTube channel.
	Saying that human trafficking is like from the movie Taken.
	Completely ignoring that the vast majority of human trafficking is done through the method that Andrew Tate's accused of, the lover boy method.
	It's done through manipulation and grooming most of the time.
	You can say that.
	I remember the episode where Barnes said it's like Taken.
	I appreciate that there is a psychological method of exploiting people.
	Do I consider that trafficking?
	You'd have to make a compelling argument because then by that rationale, any form of pornography will just as easily be called trafficking.
	Any form of content that is triple X will be called trafficking.
	Now, I have said this all along.
	The lover boy law in Romania, the way it's drafted would probably be unconstitutional in America.
	And it certainly sounds by what Tate was describing that he might have described what might be violative of that law in Romania, the lover boy law, assuming it's legally valid.
	You still need to go to trial because otherwise what you are doing is saying the legal age of consent, legal decisions of adults mean nothing if I disagree with the age of consent in that country, and then I get to go and call someone the worst of the worst things on earth to say, well, he manipulated them, therefore their testimony, exculpatory testimony, will be disregarded because I say that they're victims and not actual bona fide witnesses attesting to Tate's innocence.
	Okay, let me read you your own tweet from the...
	September 27th, 2024.
	Hey, Stacey Plaskett.
	Is this really an email from you graciously asking for the support of sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein?
	My question to you is...
	Was Jeffrey Epstein ever convicted of sex trafficking?
	He pleaded guilty to soliciting child prostitution in 2008.
	So I would consider that sufficiently close.
	That's not sex trafficking.
	That is trafficking in sex.
	That's not sex trafficking.
	That's prostitution.
	He pleaded guilty to prostitution.
	It is soliciting child prostitution, which in my view is sufficiently accurate to call someone a sex trafficker.
	Did Cobra Tate plead guilty to child prostitution?
	Did he plead guilty to anything?
	What about Diddy?
	No, don't what about after you have your ass smashed on a bad ass.
	You're not smashing my ass.
	Did Cobra plead guilty to anything?
	No. Did he admit on camera to doing it?
	We'll get there in a second.
	Jeffrey Epstein pleaded guilty to child prostitution solicitation.
	Prostitution and solicitation.
	You may disagree with my colloquially equating the two.
	I think it's very factually and legally tenable.
	He was guilty of soliciting child prostitution.
	So when I call him a sex trafficker, after we have that entire file opened up, it is by no means analogous to calling Tate a sex trafficker who's been convicted of nothing and pleaded to nothing.
	Next try.
	It is the same thing.
	Alright, fine.
	Next try.
	Pizzagate was real.
	P. Diddy is the next iteration of Epstein.
	That's you from 12-17-2024.
	Has Diddy been convicted of sex trafficking?
	No, but he was running, by all accounts, an extortion scheme.
	Read the tweet again, because I don't think you read the whole thing.
	Pizzagate was real.
	P. Diddy is the next iteration of Epstein.
	That's your words.
	I know those are my words, so don't put words that aren't in there.
	I sincerely believe that...
	I'm reading it word for word.
	And I'm telling you not to add words.
	There's nothing about sex trafficking in there.
	I believe it was an extortion ring.
	And I believe that P. Diddy is the next iteration of Epstein.
	So you believe that Epstein was a sex trafficker based off prostitution?
	He was, because he pleaded guilty to child solicitation of prostitution.
	And you believe that Diddy is the next iteration of Epstein.
	But now you're confusing two things, because there are two different things here.
	Epstein pleaded guilty to sex trafficking as far as soliciting child prostitution, and he was running an extortion scheme.
	Prostitution is not sex trafficking.
	Listen, I think that...
	That's your best defense.
	Epstein was a sex trafficker.
	Like I said, I am agreeing with you he was.
	I'm just trying to understand how you can make this jump.
	You're not trying to understand anything.
	What you are trying to do is discredit the source.
	You failed at that, and now you're moving to another target and not even sticking to the target.
	You're saying I failed.
	In that tweet, I'm equating the extortion ring, which I believe went under Epstein, and believe went under P. Diddy.
	Because there's only five reasons why you have cameras recording sex and having freak-offs with oil, even assuming the facts we all agree on.
	So it's not the sex trafficking that's equated there, it's the extortion scheme.
	Well, you're making an accusation is the whole point, right?
	You are.
	You're making an accusation against somebody that hasn't gone through the entire due process.
	That's my point.
	Well, see, you throw in the word entire due process.
	Diddy, uh, Epstein went through a portion of due process and even in that, uh, corrupt exoneration was still pleading guilty to child sex, prostitute trafficking.
	In Diddy, I noticed you pull up some.
	In Diddy, I said, like, I can't even believe how weak the indictment is with Diddy, but I do believe that this was something of an extortion ring and I do believe, put the word in there, believe.
	I'm not calling him.
	Did he...
	I don't think I've called him a sex trafficker, even if you find...
	Your exact words, he is.
	He is the next iteration of Epstein.
	Like I said...
	Do you understand what you're doing there, or do you not understand it?
	I understand that I'm reading your words.
	What is that Epstein?
	What am I referring to with Epstein there?
	Sex trafficking or extortion?
	Okay, well...
	Am I calling Epstein Jewish?
	What am I referring to when I call Andrew Tate a pedophile?
	You're referring to him having engaged in sexual activity with a minor.
	Yeah, that's exactly what it's right.
	We're guilty to that.
	Well, hold on.
	Is he on camera?
	No, no, no.
	I didn't ask you that.
	No, he hasn't pleaded guilty to anything.
	Your argument is you can't make accusations against people while you make accusations against people.
	That is what we're talking about.
	It depends on what the accusation is.
	I believe they're running an extortion ring is one accusation.
	They are a pedophile is a statement of fact.
	Well, a statement of fact based off of visual evidence that I am looking at with my own eyes, right?
	Do you understand the difference between a statement of fact and an observation and conclusion?
	Is your argument that what I'm saying is defamatory?
	Yeah, I don't care about that.
	My argument right now is that you're running something of what I might call an inorganic lynch mob.
	It's organic.
	I promise you, I believe what I'm saying.
	You can choose to believe me or not, but the thing is, I fully believe that...
	Andrew Tate is a pedophile sex trafficker, not based off of my opinion, based off of his own admissions on camera.
	I have watched him slap around a 15-year-old girl, Vivian, and yes, her age was confirmed.
	She was born September 25, 1997.
	The video is uploaded in 2012.
	Do simple math.
	She's also on video in 2012.
	You're doing what we call the spaghetti on the wall here.
	Why don't you let me finish my point, and then you can spaghetti me all day, right?
	Vivian's on camera.
	In a video on YouTube from 2020, saying that her birthday is September 25th.
	The charging document in Romania has a victim of September 25th, 1997.
	Andrew Tate, in the same video right after Vivian says, my birthday is September 25th, says I've been with you eight years.
	Eight years in 2020 would be 2012 when he met her, or at least when he was referring to how many birthdays he's had with her.
	You look at all this evidence, right, and you can come to a reasonable conclusion where a person...
	I don't understand why you think I'm supposed to wait for the federal government to tell me if somebody's guilty after the shit show that I've seen with the Casey Anthony trial, the OJ Simpson trial, the Trump trial, a bunch of other fucking trials, right?
	You want me to wait for the federal government in fucking Romania or America to tell me whether or not somebody's guilty?
	Fuck that shit.
	I'm looking at it with my own eyes in 4K.
	Andrew Tate admits...
