Hey everybody, communion money, it's all about to break loose, yeah stuff, carbon atoms, let's see if we are ready for it happy what's today, today April twentieth, happy April, twenty of which has no significance whatsoever. I say that so I can remain social media now. Would you like to enjoy this experience to the best possible? extent. Well, all you need is a cover. Bugger glass

you're jealous aside a candy journey was a vessel of any kind of already favorite liquid. I like avi, enjoyed me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dope Amelia the day. The thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous skinny happening right now. You're ready erratic ready, go, save red, savour Ed. Well, the most important news of the day- and I dont say this lightly. You haven't heard this news report: Let me be the first one to tell you there's a new document worry that investigate whether Bigfoot Murder-

some North northern California part Farmers not make another up? There is an actual documentary looking into whether Bigfoot murdered some northern California pot farmers And the investigative journalist heard a story: there still wants him about a savage bigfoot attack. So it seems credible enough. It's in the news in real. There is then, will host a special of its own to determine if racism is the cause of big. What's attack. Now, that's not not just the CNN par statue. The other parts. True, there's a documentary about big foot, killing people in my state. I don't know how far away this happened,

But I am in the same state as a murderous bigfoot and if you think I'm happy about that. one, more thing to worry about. I wake up this morning there like what do I have to worry about C. Climate change could be some riots. Word murderers, Foot somewhere on the loose in my state and how many of them are there and did the big foot have any accomplices these things we need to know one for twenty All right, in other news, run dissenters just became president in twenty twenty four. It is in details.

yeah RON, Desantis just became president in twenty twenty four he's, not that you know we're not there yet, but he did something. You did something this week that if this doesn't guarantee it just guarantee you'll he'll, be president, let me tell you what it is, I want to see if you get it. Not a headline, but it will be. There will be a headline. This this is actually so. This is so. Clever. That is funny. she's up over, so somebody just as something the so smart that actually just make you laugh because you didn't think of it here you go. So there's a new law. I guess he decided in Florida dissenters estate in the grand civil legal immunity to people who drive through protesters blue,

fucking a road. You see it it's over. It's written over talk about Peggy Africa, Are you not laughing seriously? Many of you are laughing out loud, because why did he think of this? Nobody else thought of this. Oh somebody says: a few states have that now, but. So the fact that you'd make this change Orly cited. Who knows who is behind it? But he signs this thing just at the perfect time. I can't think of anything that would be more important than this. I just one the presidency is over.

See meanwhile, Minneapolis Minneapolis mayor Jacob fry or fray other spheres of those in public spirit. Compare these two political actions: the round. This answers one one. One of the smartest thing shall ever say politically. now, here's the domicile you'll ever say from Mayor Jacob right. He said. Yes, in public use of this safari part, as these public regardless of the decision made by the jury. Regardless of the decision made by the jury. Theirs, There is one true reality, which is that George Lloyd was kill that the heads of police, like the Davos, like about as a result of the public.

now. I avenue I think, he's right right. So purely factual standpoint. I think he's probably right. I think it would be fair to say that he died at the hands of police, which is not funny just the way this city is truly is funny. so let me give you my final opinion on shove, em and George Lloyd,. Of course, we ve all heard preliminary opinions which may be in some cases we revised as the trial goes on just the way things should work great The trial should change your mind or solidify Europe. In this way, we have. And I would say that my my opinion has drifted from the beginning, so here's my final opinion, having seen, I think enough of, I would watched every minute by liaison of the defence of the prosecution. My final opinion is this: show

actions. Probably why, were a deciding factor in foisting problem, in other words, in my opinion, probably chauvinist actions killed like now. I think that there is good likelihood that there are other factors. Which would add to the reasonable doubt question, but on the question of was mode likely most likely what he did have some effect, probably an important effect on the end of Floyd's life. Did I know it? Well, that's a separate question will talk about them. I know it, but certainly the thing he did in my opinion and the guy

