Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 3, 2022 - Jim Fetzer

02:07:42

Alex Jones; Rumble v. Google; NYT; FBI Corruption; Trump Indictment Risk & MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Thank you to my colleagues on the committee.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	And thank you to my colleagues on the committee.
	Thank you to our witnesses.
	I never expected today to be quite as emotional for me as it has been.
	I've talked to a number of you and gotten to know you.
	I think it's important to tell you right now, though, you guys may like individually feel a little broken.
	You guys all talk about the effects you have to deal with and, you know, you talk about the impact of that day.
	But you guys won.
	I don't laugh at people for crying.
	I'm not laughing at him for crying.
	You know, democracies are not defined by our bad days.
	He's pulling the Bill Clinton.
	We're defined by how we come back from bad days.
	How we take accountability for that.
	And for all the overheated rhetoric surrounding this committee, our mission is very simple.
	It's to find the truth and it's to ensure accountability.
	Like most Americans, I'm frustrated that six months after a deadly insurrection breached the United States... Oh, oh, I wanted to hear the rest of it.
	I want to hear the rest of the deadly insurrection that breached the United States Capitol.
	Deadly because police officers shot Ashley Babbitt.
	Deadly because apparently they used concussive grenades near one Roseanne Boyland, which might have led to her medical emergency.
	You know what's amazing, everybody?
	I didn't actually fully appreciate this.
	When they talk about medical emergencies, and there were six people who died of medical emergencies that day.
	You know, let's assume that there were 100,000 people there.
	There might have been more, there might have been less.
	It doesn't even matter.
	There's a lot of people there.
	On any given day, out of 100,000 people, people are going to have medical emergencies.
	Fine.
	So when I hear that a number of people died of medical emergencies, until I attended the Ottawa protest and was within earshot, pun intended, of a concussive grenade, I didn't put together that medical emergencies can be induced by police activity, by pepper spray, by rioters activity as well.
	Never put it together that the medical emergencies that led to many people, many, six to eight people dying on that day, whether or not it's a statistical, a question of statistics of 100,000 people, on any given day there will be people who will have heart attacks, whatever.
	Never occurred to me, until attending the Ottawa protests, that some medical emergencies can be triggered by external events.
	Heart attacks, arrhythmia, strokes, Could be in theory, you know, triggered by concussive grenades, by pepper spray.
	And now I do question, of the medical emergencies of the day of January 6th, how many were induced medical emergencies from flashbangs, tear gas, whatever, okay.
	Setting all that aside, I'm going to bring this back because we have to.
	By the way, this is the other half of the bipartisan January 6th committee.
	It's laughable.
	It's laughable in its preposterousness.
	It's laughable.
	First of all, he goes from laughing to trying to squeeze a tear out of his dry, disingenuous tear duct.
	It's like trying to squeeze water from a rock.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	And by the way, I don't judge necessarily going from laughing to crying under certain situations of trauma.
	It can make sense.
	But listen.
	And thank you to my colleagues on the committee.
	Make yourself cry.
	Thank you to our witnesses.
	I never expected a day to be quite as emotional for me as it has been.
	I've talked to a number of you and gotten to know you.
	I think it's important to tell you right now, though, You guys may, like, individually feel a little broken.
	As a parent, by the way, this is called planting the seed.
	This is called when a kid bumps his head and you go, ooh, are you okay?
	You plant the seed that the kid's not okay so that you get the reaction out of the kid that you're ostensibly trying to avoid.
	Kinzinger is planting one heck of a seed here.
	It's not to be demeaning or downplay police Stress January 6 was a violent protest.
	That's the extent that I'll that I'll qualify it as to say that that day should have broken any police officer with the exception of those who were actually seriously injured.
	To suggest that that should break an individual as though it was a 9-11 where you see your brethren climbing the flights of stairs to rescue people and then you see that building collapse, to even equate it to that?
	And to say that anything that occurred of those violent, rowdy protesters who broke windows, shoved cops, did use pepper spray, that any police officer should be broken from that?
	You are infantilizing the police force so that you can get them to get up there and solve in front of your bipartisan committee so that you can make this day out into something that it never was.
	I don't make fun of people for crying.
	I make fun of people for being disingenuous phonies.
	And here, Kinzinger is a big, fat phony.
	Cue the Peter Griffin, fat phony!
	You guys all talk about the effects you have to deal with and, you know, you talk about the impact of that day.
	Look at that, look at that.
	Pull the Bill Clinton, you guys won.
	Disgusting, laughable, phony is what that is.
	Okay.
	But now I'm thinking, you know, that's what he was thinking of.
	Dig deep into your most saddest memory.
	When I had to put my dog to sleep when I was in law school.
	And I'm actually making a joke, but not making a joke.
	If I want to make myself cry, I will remember the day I had to put my beautiful Brindle Bullmastiff Winston to sleep.
	I drove in from Quebec City to see the dog.
	He had terminal cancer.
	Within a period of two months, he went from 130 pounds to 80 pounds.
	He was so happy to see me.
	We took him for a nice night walk.
	The vet came to the house.
	We laid him on the grass, put him to sleep.
	I can make myself cry thinking about that, or I can cry thinking about that.
	It's got this guy crying for other people for things that they probably ordinarily would never cry about.
	There's got to be a lineup of cops out there saying, dude, I've been to Stanley Cup playoff riots that were worse than January 6th.
	Okay.
	All right.
	I was going to start... I have to start with that.
	There's one video that we're going to get to because we can't forget about it.
	In my weekend or Sunday morning Twitter rage, I was going through some tweets and I was remembering things that have happened.
	And they've happened a year ago, which means that it's an eternity ago.
	We'll get there.
	First things first, people.
	Florida debt.
	Let me just, I have to maximize my screen.
	A quick off-topic shout-out to the Cajun Navy, actively assisting in flood rescue and recovery in Kentucky.
	Great Americans doing great work.
	Thank you very much, Florida Dad.
	Thank you for the super chat, which will bring me to the standard intros.
	All I can say to that video, Viva, everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it.
	Billy Madison, baby.
	Classic.
	Classic of all time.
	So, standard intro disclaimers.
	No legal advice.
	No medical advice.
	No election fortification advice.
	Crocodile tears.
	I swear to you, crocodiles actually still have liquid coming out of their eyes.
	Superchats.
	YouTube takes 30% of each superchat.
	If you do not like that, we are simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	They take 20%.
	So better for the creator, better for the platform.