	The Protect Act of 2003, Section 105 says that any U.S. citizen that travels abroad and has sex with a girl under the age of 18 is guilty of a felony up to 30 years in prison, which is exactly why Andrew Tate got on a fucking plane and flew the fuck out of Florida today.
	So I'm sorry.
	No, I'm not going to wait for the federal government to tell me Andrew Tate's guilty.
	He is guilty.
	I'm looking at it.
	First of all, you're entitled to your opinion.
	The amazing thing is you say, I'm not going to wait for the federal government or any government because they're corrupt as shit and they might find him innocent afterwards.
	So the government's corrupt if they prosecute, corrupt sometimes if they don't, corrupt if they acquit, corrupt if they convict.
	I'm sure you would concede that the government of Romania is...
	Less than kosher, if we can put it mildly.
	I'm sure you'd concede that the government of the UK is also less than...
	What's the word?
	Having... Oh, geez.
	Give me a word for this.
	You know the word I'm looking for.
	Yeah, on the up and up.
	And this is where I enjoy it.
	You've done your own due diligence.
	You're comfortable with it, and that's fine.
	Thank you.
	You appreciate the legal difference.
	And the thing is this, this is the type of only discussion that we can have verbally because it's nuanced to the point where something might be morally reprehensible, which is a subjective element of assessment, and something might be objectively legally illegal, whether or not you agree with the morality of the law.
	Sure. You know what the age of consent is in the UK?
	16. Okay.
	So you understand that from a legal perspective, the difference of a day, let alone a year, could be...
	And I want to...
	Preface this also.
	I don't morally agree with what they're doing, even if it's consensual, even if she's 16. Yeah, gotcha.
	The legal difference of a day, a month, or a year in terms of whether or not someone is a pedophile, in your opinion, versus let alone a convicted one, could be determinant.
	Now, I want to be very clear.
	I'm using the term pedophilia in the general slang way that people use it, right?
	Attraction to...
	Minors, not the literal definition of attraction to prepubescent children, but you call people pedophiles when you think that they're attracted to minors.
	These are minors, and they're minors by my standard of America, right?
	Here's the deal.
	If somebody goes to...
	The reason why the Protect Act was...
	Section 105 was put in there was for situations like people like Americans who want to fly to Thailand and want to have sex with underage children or minors and then fly back.
	They are guilty of a crime here.
	Andrew Tate is an American citizen here.
	He's on camera multiple times in hours of interviews saying, I sleep with girls who are 17. He says...
	I want to pause you there.
	I'm going to look it up and encrypt this if you're listening.
	Does the PROTECT Act apply to the United Kingdom?
	I'm asking the question a lot.
	I don't know the answer.
	It applies to every other country.
	I'm asking the question, and I'm not sure that you know the answer.
	If a 21-year-old or a 25-year-old goes to the United Kingdom and has sexual intercourse with a 16- or 17-year-old, is that prosecutable in America?
	You say yes.
	I'm not convinced.
	Go ahead.
	No, no, no.
	Hey, if I'm wrong on that, then please, you can review me.
	It only applies to the U.S. Say it again?
	It only applies to the U.S. Well, in the U.S., would it apply...
	If an adult, if a 25-year-old goes to the United Kingdom, and is it for the purposes of...
	Just to get that aside.
	If a 25-year-old goes to the United Kingdom and has intercourse with a 17-year-old, let's just say 16, 17, which is the age of consent there, would the Protect Act...
	Would they be able to be prosecuted under the Protect Act in America?
	No, they would not be.
	How so?
	Just looking at the quick research, being as it has to be a crime in the United States.
	Now, the question is having sex with a 16-year-old.
	Look at Section 105.
	Because this is where, again, I'm dispassionate in this, and maybe people say you should be passionate.
	I would be shocked, and I would be shocked if there were a law that criminalized any UK law, and any Canadian law for that matter, because I think you're in Canada now at the age of consent to 16. Let me just read to you section 105.
	You're going to pull the same Adam Schiff thing about reading a section that says Kash Patelkin discloses neither of us in this particular situation have the answer to this question.
	Like I said, you can verify this, but can I just read what it says?
	because it just says, authorizes fines and or imprisonment for up to 30 years for US citizens or legal residents who engage in illicit sexual conduct abroad.
	Illicit sexual conduct means a sexual act as defined in section 2246 with a person under the age of 18 or any commercial sex act as defined in 1591 with a person under the age What that means is, if you go abroad, And you have sex with a girl under the age of 18, and you're an American citizen, you can be prosecuted in America because this is an American law.
	It was signed into law in 2003.
	Well, see, this is where, not to say that you're suffering from the Dunning-Kruber effect, this is where you would have to say, you're reading some letters of the law, and you might...
	I don't have a sufficient understanding as to how this would be applied.
	And if it's a crime, it's a crime.
	I would be shocked if...
	Going to the UK, if abiding by UK law would be prosecutable in America, I'd be shocked.
	It is.
	No, because I know that this law was intended to ban people going for underage sex in Thailand.
	We have a similar law in Canada.
	And I'm just reading from Grok.
	I mean, Grok is not the best thing on this.
	It seems there might be some confusion.
	The Protect Act is a United States law enacted by U.S. Congress.
	Its jurisdiction applies within the United States to certain extraterritorial actions involving U.S. citizens.
	Does not directly apply to the United Kingdom.
	As the UK operates under its own legal framework.
	Fine, that's not really the question.
	The question would only be, if you were to do the hypothetical, a 25-year-old goes to the UK and has sex with a 17-year-old boy or girl.
	Would they, could they, and has anyone ever been prosecuted for that in America?
	And this is only to establish, if it's illegal, it's illegal in general.
	Presumably, they're going to have some issues.
	I would assume that it's a...
	They were citizens at the time, however.
	Sure, I would assume that it's prosecutable.
	Right? Has that particular instance been prosecuted?
	We'd have to look it up.
	And where was he a citizen at the time?
	He's always been a citizen of the United States.
	But he has multiple citizens.
	Well, so I understand your point is to the extent that he's always been a citizen, if it were illegal, he could be prosecuted for that in America.
	Yeah. And like I said, what I'm talking about is if I can see it, right?
	If I can see somebody admitting...
	Let's say, all right, let me just pose this.
	The question to be determined.
	This particular fact pattern, if a 25-year-old American is on vacation in the UK, has sex with a 16 or 17-year-old, which is the age of consent in the UK, but not in America, can they be prosecuted under the...
	Well, what was it called?
	Protect Act.
	The Protect Act.
	That's the question.
	Anybody in the internet who can provide a definitive answer, an American lawyer, go at it.
	And if somehow you provide me more context where I'm wrong, I'll say I'm wrong.
	You'll be wrong in law, but you'll still be, in your own mind, you'll be right morally because...
	Well, I mean, morally, the question is not about morality, because I'm looking through this in the lens of, if me, a 39-year-old man had a 15-year-old daughter, and I watched what Andrew Tate did to her, we wouldn't be even talking about the law.
	We would be talking about, where do I bury him?
	That's the moral standpoint.
	But from a legal perspective, he also is on camera admitting to multiple crimes, including tax evasion, including sex trafficking, including sleeping with underage women.
	We'll get to that in a second.
	Encryptus, what do you have?
	So, I do have a little bit more of an answer, and Mr. Patriot may be accurate in this one.
	So, if a 25-year-old U.S. citizen travels to the U.K. and has consensual sex with a 17-year-old, this could potentially be prosecutable under U.S. law depending on whether the act would be legal under U.S. federal or state law.