We have to have a legal opinion here. Does we're not doctors and there's some there's some difference of expert opinion right, but, in my opinion, is more likely that Jovan did end the guys life. I won't say the guy because well treated with more respect, will say: George Floyd's life was ended, probably add something to do with shovels. However, do you go to jail because you promise ugly were part of it. Well, that's where it gets a little tricky, so I do agree that Jacob fry Frere fry the the mayor has. probably right that was homicide. I think that part is

true, but to say that out loud wooden things are so sensitive issues, Dub, just dumb politics, we'll talk more about the trail heavy noticed that the trolls are out some Time this week and yesterday I noticed that when I was talking with our account, bunch of the somewhat obvious trolls, the ones we have Euro followers and they don't have a profile picture and they just signed up that sort of thing so a bunch of of a trolls that I had not seen for quite a while in the political process they burn quiet for a while, but they came out recently and I just gotta hammered answer tweets about the these Shovin Floyd case and it looks like most of them are patrols whose bag.

Who are paying all the trolls who were who are talking about my comments about the case And saying that, no matter what I say about it, therefore its proof I'm a racist. What kind of troll would do that and who would pay them? would they be independently operated? Could they be democratic? Operatives maybe could be. I mean that would be consistent with what we've seen and we have a history of that Democrats. Hiring trolls. We know that's a thing, that's a genuine confirmed, no doubt about a thing. Democrats have IR trolls for social, purposes. But is this what's happening? Here's another hypothesis. It is just a hypothesis.

China, already controls are media. Both news in social media. the artificial intelligence, so this is thy offices. Now, how could you why don't know if a wave directly, so you have a short of some kind of cyber magic where we can actually determine this happening. Don't know if that's going to happen, but here's what the for how long will our news, media and social media created active which is exactly what China would want us to create. if it happens over and over again the our narrative, corresponds exactly to what China wants it to be. At some point, you have to ask yourself: if that's a coincidence, now, let's take the Floyd trial we'll take. This is one data point which does not prove the hypothesis right so

so understand that anecdotal stuff, any one situation, doesn't prove anything, but is what to watch for right to see if this was repeated enough, where the patterns becomes, you. to ignore. So what would China's, if you can imagine what would be the best interpretation or narrative that they would want the United States to adopt as its main one. Well, Definitely would not want us to say that sentinel was a big cause. Do we all China is intentionally sending sentinel and large amounts to the United States to kill our citizens. We know this to be true that this is not in any kind of doubt. Do they want us to get really really mad and understand? This was happening, China, sending sentinel and killing tens of thousands of people.

Do they want us to think that I am really focus on that now? Why would China like us to focus on instead of focusing on China, sending a signal. racism the number one thing and there's no doubt about this? The number one thing China wants is the United States to think racism is the dominant. Theme in America and that's what we should be focusing on physical terrorist apart. and it also makes it easier for them to put wiggers in prison camps right if you're, China, you, The United States Devil bunch of racism problems so that they can do anything they want with their wiggers and say, look gay here. You can't talk. you were talking even address what you're talking about by you can say anything right So when you see that the official narrative of both the news and social media, at least the left, leaning portions, are sound,

solidly identical to what the chinese narrative would be for us if they wanted to give us a narrative, it's exactly what's happening. Is it the reason is happening? What do you think Do you think that China already has the ability to do it? I just described USA. I maybe tiktok social media, trolls, etc. Maybe direct payments to some people may be. Some people are just agents working for for our media. Do they have the power to

it does narrative ended they do it are we watching? It happened right now, there's no way to know, but if I had to bet without knowing, but somebody said you know, gun dad, you just gotta, you got a bet, I would probably I would bet probably what we're seeing is Is chinese China, the come country, not the people everyone's? While I like to stop and paws chinese people, I love why. I love chinese people. Americans in China, wherever they are, but the chinese government we ve got a problem with so just to be clear that we are always talking about the government. When we talk about China in a negative light.

And you can see that I riled up the obvious trolls today. So look at my twitter feed and look at the the troll activity and ask yourself if those trolls looked to be speaking proper angle So the first question to ask is: is the is the way they phrase, things that look like it came from an American? They have to be careful, because there are lots of Americans who do have English as a primary first language, but just ass usual view is just part of the fact pattern here is a little rule. I would like to put out there just to play with whoever tries, control the narrative wins if nobody else is trying.