	If you're going to be miffed if I do not bring up your superchat like this, and you're gonna say, Viva, you took my superchat and you didn't bring up my comment, if you're gonna feel...
	The slightest bit slighted.
	Don't give it.
	I don't like people feeling slighted.
	Maybe Adam should talk about those weird medical emergencies that no one has explained as it pertains to the multiple police officers, capital officers, who died mysteriously.
	I have, look, we're going to talk about the Alex Jones trial today.
	But now I question everything.
	To hear the number of police officers who We are told took their lives in the wake of January 6.
	I have questions.
	I have questions.
	I'm not even denying it.
	To the extent that it's true, I've got questions.
	Lots of them.
	These people are pathetic.
	Kinzinger and Cheney are beyond pathetic.
	Pelosi, you know, you know, Benny Thompson, Benny Thomas or Benny Thompson, you know, the seven Democrat members of the nine Potentially illegally formed committee.
	Bipartisan committee.
	You know what they're there for.
	They're there for politics.
	Kinzinger and Cheney.
	Awful.
	Crying.
	And so badly.
	I haven't seen acting that bad since Sharknado 5.
	What was the Sharknado 5 called?
	I forget.
	But then I felt bad because the acting was better in Sharknado 5.
	I was gonna say I hadn't seen acting that bad since Leonard part six, but you know, you can't make R. Kelly references anymore, and you can't make Bill Cosby references anymore.
	Bought an ice machine.
	Quebec does have its hot summers.
	Your Viva Barnes family picture was loved to see.
	Thank you very much.
	Lovely to see.
	And we'll do this.
	Adam K., as a wise woman once said on the television show Hee Haw, kiss my grits in my best Southern voice.
	People What a week it has been.
	I'm still in Texas.
	Sent you a list of stuff to do in my hometown on Locals.
	Welcome to the heat.
	It's hot.
	Let me see if I take this off.
	You're gonna see, um, I'm spitting through my shirt here.
	Now you can't really see it.
	It's hot, but it's a dry heat.
	Do not read my super chat.
	I will read it.
	Kinzinger, that, that, that display was Bublé.
	That display was shameless, shameful, laughable, disingenuous.
	And if there's anybody out there who watches that and feels emotionally stimulated, I got questions.
	I got questions for you.
	I came to Texas last Sunday to, in theory, attend the Alex Jones trial.
	I brought one kid, my eldest kid, and we went to jury selection Monday.
	We weren't allowed in the courtroom, Monday morning because there were too many people in the courtroom with prospective jury members.
	So we did a tour.
	We went to see the Capitol building.
	The Austin Capitol building is among the most beautiful buildings I've ever seen.
	Went back after lunch, attended the courtroom, saw some of the jury selection, very interesting.
	And then we drove from Austin to Albuquerque because my kid wanted to see some of the spots of Breaking Bad.
	And I said, hey, what's an 11-hour, 2,400-kilometer round trip?
	And we did it.
	And on the way up and on the way back, I listened to a lot of the Alex Jones trial.
	We're going to talk about it.
	Where was I going with this?
	But I'm still in Texas.
	Bumped with Barnes for a couple of nights, and it's been glorious.
	And now the rest of my family met me down here yesterday.
	We're going to spend a week here, and then we're going to go back to our new, at the very least, temporary but prolonged home in Florida.
	Me and you use the same deodorant.
	It's in the background.
	Oh, that's embarrassing.
	saying, hold on.
	Old Spice is the best.
	There's no question, Old Spice is the best.
	And now that I'm in Texas, I got some Texas hot sauce in a bottle, the shape of the state of Texas.
	I forgot to mention it in Friday's stream, the drive across Texas, Austin to Roswell, Roswell to Albuquerque, Albuquerque to Roswell, Roswell back to Texas, Austin.
	It is...
	There's no part of America that's flyover country.
	It should all be mandatory drive-through country.
	As in, you need to see it from the ground to appreciate the beauty, the expanse, the geographic formations, how Texas goes from, I didn't go, I have not been east of Austin, but how it goes from rolling hills to oilfield country, where all you see is farmland, oil rigs, big towers shooting flames out.
	You go through small towns that are just beautiful.
	I mean, they're just beautiful.
	You see people.
	You see real people.
	You get to feel what the land feels like, smell the air, experience it.
	I have always, when we fly, you know, Montreal to California or whatever, you get to a part where all that you see from the plane are these massive circles.
	Green circles, you know, brown circles, yellow circles.
	And then you start to see, like, the land whittle away, like someone poured water onto a sandy beach and it created these funnels.
	And then, I finally now appreciate that those massive circles are circles where they have an irrigation watering thing that that pivots around a centerpiece and it's a massive like i don't know two three four football fields long and it waters the field but they rotate it in a circle around the watering main from the middle and so it makes a circle of green lush farmland I can't, I can't describe how beautiful it is.
	And even the flat parts of New Mexico, where you see nothing, nothing for 60 kilometers, except open expanse land.
	And it's like, it's like the Grand Canyon, except instead of a massive canyon, it's just massive expanse.
	And you could see storms coming across the field, lightning bolts going off, sheets of rain in the distance, nailing the plains.
	It was beautiful.
	What was the point of all that?
	Nothing.
	That was it.
	I just want to say, everyone should drive as much as possible.
	Listening to the Alex Jones trial, you know, it certainly helped pass the time, and I don't fall asleep when I drive.
	It was just beautiful.
	Okay, now Barnes is in the background.
	I want to do one thing before I bring him in.
	Love the stream.
	Living it.
	Loving building the American fitness equipment here in Kentucky.
	Floods are worse than what is being shown.
	Yeah, that's...
	Yeah, every state has its own, you know, natural natural disaster risk.
	One thing before we bring in the Barnes, because we can't forget this.
	This is what I was going to start the stream with.
	We can't forget this because it's going to be relevant for tonight's show.
	Another important thing is that if you look at the children who are hospitalized, many of them are hospitalized with COVID as opposed to because of COVID.
	This is two years into COVID.
	Two years into COVID.
	Many individuals have noted the importance of distinguishing between patients admitted to hospital or the ICU for COVID-19 Look at the hospitalizations of people testing positive in a hospital.
	Is that person in the hospital because of COVID?
	Or did they show up there and are routinely tested?
	- Now, two years in-- - We're looking at the hospitalizations, of people testing positive in a hospital.
	- Hospital.
	- Is that person in the hospital because of COVID?
	Or did they show up there and are routinely tested-- - Oh, I'm sorry.
	- And they may have been asymptomatic or even just had the sniffles. - And what we mean by that, if a child goes in the hospital, they automatically get tested for COVID.