	If U.S. federal law considers 18 as the threshold for illicit sexual conduct, prosecution is possible even though the act was legal in the U.K. And by the way, what I did here is I ingested all of the law into one of my AI tools.
	I summarized it and then asked the question appropriately for that.
	Just keep that in mind.
	Ask the question if age of consent is a federal statute or a federal law or state law.
	Because age of consent varies across states.
	In fact, I'd be curious.
	I believe federal.
	What is the lowest age of consent at state law?
	It's, I think, 16, but you have to be within two years, I want to say.
	Well, that might be for positions of authority.
	I'm not sure, because we have similar provisions under Canadian law.
	It is state to state, but the Protect Act very specifically denotes anyone under 18 as a minor.
	Yeah, and that's federal, so it trumps that.
	It trumps state law.
	I would agree, because not my argument, my understanding is, even operating on the basis that they're 16 or 17, then I could see exposure there under US law.
	It'll minimize the argument, or at least you'll say, well, it's UK and Europe has always been more sexually open than the West.
	I understand there are different cultures.
	I understand that there are different laws in different lands.
	What I have been arguing since the beginning, you see, I was an Intertaped fan not long ago, actually.
	The wool was pulled over my eyes like so many others because he's an incredible messenger.
	He's really good at deflection, gaslighting, this, that, and the other.
	For instance, when the Vivian girl, I told you, whose age has been verified, it's been verified in the UK, it's been verified in Romania.
	He made a tweet that said, yeah, I hope somebody tries to call her 16 because I'll go to the courthouse right now with her passport.
	He never did, right?
	But... I understand.
	I'm not drawing a conclusion.
	I'm providing you further context into my train of thinking.
	And by the way, this is not the smoking gun.
	The smoking gun is the video, okay?
	The smoking gun is watching him...
	Beat up a verifiable 15-year-old.
	And 15-year-olds cannot consent.
	They can't consent in the UK.
	Right now, the law in Romania, they can't consent in Romania.
	There's more than one 15-year-old victim, by the way.
	There's one that's named in the Romanian lawsuit where they claim that he had anal sex with her.
	Now, there's so much evidence.
	I don't know how deep you've dug into this.
	I can see...
	Where you are trying to make a defense for the law because that is...
	I'm not trying to make a defense for anything.
	You're trying to make a defense for due process, though.
	No, what I'm trying to maybe cause people to analyze what they think is a foregone conclusion of guilt.
	You're taking statements that he made online plus calculations that you've done to say that she was definitively fit.
	That is not definitively by any means.
	It's not definitively.
	It's not demonstrably.
	And if you're off by a year, at least in the UK, it makes for the difference between a crime and not a crime.
	Sure. So you say, because you keep saying it, definitively demonstrably, yeah, well, we've done the calculations.
	She said here in a podcast from 2010, I would have to take all of the evidence that I just explained and I would have to make a very, very small jump and I'm taking a very small chance that all of this evidence That's literally pointing to that dude's beating up a 15 year old is not beating up a 15 year old.
	This is the issue.
	Let's just say she's an adult under UK law.
	You're right.
	You cannot consent to assault.
	Period. Even as an adult.
	If she's an adult and she's consenting to it and that is the steel man that they're doing it for a camera.
	It's not like they don't know that there's a camera rolling.
	That they're doing some sort of whatever stupid role playing that they're doing.
	That's the argument.
	If she's 15, that argument no longer applies.
	Correct. Which is why, and he's 25 at the time, and I appreciate that that's a big age difference, but that's not, call me whatever pervert you want.
	25 to 16, 25 to 17, it will be a problem from a parental perspective, but my best friend's parents were 20 years apart.
	I don't know when they met.
	I don't think she was one and he was 21 when they met, so depending on when it happens.
	I think the amount of distance between age is not...
	Really relevant if they're both adults, right?
	And an adult in the UK would be 16, whether you like it or not.
	There's a position of authority provision, as far as I understand, in the UK.
	I think that even the people in the UK...
	Right? Would probably agree with this sentiment that just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right.
	Right? I don't think anything about this is right, by the way.
	Correct. Listen, I want to say something to you because we did get back and forth into it like a month or so ago.
	I do not think that you are...
	Defending tape for some nefarious reason, like you're paid off or anything like that.
	I really believe that you...
	I can always respect somebody if I believe that they believe what they're saying is true, right?
	And I hope that you feel the same way about me.
	I believe what I'm saying is true.
	Oh, no, I have no doubt.
	I actually just want to...
	I see all caps for all caps.
	False Prophet says, Viva showing his lack of understanding in US legal code and where it applies.
	This is what people don't understand.
	I don't claim to have knowledge of the US legal code.
	Yeah, you can't memorize it.
	I'm a Canadian lawyer and I didn't do criminal law as a practice.
	I just know what questions I would be asking.
	And the question I'm asking, it's not an assertion and it's not about being right or wrong.
	It's just about getting the information out there.
	Is it illegal to go?
	The Indonesian Thai boy stuff is, you know, we're talking children at state levels.
	I don't know if there's a state that has a 16-year-old age of consent.
	Would it be?
	And now it seems that it might be prosecutable if an adult goes to the UK and abides by their age of consent under the Protect Act.
	Sure, yeah.
	I'm not trying to be right, and I'm not trying to show up.
	No, I don't think, I think that that's a cheap dig, right?
	It's like when people say, I don't, if you don't memorize the Bible, and then somebody gives you a pass from the Bible, and you can't immediately, you know, debug.
	Well, but if you purport to be an expert in the Bible, and you can't, then I...
	Yeah, well, I mean, I never purport to be an expert in the Bible.
	I was just, I just dealt with this last week.
	But anyway, no, no, no.
	Look, here's the deal.
	Coming at it from a perspective of morality and saying this person's a pedophile because I truly believe it to be true the same way and like the tweet that you pulled up.
	I believe Casey Anthony killed her kid.
	I'm not even on the fence about that one.
	There's an entire possibility where the kid died from whatever she thought was neglect and then they panic and dispose of the body.
	She's responsible for the death of her child.
	It's not inconceivable.
	The kid died and she thought it was her fault and then she panicked and disposed of the body.
	She's guilty of something.
	There's no question in my book.
	I'll give you that.
	Maybe I should have worded it differently.
	I think that we can't...
	I mean, we really need to get out of the habit of, I would say, fact-checking to this, like, ridiculous standard of, you said it, so you meant it.
	Look, I meant she killed her kid, okay?
	If I misspoke, you're hearing me say it now, maybe murder from the legal perspective is not the definitive thing.
	What I'm saying definitively, definitively about Andrew Tate is definitively according to U.S. law, all right?
	I believe that he is guilty of violating the Protect Act.
	According to my moral standard on what is and isn't a pedophile, he is a pedophile, right?
	That's fucking point blank and period.
	According to his own admissions, where he says, I took these girls, I took their money, I only paid them this much, and he's admitting to sex trafficking.
	Here's the issue, and I'm coming from a more objective position than you, I should say, because I've never been a Tate fan.
	Ever at any point in my life.
	I remember the videos where he's saying, the woman of my property, my property.
	And I'm talking to these young boys like, where are you hearing this shit?
	This is back in the day before he decided to go abroad.
	His language doesn't bother me at all.
	No, but the stupid lessons are what bother me.
	Now he wants to go to British restoring underlying values.
	And I can appreciate he wants to be on the morally righteous side of things now.
	But his advice, historically, I've never been a fan, period.
	So I never approached it with, I like him, so I've got to defend him.