In a situation where there is only one entity that even cares, the narrative goes that they always win if there is less either a superpower. some power that everybody powerful? Who cares enough? Can change the narrative, so long as there's. Nobody else tried to change it in a different way in the flight case. If feels to me that if there were some entity that wanted to control this narrative, It's not really in some kind of organised pushed back is just a bunch of us trying to figure out. What's going on. Really I mean I feel is even though we politicize everything in this country. I feel like at the bottom of it all, the real most important thing that Americans are feeling is they want? They want the court to come to be right,

nothing, we want more than for the decision to be right, whatever that is. And I feel as if might have a different opinion of what they want to happen. They might have the only want the only narrative preference that is strong enough and they have the power to make it happen that there's no counter narrative the anybody's doing in any organise big higher trawls. hey. I kind of way right, I think they're just fighting alone. If it were something that have more to do with us, a national integrity or defence? I would suspect that we have spooks who could push back on the narrative. Right and then maybe there's something like an uneven attention there Carlos talk about the shoving shovin trial we now have both France and leave the prosecution of done their final arguments

and I told you where I come out on this- is that I think chauvinist guilty. guilty was a non legal sense, but- Do you believe that he is likely to cause at least at least a major cause of Floyd's death? The question of whether there are other factors whether he knew about it? Those Raul go to his but who is defence or guilt, but in my opinion it is often now I heard from robber Baron just raise watching fray and barns, and their podcast, which is tremendous by the way, is the best is the best sad, because I do a lot. Three to four. If you're not watching, fray and barns, far away and barns talk about this case, you really missing the best analysis of it and that I've seen some different analyses. They they do the best job, I'd say.

and here's where I come out on all this. My verdict is, I dont believe shovin was completely aware that what he was doing was dangerous now does it matter? I'm sizeable confuse the mayor with fray and barns afar. You won t. I. correct, spelling is Viva, vizier, F R and I apologize for forgetting that rocks are just at the story about the guy with the other spelling so the here's my day. I don't think Chauvelin was aware that here and the reason is that you did it, in front of everybody in slow motion. It was compound. Enough with common police procedure, The other police officers didn't seem too,

be alarmed or look to stop home. There was, There were some distraction from the from the crowd. So it's not clear, the shovel was other smart enough, or aware enough to do you CPR when it was called for so If it were me is that reasonable doubt has been clearly established. At the same time,. I think he's probably a big part of what killed, Floyd and probably didn't do. What he to them. Can we allow that Anybody of a is appalling. Hold have a reasoned opinion that the guy is sort of guilty of something? At the same time, the reasonable doubt might allow him to go free can both be true they think I'm. So, let's talk about where this is likely to go by no Keaton

and there. I don't have any legal background so anything I say on this greenest green assault, and maybe we can see how dummy I'm at the end so we'll see, I would actually turns out. Lineal you'll have a better idea. Damn I am about legal stuff, but take gives us. I believe that the jury has now heard, three separate jury instructions I don't think you'll hear this analysis anywhere else, but this is my take. The jury is out three different jury instructions jury instructions. Are everything in this case is everything for example, if the jury was instructed that it the matter was shovin was thinking better, if he knew it was dangerous or not. Will that gives you one outcome if the jury thinks it does matter,

Durban was thinking and they didn't know he was doing anything wrong. While you might get a different outcome right now that my examples may not be perfect, but these the things which are known. We know that the defense was accused of Miss stating what the jury instructions were. So that's two versions, one is what the the judge gave the actual jury instructions. One is what the defence claim they were. which was near debunked, and then there was what the prosecution claimed it was, which I believe Also was misinterpreted now the judge went to solve that. by agreeing that he would re, read the instructions and make sure the jury knew that

the lawyers could not introduce new evidence etc and that they had to listen to the real instructions from that from the judge, and they should ignore anything at that. Then lawyer says about the instructions. I think I got that right roughly. What are you doing here? The jury, keep in mind that now they ve heard three sets of jury instructions and the jury. Instructions will completely determine They went to the extent that they even follow. The instructions are rights, they ve got three sets of instructions and you ve got. Twelve jurors, who are normal Americans, give me twelve