	And they get counted as a COVID hospitalized individual.
	When in fact they may go in for a broken leg or appendicitis.
	Someone is in a car accident.
	They go to the emergency room.
	They test positive for COVID while they're there.
	They're not there being treated for COVID.
	As a result, we have asked hospitals to update their daily reporting.
	Two years into COVID.
	This is their revelation as experts.
	COVID symptoms, how many people are happen to be testing positive just while they're in there for other treatment.
	I'm anticipating to see that at least a certain percentage overall are not related to being treated for COVID.
	And expect to begin receiving it as well as adjusting our public reporting in the coming days.
	So it's over counting the number of children who are quote hospitalized with COVID as opposed to because of COVID.
	Oh yeah, and it's only over counting the children, people.
	Not everybody else just chilled.
	We're going to get to this.
	Don't forget that, people.
	That was two years into COVID.
	Fauci, Kieran Moore, Hochul, they start asking the important questions.
	Have we been counting people with COVID or because of?
	OK, Barnes is in the back.
	I think he's seeing me going crazy here.
	Robert, sir, how are you doing?
	Good, good.
	It's quieter now in the house that the entire family of three loud kids are not there anymore.
	Robert, what do you have in your back?
	What do you have in your fingers?
	Yeah, so the book is a John Grisham book about the judge's list and it's appropriate because it's about a judge who's a serial killer.
	So, you know, for some reason that I don't know what led me to think of The Comparison as an applicable book this week about how psychopathic and sociopathic judges can be, but thought it was apropos for the given some of our coverage of what we're going to talk about tonight.
	And this is a Gurkha cigar, which they got a little sampler version and trying them out.
	And by the way, everyone out there, I can attest, Barnes loves the cigar and he actually does smoke them.
	They're not just, you know, twiddle pieces for streams.
	Yeah, I sit out in the Texas heat and watch some movies or watch the Duran or some other stuff and smoke my cigars out here in Texas.
	Robert, what do we start with tonight?
	I feel like we have to start with Jones, and it's going to segue into... Well, yeah, it depends on which Alex we cover first.
	So there's Alex Berenson, who may be subject soon to a suit by all Greek citizens for defaming the name Alexander by associating it by implication with foolishness and idiocy.
	There's also Alex Jones and then there's the Project Veritas New York Times.
	There's Rumble's big win against Google, where we're going to actually see real discovery, unlike a certain Alex Berenson suit where that was promised.
	We have the FBI getting exposed by a wide range of whistleblowers this week.
	We have big, big wins in the vaccine mandate context.
	One of the biggest settlements in the history of vaccine mandate cases came down this week.
	Uh, another big win for the, uh, for the military and the air force, a permanent injunction that was issued.
	Uh, that's very promising.
	And then, uh, on top of that, uh, we got a few other cases.
	We got, yeah, we got some Trump got a big win in a subpoena case against Congress.
	Uh, he said he's going to sue CNN for defamation.
	I read the letter.
	It wasn't the best defamation letter I've ever read, but you know, it is what it is.
	But, you know, the and then we got another dozen potential topics we may or may not get to depending on the circumstance.
	We'll see.
	And, Robert, I'm not saying that I was at a water slide with my family instead of doing homework on a Sunday.
	But I was at a waterslide on a Sunday.
	I did some reading in the car.
	Let's start off with the Baronson, Alex.
	Because I don't... This is not a question of creating Twitter drama.
	This is a question of understanding what the hell his point is, where on earth it's coming from, and why do it.
	Like, I don't even understand the why to this.
	But for anybody who doesn't know, Baronson Came out with a tweet that says, you know, Jones is wrong.
	Jones is getting what he deserves.
	Got some blowback because it's not clear that Barrison and a lot of others who are saying, Jones is getting exactly what he deserves, all you have to do is, you know, respect Corridor.
	Yeah, it's not clear that they understand exactly the history or what's going on.
	And having been following this for, Barnes, I think this is how we met basically, having been following this for years, When you see other people making certain comments, you understand they just don't have enough knowledge.
	They just don't know, and it's fine.
	But then you sort of back off when you stepped in the poop instead of running around the house.
	But Alex Berenson is running around the house with his poopy-stoked shoes, and he wrote this the other day.
	Let me be clear.
	I hope Alex Jones winds up destitute.
	He deserves to lose everything for the lies he told and encouraged of the Sandy Hook families.
	He is a poisonous grifter who is terrible for the country.
	Anyone who defends him is equally disgusting.
	Now, there's so many things in this.
	I read this with a little bit of confession through projection when someone calls someone else a poisonous grifter.
	Terrible for the country, but then going after anybody who defends Alex Jones without distinguishing between the idea of defending Alex Jones personally, although even Alex Jones is entitled to a defense, and defending the idea of what is being done to Alex Jones as being wrong.
	Robert, help me understand what's going on.
	I mean, I think you have a better understanding of who Berenson has been historically or where he came from that might explain some of this.
	Yeah, yeah.
	So, you know, Berenson started out this week by virtue signaling his hatred of Alex Jones and he went further, as you note, Uh, there he called anybody who defended him, uh, disgusting.
	He said that there were also scum who should be blocked on Twitter.
	Um, so the, that, you know, I responded by, you know, pointing out some facts that clearly Berenson was unaware of about the nature of the proceedings.
	And all he did was double down and triple down and in between threatened that he was going to sue me.
	And apparently he was going to teach me about defamation law, and he was going to teach me about discovery, and he was going to teach me about court processes.
	So let's do what Alex Berenson did not do, which Berenson holds himself out as an investigative journalist, an investigative reporter, and an investigative researcher.
	And he did not do that investigative researcher work when it came to the Alex Jones case.
	And the broader history, what I did not know until actually very recently, some folks pointed out to me, he was actually at Yale while I was at Yale.
	So he might be one of those people who's still bitter about some of the things I said about my fellow Yalies while I was at Yale.
	Like a lot of them are a bunch of rich pricks who didn't deserve to be there, that their sense of meritocracy was a crock, that most of them are there because mommy and daddy helped them get there, not because they are special or deserve special treatment or special economic rewards or cultural prestige, simply because they got an admission slip into Yale University.
	I left Yale in protest over its attempts to screw over more poor kids from being able to get into the school.
	And the core of my protest was that the meritocratic myth of Yale is just that, a myth.
	And I know some people that are in that space who are still agitated at me.
	They took it personal because some of them were legacy students, some of them were, you know, rich kids who got in because daddy, you know, made a nice donation, that sort of thing.