	What I approach it as is he's always been something of an idiot in terms of what he says online.
	If your new standard now is he admitted to the crime because he said it on recording, well, then you have to go and apply the same rules to Donald Trump.
	And it's exactly what they said about the grabbing by the pussy video.
	He said it.
	He said it.
	That's a false equivalency.
	You say this because you're trying to justify yours, and I'm saying this is exactly what they said about Donald Trump.
	No, I'm not trying to justify anything.
	It's a false equivalency, right?
	Because Andrew Tate is teaching a course in how to sex traffic women.
	Donald Trump didn't teach a course in how to sex traffic women.
	He said locker room talk on a bus.
	Your sex trafficking is the legal conclusion already.
	He's talking about video cam industry, which is a shit industry, full stop.
	Have you done the deep dive and actually really looked at some of the evidence that I'm referring to?
	I've looked at that video.
	I don't want to say everything.
	There's a lot.
	I've looked at your smoking guns, crayon murder smoking guns, a blurred video that looked like it was shot on a potato from Lord knows when.
	Well, that blurred video is verified.
	But then when you get into the age of consent, set aside the Protect Act.
	Whether or not they were roleplaying, doing it for a camera that they knew was rolling and recording and I think.
	Not my stuff.
	50 shit.
	You know, I gave Cernovich a hard time back in the day when I had him on and I was like, how can you have this guy on?
	He's on videos talking about strangling women.
	And some people are into really bizarre shit.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	But no.
	A 16-year-old girl?
	I'm going to be very suspicious as to whether or not 16 could even consent to that type of rule.
	I don't think they can.
	I don't think that their brains are fully developed enough.
	But neither is a 25-year-old boy, but that doesn't mean they don't get held responsible for their own decisions.
	I understand.
	I understand completely.
	Now, like I said, what I'm trying to convey to you is that my accusations, right?
	My accusations are based off of a preponderance of evidence.
	For instance...
	All of the evidence that I've seen.
	People keep on talking about, release the Epstein files.
	Release the Epstein files.
	We need to know what happened.
	And I'm assuming that you want to put yourself in the position of, if I was a jury on this trial, would I find him guilty or not guilty?
	Putting myself in that situation.
	Based on the evidence that I've seen that's publicly available, we haven't even seen everything from the Romanian case, but what's already publicly available, then it is a slam dunk, yes, I would not even allow a jury to try to convince me it's not.
	It's a wonderful thing, and then if it doesn't happen, you'll say the Romanian courts are corrupt and you'll stick to your conclusion regardless.
	No, no, no.
	There is nothing you could do to change my mind.
	Because I've seen it.
	I just want to address one thing here on the chat on the rumble side where that's not what Trump said in the video.
	I know what Trump said in the video.
	I've been defending what he said in that video for years.
	I'm telling you what they say he said in that video.
	Yeah, that's what I said.
	You grab him by the pussy and he's explaining his own assault.
	Then they say he was found liable by a court.
	Therefore, you can call him a rapist.
	So what I'm saying is if you want to apply this, he's on camera saying it.
	A court adjudicated that he's a rapist.
	Well, then you've got to apply it around the bit or you go...
	Case by case, which is what I do.
	It's still a false equivalency because you're not contextualizing.
	Again, facts without context.
	That's what I'm trying to say.
	You're not contextualizing.
	You're contextualizing.
	It was a corrupt court.
	No, the context is Andrew Tate taught a course called the PhD course.
	The pimping hose degree.
	He taught it.
	He made it.
	He is the one who said all these things.
	This is how you pimp out women.
	Pimping is illegal.
	Pimping is sex trafficking.
	There's no argument that he is a self-admitted pimp.
	And what is pimping?
	It's sex trafficking.
	So when I say he's a sex trafficker, he says he's a sex trafficker.
	Again, because we're getting into...
	Pimping the illegal act versus what someone might, because they're idiots, describe as the webcam industry.
	Holding a woman in a house against her will.
	The Jane Doe, which isn't really a Jane Doe, her identity is known.
	The Jane Doe in Florida was flown out to Romania.
	She was only there for about four or five days.
	And what happened, the reason why Andrew Tate was indicted in the first place, she was flown out just like he's done so many other times with so many other different women.
	She witnessed what she thought.
	She told her friend, who was a Marine.
	The Marine is the one that alerted the Romanian authorities.
	That woman has been harassed, doxxed, and threatened by Andrew Tate.
	Andrew Tate just came to Florida last week and filed a restraining order against her because he's still trying to intimidate her.
	She has not recanted.
	She has stuck by her claim.
	Seven women in the Romanian case, three of them have recanted because, I don't know, and...
	This is an assumption.
	I don't know if you know how pimps and hoes work, but usually there's a bit of Stockholm Syndrome, and they'll never admit that they're actually trafficked.
	They're not actual victims, but fucking three or four of them actually haven't recanted.
	They are sticking by their claim.
	Andrew Tate choked me until the...
	Blood vessels in my eyes burst.
	That is witness testimony.
	I believe it's from...
	May I ask the question?
	Were there medical reports?
	Yeah, I believe so.
	I believe they have.
	I believe so versus...
	Maybe. Not knowing that, and you're the one in this, not knowing that...
	You just told me you were mad that you don't know every detail of the case.
	When your evidence is a statement in the absence of...
	The actual evidence, which would be a medical report if that were the case, there's a big problem.
	Viva, this is what I'm doing.
	Okay, look, I'm giving you this, and then I'm giving you this, and then I'm giving you this, and then I'm giving you this, and then I'm giving you this, and you're going, it's not enough.
	No, no, no.
	I'm stacking the evidence.
	I asked you a straightforward question.
	You said he choked me to the point of bursting blood vessels.
	I read that segment as well.
	I believe she had pictures, if I remember correctly.
	Okay. And now, has there...
	Have there ever been a case?
	I mean, I know you think the more numbers that you have, the more definitive the evidence.
	Tiger Woods, I'm not saying that.
	When women have said such things and claimed medical reports, like with Pete Hegseth.
	Absolutely. It happens all the time, which is why Andrew Tate is banking on people dismissing the real evidence and just saying women lie.
	What's the real evidence?
	I just told you a bunch, right?
	The real evidence is the internet doing the math and...
	If it turns out that she's 15, it's black and white.
	If it turns out that she's 15, thus goes any legal defense set aside morality.
	Hold on, by the way, there's more than one 15-year-old victim, by the way.
	There's another one who is remaining anonymous who was essentially...
	The Romanian court says she's a victim because she is, but she's claiming she's not.
	And look, I'm not going to take...
	Just court documents as verifiable fact.
	I just told you, I don't trust the judicial system fully and entirely.
	So while you're stacking plausible explanations that you're essentially, and don't take this as an insult, I'm not insulting you, you're acting essentially as his attorney in a defensive position where I'm acting more in the prosecutorial thing, where I'm preventing the evidence and you're saying, well, how could we explain this?
	I'm testing your research.
	It's verifiably, demonstrably of a certain age, which would make it objectively a crime, and I say, well, what's the evidence?
	Well, we've tracked out the dots of podcasts and statements that he's made.
	Again, again, right?
	She suffered a burst blood vessels as a result of whatever.
	By the way, it might even be true if this is consensual lawful conduct.
	You're a fact, again, without context, and now look who might be guilty of propaganda.
	There's also audio of Andrew Tate leaving a voicemail for that victim where he says, oh, I only choked you a little bit.
	So there's evidence of choking.
	And this girl is afraid of him, right?