Normal Americans give them with three different sets of instructions what's happening during deliberations right. Have you ever worked at any big company or bending the business meeting with twelve ordinary people who have three completely different sets of really pretty confusing instructions and it's complicated, frickin thing, whatever is happening in the jury. Room has nothing to do with the data. Has nothing to do with reason has nothing to do with justice right. It's just a bunch of people who could not possibly be asked to make good decisions under these circumstances and somebody's life

lots of lives. If you think of the outcome, there are lots of lives on the line and they don't have a chance. The jurors, just don't have a chance, is way too complicated and three sets of instructions. There's no way they can an unwise that stuff and come to some smart pollution if you, but if you put, if we replace the entire trial with lawyer in the world or whoever it is listless put in Ellen Dershowitz? Just for our And just say I we won't even have a jury we'll just have Alan Dershowitz decide because at he knows the law, he can equal sort out the complication, Do you know he can least handle the argument? I don't even think he can analyse. either. I think even somebody is qualified, as the best lawyer in the world would say, you know it's.

It's kind of a grey area. I gotta admit now all it suggests that the result should be that the burden of proof to a reasonable doubt beyond reasonable doubt has not been met. In my opinion, that standard has not even close my subjective Not being a lawyer and not being on the jury, so I didn't get to see everything they saw so from a different perspective. Bias though it may be imagining. I have the same kinds of biases everybody else, but, to my mind, reasonable doubt is easily met but again not qualify. nor informed it's just my opinion at the same time, I think probably show them is guilty of doing that. The final lacks they killed the mischief the prosecution star,

with an emotional peel appeal in which he talked about the humanity of Mister Lloyd, this Floyd and how will you love mother, etc. These popular within his family. How, Much of that has anything to do with the case. How much of the emotional appeal has anything to do with the facts of the case? None of that right. So, when you want The prosecution play, obviously to emotion and not even really talk about the facts of the case for a big portion of the closing. How do you feel about that? Because I would like to know that the system, Didn't allow that I would prefer. A system in which the judge said everybody. Understands the human being should be killed, you don't need to make us feel worse about it. Just deal with the facts, you did

happen is their gills under the law. How is it even legal? This is real question: how is it even legal to spend? I'm sure time making people just feel especially bad. When you know the point, that is to overcome their understanding and their dealing with the facts. How is that even legal seriously? Now I get that you need to do a little bit of it. You do need to establish that we should care about everybody right he's, not he's not a criminal. Did you just say? Well we don't care. If he's guilty or not, wouldn't matter, he must be a bad person. So you don't want that. but it's one thing to establish that your person is a real person worthy of all the protection of the constitution as

Other thing to judge, use, gross emotional blackmail, basically or manipulation the jury, while we're all watching. So If you're going to say to me what does a travesty of justice look like it looks like many of the lawyers trying to convince. During two use, their emotions over the facts, and we saw that right in front of us. We watched that happen. How is that cool? I'm sure? It's legal. But it's not cool, and I gotta tell you if I were in the in the jury and I had to sit through oh yeah, one more minute of George Lloyd was an awesome guy, which I believe is actually true in. This sounds like he was pretty, also be some drug problems and people have drug problems and if he did other crimes, those or other crimes,

But so I don't know whether legal the thing is. These the jury, of course, will be influenced by. seen waters, claiming that there should be more confrontational stuff, which even the judge pointed out is probably grounds for dismissal. Or what do you call it the grounds for appeal? So here we have a situation where this is ridiculous. Java, apparently is probably going to go to jail for a different crime. Did you know that I heard this unframed Barnes? Do that That apparently Shovin has a whole separate legal problem with allegedly not paying his taxes for years. he's gonna go to jail for ten years or something every way beyond that

We have an emotional case, not a factual case, where three different sets of jury instructions. We have twelve people couldn't possibly least collectively. All of them couldn't possibly understand the complexity of even what the charges mean or had a sort them how we dont there's no such thing as twelve people can do that. It is And pursue what else is wrong with us legacy Samantha are, and we know that it'll be overturned on appeal, or at least the appeal will be pretty solid, so you ve got ers who are worried about their own life if their smart, somebody said

while they were, there were instructed not to watch the news, so they don't really know that their endanger, they know their endanger command. Of course they now they knew before they took. They govern the jury. Everybody knew that if you're on this jury, there was a little bit of extra danger. So here are the charges now leave her the whole case. Let me describe what the charges means if these apply. The second degree unintentional murderer so that when the ledge that Of course, voice death without intent, has no intention is required, while committee attempting to promote felony third degree, assault, meaning that the third degrees default, the third degree us Was intentional infliction of substantial bodily harm so was shovin in intentionally influx