	Berenson comes from a very privileged background in the New York City area.
	After Yale, he worked briefly for a newspaper, then worked for Jim Cramer, The Streets publication, Then got a gig at the New York Times.
	And while he was at the New York Times, one of the things he covered, now he did some good work at the New York Times on drug company issues.
	And I think that's why he's always been ahead of the curve on some of those issues related to COVID-19.
	But then he transitioned into covering the Iraqi occupation.
	Not long after covering the Iraqi occupation, he suddenly got into spy writing.
	And writing novels that he himself has described as so realistic it doesn't sell as well as it could.
	And you have to ask, what exactly led to that bridge?
	You know, he has no evident known history in the CIA.
	He goes from covering the Iraqi war to CIA spy novelist.
	Interesting.
	I recommend people look up Mark Rober and Eric Hundley's America's Untold Stories.
	Grobert had a very good story that he had written before, but told really well this past Friday, that even had Hunley, despite all efforts against it, crying like Niagara Falls.
	I think everybody that was watching was crying like Niagara Falls.
	It's a great story.
	It's the American Dream story, but through L.A., a uniquely L.A.
	version of it.
	It reminded me of Hunter Thompson, who was always chasing the American Dream.
	The way Grobaer really brilliantly captured that story.
	But one of the other things they cover extensively is Grobaer talks about the CIA's power and institutional influence at corrupting the media, corrupting the Academy, corrupting Hollywood, corrupting publishing.
	And let's just say Mr. Berenson has an interesting history in that regard.
	Since he's become prominent as a COVID public policy critic on the issues of lockdowns, mask mandates, and Uh, he, uh, since he was ultimately kicked off of Twitter and filed suit against Twitter, uh, brought in some lawyers I hadn't heard of, but you know, you know, that's, that's his right.
	But he decided to raise money to support the suit.
	And what he was saying at the time is he was talking about how he was never going to settle.
	He was going to publish the discovery.
	He was going to get discovery that the suit wasn't about his being accessed to Twitter or about money or about status.
	It was about let's get the discovery.
	Let's publish it to the world.
	Let's find out what's really going on.
	And even said that, you know, if the suit ended up getting resolved in a certain way, he'd give whatever was left over to charity.
	Uh, instead he settles with Twitter in a confidential settlement where no discovery ever got published.
	And some people were like, uh, hold on a second.
	And the, uh, uh, and so I simply pointed this out, uh, which that's when he was threatening to sue me.
	And then he came back and said he will now, uh, return, uh, he will give back money to the people who donated.
	So if you're one of those donors, you can ask for the funds back.
	There's a more effect.
	You know, normally if you're going to give donations back, you just, Email everybody who gave a donation and say, do you want your donation back?
	I don't know if he's done that.
	At least other people were unaware of it, if he has.
	So that's sort of some of the backstory.
	And in the middle of all of this, he has come out and attacked Robert Malone.
	He's attacked Simone Gold.
	He's attacked anybody who defended Ivermectin.
	Got into a debate that he did not come on the better side of with Pierre Koury.
	I mean, he sort of ambushed Robert Malone on a Fox News station.
	And then he was sort of Really badly whoring for the Ukraine war and critical of anybody who raised any questions about that either.
	Even predicted back in March that China was going to tell Russia to end the war.
	A prediction that didn't turn out so good amongst many.
	So there's been a lot of people that since he's come back to, you know, it's like, why are you obsessed with attacking Alex Jones?
	When you don't know, when it's obvious you haven't done your due diligence as an investigative researcher, reporter, you don't know the facts of the case.
	You don't know what's really, you don't know the legal theory that they're actually propounding.
	You don't know what's taking place in the trial.
	You don't know what took place in discovery.
	You don't know any of these things.
	And instead, he just double downs and triples down and- Double downs at this point.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Just keeps repeating himself and attacking anybody who raises questions.
	You know, earlier, other people had raised questions about his Twitter settlement, and he started threatening people with lawyers and lawsuits right away.
	This is what I noticed in a lot of the responses.
	I don't like... This is like going after the intentions right away, where people are saying, oh, was this part of your settlement now that you have to toe the line for whomever?
	Was this part of the terms that now you feel indebted to the powers that gave you back your Twitter feed, even though...
	You know, Jones never got his back, so this is what you have to do.
	I don't like it.
	Berenson is entitled to have sincere beliefs.
	He's entitled to be sincerely wrong.
	But then show a little respect to the people who might know a little more on this particular issue.
	What really irks me is that Berenson An individual who was demonized by mainstream media, deplatformed by big tech, and I bet there were a lot of other people out there who looked at Barronson and said, I know this guy.
	This guy's a grifter.
	This guy's a poisonous shill, milking COVID.
	He deserves to get booted from social media.
	That's what a bunch of his critics said.
	I mean, they said about him what he is now saying about Alex Jones.
	It's clear he's probably never really read or watched Alex Jones much at all.
	I find the people that hate Alex Jones, what they share in common is they've actually never really read or watched it.
	Alex's War is out now.
	People can get it on a streaming service.
	This is by a liberal Democrat who produced, my understanding, produced the film.
	It's a film that everybody's watched it.
	Says it's a pretty impartial film.
	It's neither partial to nor against Jones.
	Gets into a lot of his controversies.
	Some people, in fact, were unhappy that it didn't get into a lot of other aspects of Alex's life that could have been much more sympathetic to him.
	But it's not an advocacy film.
	It's a film of here's Alex Jones from Alex's perspective, highlighting some of the big controversies in his life.
	I would have highlighted his extraordinary role calling out every war lie that's ever been told.
	He was ahead of the curve for the first Iraq war, the second Iraq war, the Afghanistan war, the dumb bombings in Syria.
	He was pushing Alexander Cockburn and Julian Assange and Edward Snowden before anybody else and when many people on the right were attacking those people.
	That's the only part of the film I thought could have and would have been better included to really round out the scope.
	But Glenn Greenwald was very praiseworthy about the film and said very complimentary things about Alex at the film.
	A very prominent liberal journalist who actually does do his due diligence more often than Alex Berenson obviously does.
	And so if you're going to hold yourself out as an independent researcher, and that if you're making a statement, that statement is based on your knowledge, your independent due diligence.
	Then you need to be right, and he's not.
	And it's obvious he's not.
	In fact, I had a debate here with media here about, I was like, tell me what fact, what item of discovery did Alex Jones hold back?
	I was like, do any of you know?