	And he left her a message saying, I thought you were cool.
	I can't believe you.
	I didn't choke you until you passed out.
	There's a lot of circumstantial evidence that I am adding in with what I believe is verifiable.
	Undeniable. There is circumstantial evidence that you are adding in that will justify your foregone conclusion.
	You're saying my conclusion is as a result of the evidence, not the...
	My conclusion is based off a verifiable fact.
	My conclusion is based off a verifiable fact.
	That's point blank period.
	My conclusion is that Vivian has been confirmed to be 15. Andrew Tate is on camera.
	Beating the shit out of her.
	That's a verifiable fact, right?
	It's not my opinion.
	On camera, beating the shit out of her quite literally is your opinion.
	I'm not playing that video, by the way, because Misfit, if it is what you say it is, you publishing it and republishing it qualifies as publishing child pornography.
	So you might want to think by virtue of the fact that you haven't been charged for this criminal pornography, that maybe she was of the age of consent in whatever country it was.
	So beating the shit out of her is not a verifiable fact.
	It is your opinion.
	There's a video of him, if you want to do it objectively, slapping her with a belt.
	And asking her if she said the word.
	But if she's 15, she can't consent to that.
	I agree with you.
	And your evidence that she's 15 is...
	Well, it's her own admission.
	A video where in 2023, one of her Instagram followers asks, how old are you?
	She says, I'm 26. Right?
	2023. Right?
	And then you deduct her age.
	That would put her at...
	14, actually, in 2012.
	So there's more than one instance.
	I'm not just going off of a court document.
	Vivian herself, on two separate occasions, has verified her age.
	Rockstar is asking, where's the vid?
	I know that Rubin quote-tweeted someone who retweeted it.
	Nathan Livingstone, Milk Bar TV.
	And Yada Yada Mama, who seems to be understanding nothing of this, says, Viva, are you freaking accusing this man of spreading child pornography while defending Andrew Tate?
	I mean, I swear, Viva, I shouldn't.
	Focus on people who are either deliberately not understanding anything or incapable of understanding it.
	What I'm saying, yada yada mama, is that if misfit is right, it is a crime to knowingly distribute or republish child pornography.
	Well, what if it's for...
	For a reason of...
	There's no caveat to that.
	It's the whole problem with the Epstein files.
	Even if you had the evidence, there would be no way of diffusing it without violating...
	By the way, I'm not accusing you of anything.
	What I'm suggesting is that might be a cause for questions.
	I think that I will take the risk.
	Because I think that Andrew Tate should, in fact, sue me.
	For distributing child pornography because it would verify that the woman in the video is...
	It wouldn't be civil.
	It would be criminal.
	He might sue you for defamation, but then the reality is he might be...
	I forget the word now.
	Not defamation proof.
	That is the concept.
	He might have said a number of things that will allow people to have a reasonable personal opinion.
	That he is guilty of this.
	He's a public figure, and I believe what I'm saying, so I don't think he could win a definition.
	No one's going to accuse you of not having, even if it turns out to be factually incorrect, not having sufficient basis to say it.
	And certainly the actual matters will not be there.
	I appreciate that.
	He said things which I wouldn't say publicly, but I wouldn't say it to anybody privately.
	He said things that might be very, very incriminating.
	Him describing his business model, however I feel about that disgusting, repugnant business.
	It sounded like it might be very close to violating the law in Romania.
	The lover boy provisions sound like you get a girl to fall in love with you.
	You use them commercially.
	And that's the lover boy provisions.
	Whether or not it's a constitutional law is a separate issue.
	Don't do business with Romania.
	And he's also on camera saying, I do everything through Bitcoin because I don't pay taxes.
	So he's also being prosecuted for tax evasion as well.
	And money laundering.
	He's got text messages between him and some of his girls saying, I'm laundering this money.
	So there's more than just...
	The pedophilia, there's more than just the sexual abuse, there's more than just the trafficking.
	You could essentially loctate up for a self-admission.
	And again, one of the arguments that I was making to somebody else was, if somebody, like the argument that people had of DeSantis looking into him when he landed in Florida, people are freaking out about that, and I'm wondering why.
	If somebody was on camera, right, saying, I robbed a bank in Romania.
	And then they flew into Florida.
	Is it communism to investigate that?
	I agree.
	By the way, you will notice that I didn't jump on the bandwagon of saying why is this...
	Look, I say let them investigate.
	There is an element always where we don't trust the government, but maybe we trust DeSantis more so it won't be politically motivated.
	Some people will question the timing, but it doesn't do much good to investigate someone who's not in your jurisdiction.
	Or at least hasn't raised that flag.
	But investigate.
	Fine. If you're not guilty, like I said, and this is not proof of anything, but Andrew Tate did fuck off out of America right after he heard that.
	He was on camera last week saying, I'm going to stay in Florida for a while.
	And then yesterday it was, I'm only going to be here a few days.
	And then today he's like, bye, I'm out of here.
	So it looks a little bad, you know, but there's no evidence of anything just by...
	Just by him leaving, one could come to a conclusion.
	By him leaving to go back to Romania, I wouldn't deduce.
	I mean, well, there's also the Candace Owens interview where he was like, you think I don't wipe my phone every night?
	It's like, he's not doing himself any favors by talking, right?
	So when he...
	He actually re-shared two of the posts where they were calling me a sexual abuser.
	So I do find it ironic and funny that he claims that people are accusing him without evidence when he's re-sharing something that is a clear, clear lie about me.
	It's hypocrisy, right?
	Not criminal.
	Lying's not criminal.
	Most of the time.
	So I do have a vested interest in this.
	I am biased.
	I will give you that.
	I don't lie, okay?
	If I'm talking about something, it's because I personally care about it, okay?
	I had a come-to-Jesus moment when the movie Sound of Freedom came out.
	I've told this story.
	I literally felt God in the movie theater.
	I went to church the next day, right?
	Sex trafficking is my red line in the sand.
	It's something that I take very seriously.
	I used to be a Tate fan.
	I used to buy into the propaganda.
	I sort of was willfully ignorant, ignored everything that everybody was saying.
	And then I saw the video with Vivian.
	I saw the rage, I guess you could say, in his eyes.
	It's not acting.
	I don't care if you guys want to try to justify it away as rough sex or sex play.
	It's fucking weird.
	Anybody that puts their hand on a woman, I don't care if it's role-playing or not.
	You got something fucking wrong with you.
	Let me just ask you something, though.
	That video, which you posted, and people can go see it.
	By the way, someone said if you were indicted on that, then it would be good evidence that Tate...
	Yeah, hey, we're both doing it now.
	All that I'm suggesting is that by virtue of the fact that that video is freely available, that might be a cause for question as to whether or not there were any minors in that video.
	Set that aside.
	In that video, they were knowingly doing this in front of a camera, correct?
	Yes, again.
	And you can make the argument that it was...
	I'm not making any argument.
	No, no, not you.
	The proverbial you.
	No, but I'll ask the question.
	If someone is assaulting violently a woman, do they do it in front of a...
	Were they broadcasting live when they did it?
	Yeah, that's what I'm saying.
	If you're so confident, right?
	So look at this, right?
	Let's say Vivian, right, was 16 in the video.
	Let's say she was of legal age.
	She had already gotten comfortable enough.
	With that type of behavior to do it in front of a camera.
	She had already had a tattoo put on her groin area that said, Tate's property.
	And he's on camera saying, you know, I brand my women.
	They're my property.
	I would say that it's a reasonable assumption, and I will clarify this is an assumption, that he met her a long time before that video was filmed.