substantially bottle bodily harm in a way that a reasonable person could have known you? Death was a possibility and I would say- because he was doing something that has worked lots of times without killing anybody and is actually part of police procedure described as the least dangerously you can do. there's some social circumstances, so I say at least in terms of reasonable doubt, there's so much of it here that I don't think a reasonable jury if there were basing it on the facts. Second degree: unintentional, murder. I don't see any chance now there is a chance in a political sense, he'll be guilty that, but not on a factual basis. I don't think it's even close, then there's the third degree murdered I the says that the devil, it was by short term perpetrating neck, eminently dangerous to others and evincing a deprave mine, regarding human life

as an example that I will still be shooting into a crowd. You were trying to kill some specific burst but you are certainly not carrying. If anybody died and erections closed, it is our happened. Do you think that Here the shovel was perpetrating and act eminently dangerous to others. Now this is work as complicated here doing something that only was a danger to the person personal use dealing with and the others. reason to do it, which could be a good reason or bad reason, but at a specific reason,. That was within the realm of police work. So I don't see others could possibly apply, but I guess you'd have to really be a lawyer to now, but how The jury that even deal with this question like I, This question will know how to deal with it. Do you think the jury does or to all people there?

there are more capable than I am dealing with the complexity of this question. What, actually are they determining? Are they determining shovels, shoves guilt or as a jury, trying to figure out if their own reading comprehension, sucks cassettes, really what will determine whether goes to jail? Whether the jury has, reading comprehension, there's your system for you, then how about second degree manslaughter now here we get into something that police has a chance of being factually proven. and though that charge allegedly Chauvelin causes voice death by. Culpable negligence, whereby the person creed, an unreasonable risk and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm. So do you think that why Shovin was doing was consciously here because here's the mind reading part. You have to know that shit,

But was consciously doing something that was obviously dangerous, but again it was police procedure. It was considered the least harmful way to do this situation. Lloyd was kicking, there's reasonable, they'll all over this thing, because I know or to say, he's guilty this you have to know his state of mind. He didn't even testify. How in the world are you get a red chauvinist mind to come up with, he consciously knew he was doing this when he did it in slow motion in front of a witnesses with cameras. There's so much reasonable doubt here. This would be the easiest if, if it were not political will be the easiest case in the world to win, but because its political who knows now? Some people say to me that their interpretation of the the jury instructions were that.

shoves state of mind, and I think the prosecution said. Mister that, what shall was thinking or intending doesn't matter is just what he did. But do you think the jury will ignore we'll take the prosecutions, interpretation and just ignore what Shovin was thinking? Would you do that. Would you ignore that Shovin might not have known? He was doing anything that could have been dangerous. How do you ignore that? Because, even if its task, Quickly, illegal and you should go to jail for your actions. What do you want? A jury actually put somebody in jail. If you knew they didn't even know, they were doing it really Because I'm not sure I would.

Even if I understood the law had nothing to do with intention. I would still included in my decision, because I'm a human being- and it doesn't matter. I don't care that doesn't matter of law, I'm a human A mature but I think that many of you don't understand The law is very specific about what the jury is supposed to do, but once is your responsibility as a human being and an American, and you put, put on a jury. What is your responsibility? Is your responsibility to protect the law? Now, it's not Your responsibility is to be responsible, that's it, your responsibilities to do. The right thing. As you would want it done to you, you know, or, as you would like the system today

if you think the law is not an appropriate law, and maybe the law does says say that it does if you knew you were doing it or not, you are still gonna put that in there. I would I wouldn't even consider following the law if I consider the law on just with you and why. Why would you That so I was certainly would ignore any instructions and said that I I couldn't consider my own feelings about whether the law should even be law speaking that Well, let me tell you what I would do if I were in the jury and a gala pushed back from trolls, maybe chinese Scholz on social needs.