	Well, what item of discovery did he not turn over that led to the default?
	None of them knew.
	New York Times reporter didn't know.
	None of them knew.
	And that's because it doesn't exist.
	As anybody watching the trial can see, they're like, okay, the plaintiffs have all of his videos, They have his internal private embarrassing emails.
	They have internal text messages.
	They have intimate details of all of his financial well-being and the well-being of the company.
	What was it he didn't turn over that required the extraordinary and extreme act of a default judgment depriving him of his constitutional right to trial by jury?
	Nobody can say.
	Nobody can identify.
	I was trying to look it up just to find out myself because there's so many things about this.
	Even if, and this is even if, Jones did not turn over discovery documents, even then, only exceptionally, I assume it's the same under the US law, only exceptionally would the ultimate sanction be not just no defense or foreclosed from pleading, judgment by default.
	My question was this, two questions.
	Even in Canada, when you say, foreclosed from pleading, the plaintiff still has to prove their case.
	They can't just say, judgment by default.
	Prove your case, show your evidence.
	Did the plaintiffs ever do that or did judge, whatever her name is, simply say, foreclosed from pleading, so therefore here's your verdict?
	Yeah, all of that.
	I mean, that's what Alex Berenson got wrong.
	He didn't know what the discovery was, because he couldn't cite it like anyone else.
	He also didn't know what the legal theory is.
	The legal theory is not that Alex Jones said specifically false factual claims about specifically identified individuals.
	It's acknowledged in the trial that he never even named or referenced the individuals by name or by image, ever.
	And instead, their theory is, people are starting to figure out when watching this horrifying trial unfold, this Kafka-esque trial in Travis County unfold, is that the theory is, as one of the jurors made clear, because the jurors are being allowed to ask questions, and we'll get to that a little bit later when we talk about the Jones case, one of the jurors said, can we use this against election deniers too?
	Well, it was even worse.
	They said, is this an appropriate way to Is this an appropriate way to sanction?
	To stop election deniers.
	I mean, so you can see what the theory is.
	Have you voiced an opinion that the government disagrees with, that somebody feels emotionally offended by?
	And this is why Alex Berenson should have had his eyes wide open like Clockwork Orange.
	If he had been paying attention, he could be sued into oblivion based on the theory against Alex Jones.
	Here he is cheering on, not only cheering on the kind of censorship that he has previously opposed, but here he is cheering on a legal theory that could bankrupt him tomorrow.
	A legal theory that is, have you voiced an opinion, number one.
	Number two, the government disagrees with.
	Number three, you knew it could offend certain groups of people that are within a zone of emotional danger, basically a legalized safe space.
	Well, they can sue you into oblivion now, even if they can't show any specific damages that you caused them.
	Robert, what do the plaintiff's lawyers say wasn't turned over?
	I know it has to do with, I thought it had to do with correspondence.
	It almost always is small stuff.
	So what would happen is they would, like for example, normally a default judgment if someone doesn't show up.
	It's almost supposed to be reserved for that.
	Why?
	Because again, you have a constitutional right to trial by jury.
	And the courts are stripping you of that right when they issue a default judgment on any issue.
	So the courts are highly cognizant of this.
	This is why people who don't even show up and show up a year later get the default judgment set aside more often than not.
	It's for constitutional reasons you can't do it.
	But Robert, just to pause you there, but even if the defendant doesn't show up, you don't get a rubber stamp verdict.
	You still have to show your evidence.
	If you say there's a deed of sale, I own that house, defendant doesn't show up, you still have to submit the evidence.
	And if you don't submit the evidence, a judge can still say no, I'm not giving you the judgment.
	Completely.
	Typically what happens is there's really an essential discovery item that they cannot get and that they can prove existed and destroyed.
	Then you get a factual inference about that discovery item and that's it.
	It's limited to that.
	It's not a default.
	You won't find any case out there in America's history that compares to the Alex Jones case, where you're talking about a defendant that sat for hundreds and hundreds of hours of depositions.
	Almost everybody got deposed.
	Jones himself was deposed again and again and again and again and again.
	He was even forced to be deposed after they defaulted him, which is like, what's the ground to depose him when you've defaulted him?
	And then they sanctioned him a million dollars for not immediately sitting for that deposition.
	I mean, it was just one nutty ruling after the next nutty ruling.
	These judges hate him.
	It's that simple.
	I mean, it's two judges that hate him because this is part of the bias of the professional class as a class.
	And Berenson reflected that prejudice perfectly.
	It's because his opinion is not based on facts.
	His opinion is not based on learned understanding of the law or the relevant applicable constitutional provisions.
	It's based on bias, bigotry, prejudice, and parochialism.
	And what he doesn't realize is if they can do it to Alex Jones, then they can do it to Alex Berenson.
	They can do it to anybody else because their legal theory is extraordinary.
	And what they've done is they've stripped him of his ability to present a defense.
	I'll give other examples as we transition to Alex Jones's case.
	In Texas law, an apology is mitigation of damages under Texas law.
	We went through it a little bit on one of our live streams during the week.
	The judge told the jury exactly the opposite.
	Not only that, in order to seek punitive damages, you have to make a timely request under Texas law.
	To my knowledge, the plaintiffs never did.
	Yet somehow, punitive damages are back in the case.
	Yet somehow, Jones is not allowed to talk about his apology.
	In fact, what became clear is we're supposed to be having a trial just on damages.
	Damages is the plaintiffs get up and say, I heard Alex Jones say these things.
	It caused me this kind of emotional pain.
	Here's the proof of that emotional pain.
	Here's why I'm asking for X amount.
	That's all it is because the punitive damages is separate.
	It's not part of this.
	It's part of this trial, but it's not part of this part of the jury trial.
	It has to be separated because they don't want one piece of evidence to inflame another piece of evidence.
	And so and what they're doing is they're the plaintiffs are combining the two because they want the damages as emotional distress because in Texas punitive damages are capped at 3 million.
	So they want $150 million to be emotional distress damages, not punitive damages, because then they're not capped.
	And so that's all that's supposed to be happening.
	Anybody who watched the trial this week heard almost none of that.
	Instead, the judge is allowing them, even though she's defaulted Alex Jones, and this trial is supposed to be just on damages, she's allowing the plaintiffs to present their merits case as if Well, but not allowing Jones to defend himself.
	And the reason is, it's not only a show trial, it's literally a show trial.
	I was in the courtroom, the plaintiff's lawyer started hopping around like a bunny rabbit, going, Bobby Barnes!
	Bobby Barnes!
	Bobby Barnes!