	Right? You don't just meet and then a month later you're like, hey, I'm going to whip you with a belt in front of my brother who's filming it.
	Right? That's just an assumption.
	Right? But it's a pretty damn good one.
	I mean, I got a lot of tattoos.
	I know it takes weeks and weeks for them to heal.
	And I'm pretty sure that you couldn't meet...
	I mean, again, another assumption.
	Pretty sure you couldn't meet some guy and within the first month let him brand you.
	So, again, putting the circumstantial stuff like that in with the factual evidence of her admitting her age and doing simple math to figure out when the video was uploaded, how old she says she is, how old it says she is in the indictment, how old he said she is, and then adding the circumstantial of, well, she got a fucking tattoo and she's comfortable with being whipped on fucking camera.
	You could probably come to a reasonable assumption that she was maybe 14 when they met, you know?
	And that's even worse.
	So I'm just saying, man, Tate will have his day in court.
	The preponderance of evidence for court should be 100% higher.
	It should be beyond a reasonable doubt, right?
	The court of public opinion is for everybody's subjective view, depending on how much evidence you've seen, depending on your bias, depending on what you believe.
	I'm telling you that if I was sitting on a jury against Andrew Tate, right, objectively...
	Seeing the evidence that I have seen, there is no fucking way I wouldn't recommend the maximum penalty for what he has been accused of.
	It's clear to me, and maybe it's not clear to you, and everybody else is different, but it's clear to me that he is a sex trafficking pedophile, and I will die on that hill.
	Well, Elon Musk got off the defamation case when he called...
	The guy in Thailand, a pedophile.
	Who was it that he called a pedophile?
	It had to do with the submarine into the cave when the Thai kids were stuck in the cave.
	We're talking context and it's a salient fact, not context.
	They were live broadcasting whatever the hell they were doing.
	She's 16. Let's just say she's 16. I don't know.
	Maybe 17. I don't know.
	Let's just operate on the basis of 16. You make a decent point.
	That type of behavior doesn't occur overnight.
	She might have been a messed up 14-year-old.
	Nothing to do with tape.
	But if you're going to recruit girls for a webcam industry, you're not going to get the most well-balanced 16-year-old to grow.
	Which is why I think the morality of this is a totally separate issue.
	And whether or not you're asking for massive trouble by even operating in these fields.
	I happen to believe you're asking for massive trouble just by not keeping your schmeckle in your pants.
	Well, no, that's what I hope happens.
	I want Andrew Tate to sue me.
	I would love it because then I get discovery.
	Look, I will take the risk of me being wrong and going and getting a charge for, I guess, what you just said, distributing child pornography, even though I didn't believe at the time that I was doing that, if it would prove that he is a actual pedophile.
	I would go to jail.
	If I could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did what he did and then he gets to go to jail.
	If he did what he did, you wouldn't go to jail.
	I mean, if he did what he did, you don't get to jail.
	I think that a prosecutor would be like, I think we're going to let you slide on this one, Misfit.
	Hey, man, I do got to go back to work, though.
	This was fruitful.
	By the way, do you know murder crayons or crayons murder?
	Well, just by the internet, you know.
	I happen to not...
	I'm going to say something, man.
	I'm going to take the side.
	The side of right and wrong.
	You said something earlier like Murder by Crayons and these other people.
	They got followers coming after you.
	I hope that none of them are my followers because I try to make it a point to my followers.
	Don't harass people.
	If you disagree vehemently with somebody, you don't have to attack them.
	I don't think that I attacked you too hard.
	I think you did damage to your own theory by...
	I'm thinking you found a smoking gun with that stupid-ass picture, and that you just discovered that Rubble...
	Hey, man!
	I have an amazing...
	One of the biggest podcasts on Rubble for five years.
	Yeah, a big smoking gun you got.
	Hold on.
	Before I go, let's talk about that.
	Let's explore why I didn't make any accusations.
	I made a...
	No, no.
	I just think you made it.
	It's like you just thought you discovered something new.
	No, no, no.
	I don't think that I was the one that accused you.
	I didn't accuse you.
	I never actually said that you...
	I never...
	Put you in that photo where they're all sitting in the thing.
	I didn't do that.
	I did say that you have Barnes, who has a YouTube video where it says something along the lines of Andrew Tate, innocent, or something like that.
	The implication of the headline was in defense of Andrew Tate.
	You have a picture of Barnes with Andrew Tate at, what was it, CPAC or something like that?
	And then you have the both of you.
	On camera, discussing sex trafficking, saying, oh, it's only like taken.
	When you put those three things together, somebody can, like what I did, ask the question, hey guys, why are you protecting this guy?
	And I'm not saying you're doing it intentionally or nefariously.
	You want to talk about, I don't even accuse it of cherry picking.
	If you surmise anything from a YouTube video headline without watching the clip...
	And I'm not hiding anything.
	Barnes and I defend...
	I don't believe you are.
	No, but we defend the process.
	And what looks like a selective prosecution...
	Here's what I'll ask.
	Viva, how many times...
	You may give me a good answer on this.
	How many times have you come out and gone after people the way you kind of chastise me for calling Jeffrey Epstein a pedophile?
	There are so many people on the internet that call Jeffrey Epstein a pedophile.
	He was an admitted pedophile.
	But that's what I'm saying.
	He's never been convicted.
	But that's not true.
	He pleaded guilty to soliciting child prostitution.
	That example.
	Bad example, Diddy, right?
	I don't think I've called Diddy a pedophile.
	In fact, I said I was sort of surprised that there were no accusations or allegations of pedophilia or minors in his invite.
	And Hunter Biden, right?
	You know, like, Hunter Biden's...
	Hunter Biden, I always told people, don't say that he's a pedophile because the woman in that video was overage.
	I defended Hunter.
	Hold on.
	No, no, no.
	I'm not the book there.
	I've always defended Hunter.
	No one accused me of being a Hunter defender when I said that.
	That's fair enough.
	And like I said, you might give me the answer that I want to hear.
	Joe Biden, you know, with the Ashley Biden diary saying that my father showered with me and made me feel uncomfortable.
	She said it.
	She said it.
	Nothing more than that.
	So what I'm saying is, and maybe people are just seeing it, but it...
	It would appear to some people, not necessarily me, it would appear to some people, maybe based on their own biases, that you look, maybe not that you are, but that you look like you're selectively cherry-picking the people that are coming after Tate when not coming after other people.
	That might be where people are making a connection.
	It almost seems like...
	Mindless, bought idiots.
	Oh, Viva's defending Tate.
	Don't dismiss people.
	People have their reasons.
	I think that there might actually be other forces at play here to try to destabilize the conservative movement.
	Maybe even by...
	I think Tate's one of them.
	He might be someone who...
	Might see opportunity.
	He might be trying to redefine himself.
	You get to be a certain agent.
	I'm sure you regret the shit that he's...
	Andrew Tate has been verified of paying content creators to spread his messaging.
	He's got Suleimani, who's going after one of his victims in Florida.
	He's got Ryan...
	I think it's Ryan Dawson.
	What's the evidence of that?
	I mean, that's a pretty serious accusation.
	There's a text message between Myron Gaines and Ryan Dawson where Ryan Dawson says, Andrew Tate pays better.
	Like, he's literally...
	And how do you know that that's just not a tongue-in-cheek...
	Well, there's also Anastasia...
	Dr. Lupus, I think her name is.
	She's saying Andrew Tate paid my bills.
	Do you know who Dr. Lupus is?