here's what you do on the first day of deliberations, I'd say: mind. Reading, isn't the thing and if you don't know what I was thinking we're done here. That's that that would be my entire deliberation and number. What they said. What are you then, what topics when they got to me I'd say: well, you know mind rating. Still not real still only imaginary, and why we can be right quite often about people's intentions. We're not often right enough, then I'm gonna send somebody to jail, because you think you could do it this time. Mind really not real. And then, when suddenly says, but we're supposed to ignore what he was thinking, I would say: surely you can do that, I'm done and unless you, Events me the mind. Reading Israel there's nothing to talk about right, I'm just

but I would also vote guilty on all counts to protect my family, but I would tell the public I did that so after the trial, the public and say I didn't really consider only the evidence in this case I just I just voted guilty for them to protect my family. Now, what did what happened to me when I said that on twitter, coward people said Coward is, is happening in the coming year, nice, a moral cow Would you do for money, that's not the topic, so who else thinks that that would be cowardly? Let me let me let me break this down for you, if you would put if you would put the outcome of this trial over your family. I applaud your braved us? Your bravery is, is impressive, you

actually kill your own family to protect their system. Does not doing anything useful whatsoever and you would be very, very brave for that, So congratulations for all of you. I applaud you you're a better person loony, though, The view would kill your own families to support a verdict which No bearing on anything and will just be political, congratulations, you very brave and I wish I could be more like you. No, what I would do, Opposed to that impressive bravery which all of you seem to have Killing your families to gain nothing, nothing at all, but you didn't kill your family, maybe so very brave a few years later. I wonder broken the entire system. In other words, the moment I went to the press,

I didn't use the facts, the vote because I was afraid for my family. The appeal wins right: Leslie under this system, so I would break the entire system because it's all bad its space that emotions and politics is not based on the facts. If you want to protect the system, we have to break it. The only way to protect our system in this case is that just break it now. I do think that if they try to again if they could find some circumstance, To get you to get the emotion alphabet and he's guilty, that's fine! I mean I'm not I'm not defending Chauvelin. He looks like a bad get bad do to me I know you love for him and for those of you think he's got. You must be

defending shovin, because he's white, you dont, know why people very well why people don't defend guilty, wiping It's sort of a strategic superpower it take. Take two cultures that you don't know anything else about. Him said one of them. Punishes their guilty people and rewards the people were not guilty and the other one doesn't do that who comes out any longer. Why think popularizing your criminals and that that's probably abed strategy for women Our aid, speaking of injustice, theirs. Youtube STAR named James Charles. Do you all know him?

Sir James Charles, is a young man who does make up videos, so he does I get. I guess: how would what will be the most not offensive twenty twenty one way to say this? I dont know what his sexual orientation is. Yes, it's at least bisexual, but I don't want to characterize so so it's at least bisexual. That's all Or gay or he doesn't non binary, who knows what it what it is, but that's What's important is he does videos in which he has twenty over twenty five million. Subscribers he's enormous. If you ve ever watched. His show he's really good I've. I've watched is I've watched his content a number of Times Christine.

A fan and apparently is really good with make up so yeah he's just sort of quite gifted and make up and explaining it So in terms of talent, he's very talented and my view, his yearns is earned everything you got it just really good at it. But here is what he is accused of. An apparently has admitted in part. Though he did so sexy texting with some people, he says claim there were eighteen, but now we know they might have been sixty that's doing it, but he also inadmissible whose mistake, but he also says that he asked them in this authority or he similarity. now given my these young men so he's not like some old creeper.

So it had, they been eighteen, there would have been not to grossly and of the range of people get together. Not like my situation, which has you all upset so here now here's the kicker Youtube demonetized them. I ll keep in mind the fact that we all understand- and I dont know that- there's much difference in the in how we interpret the fact is that He admits what happened. He says he was not aware of any crime was being committed. Because he wasn't aware of their age, and how does it so he says: he's twenty one. Can somebody confirm that because it does matter, if he's, if he's close to a team, that matters

Right so he's admitted it any said: you wouldn't have done it. If he had been aware that they were the edge they were now we got democratized did how much money is involved. If you have twenty five million subscribers we're talking about millions, tens of millions of dollars, they Tube took from him based on a crime he has not been committed for so he's. Not he's not been he's not been convicted of any crime. Not only has he not been convicted of a crime by this telling of it is at least as plausible, as the alternative tell him it's not like. He has an implausible story right. It's not implausible. It's actually quite plausible: do you believe that

had he known there were sixteen, he would have left permanent records on text messaging. That could be discovered later. Obviously, he could be blackmailed by anybody. He said this stone, so I'm saying people saying that these twenty one, almost twenty two matters, so here's my problem, Again. I dont want to be the guy who's, who I know the trolls will come and say: Scott you're you're, defending people trying to do things with Andrea. Kids now I'm not doing that. I'm just saying if somebody doesn't know their committing a crime very much like the shovel case right. If they don't know how can how can you tube demonetized this guy So apparently this is you too response, and if this is not showing. I don't know what is so. This is a quote from Youtube.