	The guy's nuts.
	The guy's a loon.
	I gotta put him on my straitjacket for Christmas list.
	They are so obsessed.
	They had Owen Shroyer.
	Did you know Robert Barnes is here in the courtroom?
	These people are berserk.
	Tells you how much they've obsessed about the Court of Public Opinion.
	But I was sitting there.
	I was stunned.
	I'd never seen this before.
	There are three movie cameras in the room.
	And not only are there three movie cameras, one of them is staring down the jury!
	This is literally made for movies.
	This is a show trial for a show, literally for a show.
	They are staging this trial for a show to be on Netflix or HBO, wherever it's going to be.
	I believe it's the Leaving Neverland production company that did a hit piece on Michael Jackson that they could get away with because he's dead.
	Now, how do they get away with it here?
	By presenting all of these things within the courtroom.
	They are completely immune.
	Now let's say the judge allowed Alex Jones to present a defense on the merits.
	Then they have to include that in their movie.
	They don't have to as long as it's not presented.
	So they have complete legal immunity for allowing the lies about Alex Jones from the courtroom to be repeated later on and cannot be sued because they're just republishing what was in court.
	That's why the judge is literally doing a show trial for a show.
	And you know what?
	It makes so much more sense now in retrospect.
	Kierkegaard, life can only be lived forwards but understood backwards.
	Where she asked Karpova...
	Do you think this is a show trial?
	Do you think any part of this trial is a show trial?
	And it's a staged event, something along those lines.
	And it makes sense now, because in her heart of hearts, she knows it's entirely staged, literally so, with the camp.
	But Robert, this is the question.
	Uh, what case against Jones was presented?
	So they're presenting kind of a mythical case.
	So they're presenting experts that aren't experts in things, like their fact-checking information expert was talking about how PolitiFact and Snopes are so reliable.
	I mean, that CNN is a beacon of independence and integrity and independent journalism in America.
	This was being presented in the trial as evidence.
	And the goal is to say, this is what a jury concluded.
	When the evidence is presented, liberal news is very reliable and trustworthy.
	Alex Jones and everybody else are all terrible, horrible liars.
	That's the whole point of this whole case.
	Other than bankrupting Jones and trying to take him off the air.
	That's almost secondary.
	The goal is to script a broader narrative for a broader show to be utilized as future legal precedent and court of public opinion precedent going forward.
	And that's why the case, if Alex Berenson's eyes were open, would realize this case is very dangerous.
	And they pick Alex Jones and they pick Sandy Hook.
	Because nobody wants to defend Alex Jones or get involved in Sandy Hook.
	That's why they pick those.
	They always start off this way.
	When they want to make bad law and bad precedent and bad policy, they start with controversial targets that people with any degree of influence are scared and terrified and hide under their desks rather than publicly defend.
	And people like Berenson are enraged that people like me are defending it.
	That's why he has to call me scum.
	That's why he has to call me disgusting.
	That's why he has to threaten to sue me.
	All that did is remind me, hey, maybe I should double check whether Alex Berenson defrauded his donors.
	If you're going to come at me, you better be ready to come at me.
	The one thing, though, the judgment by default came from the judge.
	It didn't go to a jury by default, so no jury heard evidence.
	The judge basically said, it's almost like I'm taking for granted all of the evidence such that you don't even have to present it.
	It is even allowing the plaintiffs to flagrantly violate Texas law.
	All of a sudden apologies can't come in, all of a sudden you do get punitive damages, all these things that you can't get under Texas law given how the plaintiffs behaved leading up to the case.
	So she's just gutting all of the laws, gutted the anti-SLAPP law, gutted all of it, gutted the constitutional requirement of colloquium.
	Because, I mean, you'll remember from the questions asked in the deposition that you covered, his questions, 90% of them, weren't about specific statements about Sandy Hook, about the parents.
	It was statements like, don't you recognize that questioning who committed the murder could be offensive to people who are related to the victims?
	I was like, holy cow, you could criminalize the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorist on these grounds.
	You could ban everybody, anybody who's in a safe space.
	And they've expanded that space, by the way.
	There's people that have no relationship to the Sandy Hook families that are bringing suit in Connecticut.
	They have none!
	They're just FBI agents and other agents who are there at the scene.
	So I mean, they're saying anybody who's emotionally damaged by your offensive opinion about a topic the government disagrees with you on.
	So that's their core theory.
	What we saw all week was just liberal news good, Alex Jones bad.
	The other thing is they actually called what Alex Jones did altered clips, which is not the case.
	He's actually presenting clips that are unaltered.
	Yeah, and just to contextualize that for everybody watching, they wanted to play segments of episodes.
	And they said, well, if you play a clip, that's altering the video.
	And it's like, that's not altering the video.
	I'm just playing an unaltered clip.
	Otherwise, what are we going to do?
	Play every entire video in its entirety because we can't play a clip for a specific section?
	And the judge wouldn't allow... But that's what... It wouldn't allow the defense to present the... It allows the plaintiff...
	To criticize Alex Jones for ever playing a clip while all they have done is play clips out of context.
	And they had said before trial, at least the Understanding Defense Council was, that they were going to get to play all the videos.
	And what do we mean by all the video?
	In other words, the whole segment on his discussion about Sandy Hook as a topic.
	So the so you don't take 30 seconds out of it.
	You don't take two minutes out of it.
	You look at the whole seven minutes, 10 minutes, two minutes, 30 minutes, however long it is.
	She's not allowing that.
	Because again, If that was presented, the film crew would have to reproduce it because they would no longer have judicial immunity extended to them because they would not have been fair, neutral reporting of what took place in court.
	That's the requirement for the immunity to apply.
	So by excluding that, she's allowing them to take... And basically, she's allowing the myth to be told as truth in court so it can be repeated forever.
	The myth being... They're actually repeating this.
	That Alex Jones is solely responsible for anyone questioning Sandy Hook.
	Utterly false.
	That Alex Jones originated, initiated, instigated and controlled what people believed about Sandy Hook.
	Utterly false.
	They're actually, I mean, here you had half the jury pool didn't know who Alex Jones was.
	But supposedly 75 million Americans don't think Sandy Hook happened because of Alex Jones?
	It's a lie!
	It's a lie the judge is allowing to be told by the lying plaintiff's lawyers and the court because they want that lie repeated to the world forever.
	And Alex Berenson is happy to preach and propagate that lie either because he's too lazy to do his job or because He's more of a deep state hack than he is a real independent researcher.
	That's why Robert Malone called him controlled opposition.