	Now you're going to trust what Dr. Lupus says?
	No, no, no.
	What I'm saying is...
	She's a fucking insane person.
	But you can't...
	Some of these people make...
	Again, I'm not debating it.
	Ask the law.
	It's tongue-in-cheek or you're trusting people who are batshit crazy.
	No, no, no.
	I'm not trusting.
	I'm taking what I believe is...
	Evidence. Because, hey, you said this, and you defend Tate.
	So people that are defending Tate are also admitting that Tate pays them money.
	I do appreciate it.
	It would be very hard to prove the payment.
	It's not like SEC stuff.
	Did Andrew Tate pay the money?
	Or are they just clout chasing?
	I don't know.
	But people that defend Tate are saying that Tate paid the money.
	That is a fact.
	Two different people verified.
	Ryan Dawson and...
	Whatever the crazy chick with the facelift is.
	She was good on COVID.
	I think she's entitled to her belief.
	Anybody caught...
	Retweeting actual Hamas propaganda.
	I will lose respect in their good judgment.
	Well, yeah, you know, it got Andrew Tate saying Yahya Senwar was a warrior and a hero.
	And it's like, no, he was a terrorist.
	People are intended to have bad opinions.
	Oh, yeah.
	I'm not saying shut her down.
	I'm just saying, when I've known people who actually reposted outright Hamas, but is a legit Hamas propaganda, and I'm pretty middle, I'm pretty objective when it comes to that conflict, then I lose trust in their...
	Yeah, you know what?
	I said this about people that are bitching about the Ian Carroll thing.
	I just posted, you know what?
	I'm not going to find it.
	I'll paraphrase.
	I posted, I go, I don't see, everybody's calling for this to be taken down, and everyone's saying, why are you platforming Ian Carroll?
	Why are you doing this?
	I've never been of that.
	Even though I disagree with Ian Carroll vehemently, I want these people platformed.
	I think that the only way to combat Ideas that you disagree with is to give other ideas, right?
	Like, use your voice.
	Don't silence theirs.
	Use yours.
	No, let them speak.
	You are a very sensible person in a long-format discussion.
	I did maybe...
	The problem is you get associated with a murder crayon, whatever that guy's name is, and people are going to think less of you just by association.
	You're a reasonable, thoughtful, and you've done your own homework, and I'm sure you're confident with your decision, and I still will wait.
	We'll agree to disagree on that.
	And one thing, I think that this interview confirmed what I had suspected.
	I give you and everyone else the benefit of the doubt.
	I'm not immediately going to say, Andrew Tate's paying Viva Frey.
	No, no, no.
	I think that you believe what you're saying.
	Who accused me of...
	Oh, yeah, RT paying Viva.
	Trust me, I probably left.
	I didn't know you could do these things.
	Apparently, I'm being paid by Israel.
	I was going to ask, by the way, because you just mentioned church.
	You're not half Jewish.
	No, no.
	I'm a Christian conservative.
	I'm a Catholic, technically, but I don't really go to Catholic church.
	I... I started speaking out about the Israeli war because I remember 9-11, right?
	And the terrorists were the ones that were slaughtering the Jews.
	I also am a Christian.
	I believe in Genesis, where I will bless thee that bless them.
	From a religious standpoint and an anti-terrorist standpoint, I picked a side, and I don't regret my decision at all.
	I get lumped in with people that are...
	I'm not pro-Israeli government.
	I'm not pro-any government, including my own.
	I think that there is probably some truth to some shady shit in the Israeli government, but there's also truth to shady shit in the UK government, the American government, the fucking Romanian government, the French government, all of it.
	So from my perspective, I think that every radical Islamic terrorist on the planet Should be eradicated and exterminated.
	I think that the Israeli government is doing that.
	So, yay!
	But as far as being some shill for Israel or some secret Mossad agent, suit don't fit.
	I've got to go back to work.
	I forget your first name now.
	Zach Bonfilio.
	Zach Bonfilio.
	Okay, Zach, I will be able to remember that.
	I apologize.
	I'm bad with names and I've been looking at Misfit.
	Zach, thank you for coming on.
	Thank you so much, sir.
	It was a good discussion.
	Yes, sir.
	Thank you.
	All right, man.
	Go. Enjoy the day.
	Have a good one.
	Peace out.
	We're going to go on for a few moments.
	I want to get to some of the chat over here.
	Someone just said, LOL, paid by Israel and Viva is Jewish.
	The lunatic's obsession with Jews is hilarious.
	It says yada yada.
	I saw someone who I thought they were thinking he was Jewish.
	I always say it.
	The people who will never let you forget that you're Jewish are Jews and anti-Semites.
	Someone also said here the coin.
	I wanted to get to that.
	First of all, I own no Tate coin.
	I own no Trump...
	Oh, no, I own one of those Trump NFT cards.
	I don't know how much it's worth now.
	Probably zero, and I ain't complaining because I don't care.
	And I own a Trump $2 bill.
	I got one of those when they came out.
	I don't own a Tate coin.
	My whole point is, not in defense of due process, is that set aside the morality of the business and set aside what you might question as really...
	Morally repugnant laws of foreign nations.
	The age of consent in Canada was 14 until 2006.
	I think it was the Conservative government.
	When did Canada increase the age of consent?
	I think it was like 2004, 2006.
	2008, it was increased from 14 to 16. So appreciate that in 2008, the age of consent in Canada was 14 years old.
	I'm not defending morality here.
	As far as a legal Very subtle facts that can change the entire legal landscape of the Tate persecution, and that I sincerely believe.
	I don't think Misfit Pay...
	Anybody who has a real job...
	I say real job, I'm demeaning myself here.
	Anybody who's got a real job, I'm not going to accuse of being a grifter.
	I think I'm convinced by Zach's sincerity.
	Crayon murder guy, not so much, because he's an effing asshole.
	You want to...
	Convey a message and get things across on the internet.
	It helps not to be a rapacious asshole.
	But some people are genuine grifters when it comes to this, stirring up fights that go beyond the newsworthy matter and going into personal attacks.
	And others I am convinced are bots on both sides.
	And I do think that there might be some element of trying to sow discord among the conservative side.
	Because it's powerful now and it needs to be destabilized if you are of the political persuasion that doesn't want to see a strong, united, conservative front.
	Anybody who freely...
	Here. Okay, let's see here.
	I'll bring this up here.
	And then we're going to go over for our VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com after-party people.
	Ooh! Crumblecrance.
	King of Biltong.
	Looking for some healthy snacks to add to your diet?
	Try our Biltong Almost Half Protein, plus it's packed with B12 creatine, iron, zinc, and much more.
	Go to BiltongUSA.com.
	Code Viva for 10% off.
	Jay DeCorey.
	This was one of the points I did want to make.
	No pimp.
	No. Pimp has other meanings.
	Lock up all the rappers who are singing about pimping and hoes and guns and whatever.
	Pimp can also be a player.
	Not the same from another lawyer.
	Not the same.
	From another lawyer.
	Okay. Evidence is not the same as opinions.
	Evidence has rules and sometimes can be excluded.
	His opinion is not evidence.
	And then I want to go over to the side here and see what's going on.
	Okay. Go down to the bottom.
	Oh, how far are we down here?
	Bill Tong, aren't you the asshole for being proven wrong?
	Community notes and you double down.
	I don't know who you're talking to, Zee Caster.
	When did I get community notes?
	Oh, because you misunderstood the point in that, but yeah.
	I got a community note.
	They're trying so hard to interrupt the conservative momentum.