We see that a creators and or off platform behaviour so things they did not Youtube harms our users, community employees or ecosystem. We may take action to protect the community so another, Youtube, candy monetize you, if there's something you did in your private life, that you have not been convicted for not been convicted for innocent until proven but you two doesn't like it because they gonna say harms them. They can kick. You are. How many of us are vulnerable to that? While I am Apparently this this rule gives Youtube all they need to kick me off right now for

four things I've done outside of Youtube. So in other words, if you look at my twitter feed, you can see the countless people are accusing me of being a racist, because I think probable cause should be important in the illegal trial. Of course, I would have the same opinion if the races were reversed. The cake, Of course, I would cause reasonable. Doubt is more important than all of that stuff, but Youtube can now quite reasonably look at my twitter feed. It say: hey, hundreds of people are accusing you of a horrible thing being racist We don't want any of that. So, even though you ve never done anything on our platform, which will cause us a problem, We have a rule which would allow us to kick you off, based on you not being quite the kind of person that we think is good and we think you might be dangerous to people on their platform just think about the past:

as they have the power to control your your economic life and also the our two taken away I'm not like you what you did outside side of your dealings with them. There were not even illegal or had not been convicted for that's pretty bad. There's a cnn some see propaganda happening right now it's the running, a story about two friends. White woman and a young black guy in there. About how they were treated differently by cops at a traffic. Stop no one here a story you say to yourself. Well, I know where this is gonna go, the the police will treat young black boom, very roughly the old treaty white person. In this case woman, I think

their trader less likely, and now we see another evidence that the police are brutal against black people, which is that's what you want to see when the Floyd drop verges coming right, So if this looks like there are throwing matches and gasoline they are, but then listen to me. Actual story- and it turns out that the police handcuffed and briefly detained the black man they they found. Because there was a warrant out by somebody with his exact name, and I think it was an unusual name. You can tell from the recording that the police realized have the wrong guy and then later. Now this. Somebody else had used this fellows name when stopped and didn't have idea guess so, though, somebody unrelated to the story. Some,

Their person at a different time who would use this, perhaps not perhaps I'm sorry he of innocent guy. This purpose had used the innocent guy. name, and so when the innocent guy was stopped by the police for whatever normal thing, they briefly detain them. Could determine fairly quickly that he was the wrong guy, probably just from photos I soon and then release them. well, something other sounds like an apology now the case of the police, treating this guy poorly. I don't think so. don't you imagine that if the white person had had. An unusual name, an arrest warrant under that name they would have at least help the other person until they found out if they had the right person and then waste them when they fell by them.

How in the world with those two cases be treated differently, one is speeding and one is an arrest warrant turns are wrong. on the arrest warrant. But what has an arrest warrant he's about equal. So yours, here's a common. This happening right now and you want to ask: is this chinese bought? That's one so suddenly name Sheena three. Forty five m: we don't know if this is a real person ritual says why Scott so obsessed with supporting a knee on neck for nine minutes, exactly the opposite of what happening, but you can see that the the trolls to draw up an imaginary situation in which

I was supporting a knee Indiana neck for nine minutes. After I just told you, it looked to me, like the officer- probably kill them, meaning that it was the the proximate cause. The The last part of the costs we dont know if there was anything before that We don't know if the sentinel was enough, we don't know Everything else was cause. We just don't know that it wasn't. so is that defending it. Or are you possibly not a real person in rather a troll who has come here to create as much racial? lastly as possible, because if all you do is trying to create racial animosity, I assume you urge all, We I'm assume you don't work for this country, because I can't believe- and American would do something so bad to America. I'm sure they were