	For those folks out there, it's to put somebody in a space where you know some people are going to believe some dissident information and make sure it stays controlled what they believe.
	So okay, let's say you have questions about COVID lockdowns and masks and vaccines.
	Go here and listen to Alex Berenson because he'll keep you on script when it comes to Ukraine.
	He'll keep you on script when it comes to Ivermectin.
	He'll keep you on script when it comes to other dissident voices.
	He'll keep you on script when it says it's okay to censor Alex Jones.
	Uh, the, that's, that's, that's what controlled opposition means.
	And, and Barrington's living up to the label.
	But that's, uh, what all of them want to repeat a lie about Alex Jones.
	And the whole, the whole trial is a lie.
	The whole trial is just one big fat lie.
	They have, they have no understanding of the depth of this and they, they conflate defending some of the bad things that Alex Jones said with defending- Alex Jones himself has been one of his harshest critics.
	He's apologized for it.
	He's gone on an apology tour.
	Now the court's not allowing the jury to hear that.
	They're not allowing the jury to hear how many times he apologized.
	I mean, to give an example, Owen Schroer covered, after Megyn Kelly covered the story, Owen Schroer did a very short bit, which was probably watched by a thousand people live.
	The plaintiff's lawyers were pretending tens of millions watch Owen Schroer live every five seconds.
	Owen might love that, but that's not the case.
	Most people don't know who Owen is.
	I think Owen's a great guy, but that's just reality.
	Only a small number of people do.
	He has influence, but he doesn't have 10 million people watching live influence.
	All Owen did was Megyn Kelly covered it.
	Zero Hedge then ran an article raising all the old questions about Sandy Hook.
	And all Owen's point was is see by Megyn Kelly lying.
	Well, Alex, Alex's understanding was that Sandy Hook was not going to be brought up.
	That's an Alex Jones Megyn Kelly debate for another day.
	But the Owen's point was Megyn Kelly by bringing back up Sandy Hook was going to have the effect of all the old conspiracy theories coming back.
	It wasn't going to lead to those theories going away.
	It was going to lead them coming up.
	And he used as an example.
	Here's a zero hedge story making this debate.
	The plaintiff's lawyers tried to twist that into Owen Troyer was trying to support the Sandy Hook conspiracy theories and attacking the families.
	Utterly false!
	They know it's utterly false!
	That's, by the way, here's another key to all this, that didn't even become apparent to me until watching the trial.
	At the time, if anybody that's out there, history of Sandy Hook conspiracy theories, The Sandy Hook, the idea that Sandy Hook didn't happen started coming out as a conspiracy, as a theory, on the same day it happened because it was politicized so quickly.
	Two main reasons why that happened.
	One, in traumatic events that people feel personally connected to, even if they're not personally connected to.
	But everybody, there's a lot of people that are parents with young children who will drop them off at elementary school every day in America.
	To see that happen is so traumatic.
	One of the most common responses to any kind of trauma of any kind is denial.
	And you're going to have a certain percentage of people who are going to convince themselves, this can't happen to my kid because this never happened.
	So that had nothing to do, nothing to do with Alex Jones, nor was it his first response at all to Sandy Hook.
	The second part was a bunch of people.
	It went viral on Facebook, then it went viral on YouTube.
	Tons of videos.
	They were getting tens, even probably, ultimately, collectively, hundreds of millions of views, long before InfoWars or Alex Jones said anything that he's now being sued for, saying, All the allegations, the crisis actor allegations, all that nonsense.
	We still get emails from people who tell us that we're part of the fix and that we're covering up the Sandy Hook habit.
	It just did.
	But there's people who are going to believe it for deeply emotional, psychological reasons.
	That it didn't.
	Nothing to do with Alex Jones.
	Jones was getting bashed with criticism, which the plaintiff's lawyers know from the email disclosures, from a range of people saying that he was covering it up.
	They started accusing him of being Bo Bridges and how real Alex Jones had been taken out years before, so on and so forth.
	That collective agitation led him to say, okay, I'll cover this.
	I'll let people get their two cents as to why they think what they think.
	And then responded to a couple of questioners sympathetic to those questioners.
	That's the whole real reality of the case.
	But that's not the case they're presenting in court.
	The myth they want to present in court they can only get away with if all the truth stays hidden.
	What I didn't realize is YouTube helped him there.
	So after this suit started, as my understanding, YouTube went in and deleted all the other Sandy Hook videos that would show in live time That Alex Jones had a tiny, tiny, tiny part in anybody questioning Sandy Hook.
	That 99.9% of it came from other people, including philosophy professors, media professors, school safety experts, people who prior to Sandy Hook had not been off the rails.
	And again, I think it was... Now, I doubt half the equation was the psychology of denial.
	The other, and then this just went viral, the other factor was the politicians and the media chose to politicize this, chose to weaponize only the gun, that only the gun could be responsible.
	They suppressed evidence.
	They hid information from Open Records Act.
	Like, that's what they're not talking about Wolfgang Halbig about.
	What drove Halbig nuts?
	He made a bunch of open records requests that they kept denying.
	That's what let him think, oh, I must be on to something.
	That's why he thought that, because the politicians were lying.
	Because the truth of the matter is, politicians lied and kids died.
	And how did they lie?
	They lied about the inadequate means of school safety in those classrooms.
	If they had been doing their job, if they had been using the taxpayers' money like they were supposed to, a bunch of those kids would not have died that day.
	That they had to keep secret.
	So they were glad to hop onto the blame the gun trail, And happy to destroy the school, destroy the shooter's home, hide evidence concerning the shooter, hide evidence concerning the school, hide evidence concerning the investigation, hide evidence concerning the safety response.
	All that did was enhance the conspiracy theories that maybe it didn't happen.
	That's the truth, but they can't tell that truth because that truth doesn't demonize and destroy Alex Jones.
	And that's why they are not allowing any of that in.
	Robert, that is one heck of an analysis, and it's on point, I think.
	Just to finish the bookend with Alex Berenson, the one thing that really pisses me off about Alex Berenson's position is that he is now in that position where he says, I think I know everything I need to know about Alex Jones because of what mainstream media told me and big tech told me, and therefore I'm so stubbornly clinging to my understanding of what I think I understand based on a system that I know is corrupt to the core.
	It's the same system that tried to destroy him.
	And that's why a lot of his donors, aside from what happened with the suit, a lot of them are like, hold on a second.
	We supported you because we, a lot of them are people who support Alex Jones.
	A lot of people don't support Alex Jones, but do support freedom of speech.