	It was 18 years ago my son was born, says Jules Verne.
	Seferdeen Squibb says, in some countries the age of consent is married.
	I looked it up many moons ago, i.e.
	no official age.
	No, we have a similar law where it became illegal to deliberately travel to a country that has no sex laws to commit acts against minors.
	And I think it, I thought it was 14, but I'm still very curious about that one specific question because set aside everything else, because we're operating on the basis that they were 16 or 17. If he's an American citizen and he's doing that at the age of 25, would that be a prosecutable offense in America?
	I'm going to ask Barnes next Sunday show.
	Now, over on vivabarneslaw.locals.com where we're going to go for this after the show.
	Here. We got...
	That was fun.
	Gant that says facts without context.
	Context. Trump grabbed them by the pussy.
	Trump 100% said it.
	I appreciate the context of that as well.
	But there's...
	See, the thing is, what some people call context is explaining away.
	If there's additional facts that change the nature of the fact, that's just more facts.
	And so all that I'm sensitizing everyone to is...
	He's on camera admitting it, which is what a lot of people say about Tate, whether or not he's blustering, acting like a big man, saying stupid shit because he thinks it'll get him a bigger audience.
	It doesn't mean that it's factually correct, what he said, although it certainly can and will be used against him.
	The same logic applied to Trump.
	And then you say, well, Trump was found liable for sexual abuse.
	Therefore, and he was an adjudicated rapist.
	It happened.
	It's in a court.
	So you apply that rationale.
	You have to apply it.
	Uniformly or not.
	Sammy says, never saw Tate as serious.
	First saw him on Tom Segura and Christina P. Is that Christina Pshaw?
	Show your mom's house before the pandemic as part of a bit because he had a real cool guy thoughts about women.
	It was a bit then and it's a bit now.
	Dude is scamming the internet.
	Ignore Tate so he and his super cool chin can fade into obscurity.
	If I ever had an interview with Tate, I would ask him all of these very same questions.
	I would ask, what you are describing as a business model sounds like it might be violent of the laws of Romania.
	I would be...
	There's no shade.
	Patrick Beddavid had a different type of interview with Tate.
	And I would not have had that type of interview.
	Maybe that's why I'm me and Patrick Beddavid is Patrick Beddavid.
	So maybe I am me to my own detriment.
	But I'll be a bit of what people call a cross-examining, antagonizing asshole if I ever get to sit down with or do a digital interview with Tate.
	And I don't think he would mind.
	And then the only question would be, he'll say things which the internet would subsequently either confirm or contradict.
	Oh, Greg Bolden's in the house.
	Yep, Greg.
	The age of consent in Canada was 14 up until 2008.
	The conservatives upped it to a conservative.
	16. And then they still have the provisions where if the person is in a position of authority, they can't be beyond the two-year.
	I think it's 16 to 18, give or take.
	Can you edit comment here?
	No, I don't think you can.
	Okay, now I want to get back to VivaBarnesLaw.com.
	Let me see here.
	I saw the word respect, and I don't know if it was in the context of having lost it for me or having gained it for me.
	Or just not any of the two.
	Loreduo92 says, I think we can have respect for the process while also wishing that highly visible MAGA people, Grinnell, Alina Haber especially, would not seem like huge fans of someone who, by his own admission, does very morally questionable and...
	Did, I'll say did, just because I know that he's trying to redefine himself.
	Another line of questioning I would have for Tate is...
	Well, it would have to do with his purported conversion to Islam.
	Sorry, so I got distracted with my own thoughts here.
	"Who does very morally and questionably reprehensible things.
	I think it's okay to ask these people to chill out and stop Yeah, I mean, well, publicly supporting people who get wrongfully convicted, I don't think is a bad look.
	Publicly supporting people who get convicted when there's, at the very least, prima facie.
	Indication of?
	Yeah. I mean, publicly defending Kyle Rittenhouse, and if he had gotten convicted, I wouldn't have felt bad for it.
	But that's only because I would have said that that conviction is the system not working properly, as opposed to the system working properly.
	That might be my own confirmation bias in terms of what I already believed about that story.
	So thank you all for being here.
	I think we're going to take the party.
	Party on over to Viva Barnes La.
	It's not supporters only today, so everybody.
	Can come and bask in the awesomeness of the VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com community.
	Link to Locals.
	The thing before you go, make sure that you're subscribed, that you have notifications turned on.
	On the purer side of things, if you want to go get our children.
	I say our children's book because I wrote it 15 years ago.
	Maybe 12 years ago.
	My wife put it together after a member of our locals community did the illustrations.
	Louis the Lobster Returns to the Sea is available on Amazon.
	Abigail Martin did the beautiful illustrations, and it's a wonderful tale of a lobster who's purchased for dinner, and the child can't bring himself to eat it.
	Based on a true story, except we ate that lobster, baby, and it was delicious.
	That's very dark.
	So here's the link to the book.
	Go get one.
	And let me see what else is going on in here.
	Slappy says, God bless you all.
	Prayers work.
	Support the channel.
	Get Viva Barnes merch at Viva Fry.
	And Rittenhouse showed incredible restraint, says Senior Chief Silverback.
	Dude had a good trigger control.
	I mean, that much is for certain.
	Pam is investigating anti-Semitism instead of releasing the Epstein list, says 360 Attic 70. Senior Chief Silverback says, you trafficked that lobster.
	We're going to end on a joke as everyone comes over to...
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	It's a great joke.
	And it's also a good lesson in law.
	So a man is at the ocean.
	And he is catching lobsters.
	And a game warden comes up to him and says, do you have a license to be fishing for lobsters?
	You got a lobster right here.
	And the guy says, no, that's not, I'm not fishing for that.
	That's my pet.
	And he says, oh, yeah, well, make it do, oh, fudge, I'm going to screw the joke up.
	He says, make it do, it's your pet.
	He says, yeah, watch, I can make it do a trick.
	So he puts it in the water and he says, swim, lobster.
	Come back, lobster.
	And then the lobster swims off and then the ward is like, ha, told you that lobster wasn't your pet.
	And he goes, what lobster?
	I screwed up the joke, by the way, but that's the idea of the joke.
	Okay, damn it.
	Turning into an old frickin' man.
	Your stream is demanding $10, says Ipecus.
	No, that's if you want to support.
	You can watch right now if you don't want to support.
	Because it is not in supporters mode only.
	So you just need to be a member and you can go and do that if you want.
	And if you don't want to and you don't want to support the work, even if you so choose, that is your prerogative and I will not be offended.
	So thank you all for being here.
	Thank Misfit Zach Bonfantino.
	Bonfantino. It's a good name.
	And for those of you who are calling him the worst word on earth.
	Achoo. He's a Christian.
	Who defends Israel.
	I've seen him defending Israel, and I've seen him getting into fights.
	You know what I think.
	All right.
	That is it, people.
	So now I'm going to end it on Rumble.
	VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com, people.
	Enjoy the rest of the day.
	I'm going to go end it on Twitter as well.
	So removing on Twitter.
	Peace out.
	Peace out.
	And removing on Rumble.
	And thank you all.
	Make sure that you hit the subscribe, turn notifications on, and snip, snip, clip, and share away.
	And I think that was a very, very fruitful discussion that Zach and I had.
	And I have no animosity towards him.
	And he seems sincere and more than diligent in presenting his case.
	But I still, at the end of the day, conclude.
	It's his opinion.
	And we'll see what the evidence actually is before the Romanian courts, if and when it gets there.
	What the outcome of the Romanian courts is.

▲