But I like to I'd like to assume that you're a foreign entity, if, if you're, trying to make something on another. so watch for the chinese trolls. There will be a lot of m o years and here's another one, Steve Cortez, you all know Steve Cortez from but our tv etc twitter has suspended. Him apparently need all. I just realized, I'm gonna get suspended. If I tell you the story, How can I tell you The story without giving suspended for the same reason this Steve Cortez gets suspended in this case, are beginning suspended from Youtube. How can I tell you, I don't know can I can I what I'll give you give it to you broad strokes. I guess I'll have to Google. It yourself.

because I don't have freedom of speech in any practical way. Legally. I do but not the only practical way on this topic. So let's say that Steve Cartels. he's cited a Stanford study. And I wanted to tell you what the topic is, because if I told you the topic, I would get caught kicked off a social media. but it's a legitimate study at Stanford, and it disagreed with the narrative. and because he cited legitimate list, we now lisa legitimate Organization, Stanford. It just because he mentioned a study, he was kicked off or social media, And I can't even tell you what it was about, if I were to suggest that is they exist on this topic that violates the narrative. I will get kicked off a social.

According to what I understand the rules. Now it was about masks. It was about So there was a study that ledges, that mass don't work and that the study showed that now you know my opinion, which is, I don't think, there's any studies this one or any else. That tells you anything. I believe all the studies are pretty close, the worthless so I would not have been on the same page with Steve Cortez on this, but I certainly would have retweeted it, because they legitimate organization does a study on an important topic. I would retweet that, even if it didn't agree with my preconceived notions, whisper important so and let me let me give you my opinion on masks,

If your aunt I mask know, most of you are, I'm certainly anti mask for people have been vaccinated, but if your aunt, I ask only young people and outdoors peoples on a more anti maslen than the mask for most of our situations, but I still think on a risk management situation. You still want to take them seriously. Here's my take and why I still think masks are important depending on the situation. check me on this. There are no major industrialized countries who believe masks, don't work in this context. I right If we were being fed a scientific lie. Or, even if this country was bad at reading scientific data, And we got the wrong answer and asks you would expect that.

The other countries would be all over the map. He had expected to be more countries. That just said master work like Germany, when you expect to see great Britain or France or Germany so Korea, Japan, Australia, Canada, wouldn't you expect One of those countries to say, masks work. I know you're, saying Sweden, that Sweden is not the case. I'm pretty sure Sweden says masks work, they just would have a different opinion about, went to use them, etc. I think Jacqueline so I dont believe there is any country there may be some smaller countries and third world countries.

but I believe there is any major industrial country with a robust scientific community who is. It has a different opinion right by factors me on that and I don't think Sweden counts and states. Don't count, I'm talking about entire countries. Now there maybe places where they're playing it differently, Sweden's a case where they're playing indefinitely, it's not a case where they say. Start work so just fact Europeans. So this is where I come down on it, I'm no expert on masks, but in any case where there is ambiguity, you would expect that at least countries. Disagree, you can certainly see the people within countries would disagree that wouldn't tell you what you need to know, but there is now an entire country.

There's a robust scientific community, that's all their side, issues of. Why are they all wrong? All now,. so where I am on masters, if it turns out the masks made? No difference, I would be surprised. But I would not be wrong deserve really understand that. So I am pro mask. but later if we were to learn that they made no difference at all and they actually were bad for us. I would still be right: do you understand that, because it's a risk management and if you see all of that, never with all of the best experts in every country on the same day, the risk management says to go with that team right, even if Israel. Even if you turn on your right,

You're right along the master work that, a good guess. You can be right by guessing, but let's be honest, it wasn't based on your your scientific knowledge, because we don't have any, Should be an individual decision, somebody says. I was somebody says, leave us back good. So he says, are you left of burning? In the same way you identify as black that's a longer discussion, but

How you identify determines how people receive your message so from a pure communication standpoint. Sometimes it's got to be on the same team you're, trying to convince see these one person, like my show today, has allotted griping today. Just like your comments here. For a moment, life is risky yet separate from the science there's a decision or whether your individual rights should let you.

the mass philosophy want. Ok, while some of you like the shock thanks for that, and I must go watch the rest of our day, happy for twenty, I plan to enjoy it quite a bit and I will talk to you tomorrow.