	Do support due process of law.
	Do support right to trial by jury.
	Do support the right to confront your accusers.
	Do support the right to present evidence in your defense.
	All of which he's being denied!
	I mean, Mike Cernovich, to his credit, came out and said, you know, and Mike Cernovich has been a constitutional lawyer in the past, he's done a bunch of legal work in the past, studied the legal system for, you know, almost a quarter century.
	He says, I've never seen a trial like this.
	He's like, this is the worst travesty of justice.
	And some people thought I was exaggerating.
	So they tuned in to watch.
	And you can only go to law and crime.
	Like people are wondering, a lot of people in the live chat and the locals live chat are like, why aren't more of LawTube covering it?
	It's because the judge has made it clear that that's illegal.
	The judge even pointed at Alex Jones.
	You guys aren't permitted to rebroadcast this.
	She's only allowing it on her YouTube channel and the media people she's approved.
	And this gives you an idea of where the world is going.
	It's going to be trying to hide evidence, even hide a live trial from people.
	You can't even go to the judge's website and get the prior statements.
	Now, Law and Crime, you can go and find the opening statements.
	You can find more of the evidence being kept there of what's happening in the court proceedings.
	But they only want it to be law and crime.
	They don't want the Nick Ricadas of the world broadcasting.
	But people who watch this were like, this is terrifying.
	People who have naive beliefs about our judicial system are like, that would be the way.
	My test always to people is, imagine you're Alex Jones.
	Do you think this judge is being impartial?
	Even if you don't like him, don't agree with him.
	If you were Alex Jones, would you want this judge as your judge?
	And nobody says yes to that.
	In fact, most people are like, this is one of the worst judges.
	Like, is there a way to impeach her?
	Is there a way to, you know, I mean, there's mostly not a lot of legal remedies available, unfortunately.
	And by the way, the trial is worse than anything anyone could possibly imagine, and I'll just say everyone can go watch it if you go to, what is it, Travis County 459th District?
	Yeah, I think 459th, and I think she's still taking down the day before.
	I don't know if she's changed that.
	Oh yeah, she takes it down, she takes it down like right within an hour at the end of the day.
	And not only that, some stuff's not on camera.
	So like, if she wants to do, you can know something's kind of bogus from her, like she lectured Owen Schroyer about the rule.
	This was a misapplication of the rule in my opinion by the judge.
	So the rule for those people out there, but the fact she had the cameras rolling meant it was for the cameras.
	Because when she's screwing over Jones often on legal issues, cameras, let's cut off those cameras.
	Some of the cameras aren't there for that legal discussion frequently.
	So the rule is that if you're a witness in the proceeding, they don't want you watching another witness's testimony to contaminate your testimony.
	That's all it's really for.
	Because through lawyers and everything else, you can't really avoid anything else.
	And that didn't happen.
	Owen didn't see any part of the substance a part of the trial.
	Didn't happen.
	But because he talked with Alex Jones about Alex's experience, suddenly Alex had not testified at that point in the case, and as a party he's entitled to, he's not subject to the rule.
	He can watch the trial, he can be there present.
	Um, and, uh, she tried to make a big deal out of it.
	And the sole goal is she wants to headline the next day.
	Headline!
	Judge scolds Owen Jones witness for violating rules.
	And the lawyer, no less.
	She wanted to shame that lawyer in front of everyone.
	She likes to personally shame the lawyer.
	She likes to humiliate him.
	She's a liberal authoritarian.
	She's a disgrace of a judge.
	She has the kind of personality that should never be on a court.
	She's exactly the opposite of a judicial temperament.
	She lied to voters to get elected.
	She said she would always be open and fair and impartial and welcoming in the courtroom.
	She's been anything but.
	Anybody can watch this.
	She calls the jury my jury.
	I mean, people watching are like, how in the world do people like that become judges?
	Folks in liberal jurisdictions, that's your typical judge.
	I deal with it.
	I mean, there's a reason why four judges try to put me in jail.
	So these kind of judges exist.
	Unfortunately, they exist too often, too frequently.
	They're used to their intimidation tactics working on people.
	Like Alex Berenson probably thought his, I'm going to sue you Barnes, kind of language implication was going to back me off.
	Have the opposite effect.
	You know, he learned the Jack Murphy lesson, trying to intimidate people will not get you the results you want for some of us.
	And so the, But yeah, it's a travesty of a trial.
	It's people ask the jurors asking questions.
	In Texas, in criminal cases, the jurors cannot.
	In civil cases, they can.
	It's up to the judge.
	It's always been controversial how that would work.
	Now, my view is that who's asking the questions should be disclosed.
	Because the nature of the question could reveal a bias that they failed to disclose prior to trial that would justify their substitution with an alternate.
	It appears this judge is not doing that.
	There are some people that speculated that, how do we know that the judge isn't just writing these questions herself and disguising them as juror questions?
	I don't know if there's a protocol in place to see whether that's what's happening.
	But anybody listening to those questions heard biased questions.
	Questions that had leading answers, questions that showed they'd already come to their conclusion before they even heard any aspect of the defense's own witnesses.
	Jurors who probably walked into that courtroom with bias, and based on the jury selection process, that was only going to be enhanced.
	If you raised questions about a $100 million verdict, and that turned out to be low, they're actually asking for $150 million, $75 million per person, which when you add it up with the other Connecticut cases, it's basically almost a billion dollars in damages they're asking for, for people who didn't even file a correction request, retraction request, or apology request at the time the statements were made.
	In fact, to my knowledge, they never did until the eve of suit.
	And so they're supposed to get $75 million.
	I mean, that's the kind of nutty claim.
	But if you said, hold on a second, maybe $100 million for emotional damages seems kind of high, since, by the way, it would be the highest emotional damages claim in American history for such a case, and my knowledge, world history for such a case, then you're kicked off the jury.
	If you're like, whoo, write that eight-figure, nine-figure check, then you're on the jury.
	Also, everybody in this jury thought that Alex Jones, that nobody in the media had ever said anything unfair about Alex Jones.
	Ever.
	That gives you an idea.
	I was like, this guy, Alex Jones has been libeled more in the media in the last four years than probably any person not named Donald John Trump.
	And yet, they thought he'd been treated perfectly fairly.
	So the average Austin juror is a liberal Democrat.
	In fact, not just the average, about three quarters of them.
	So it's a 12-person jury, two alternate sitting.
	In Texas, you only need 10 to get to a verdict.
	Chances are, 10 jurors are liberal Democratic Biden voting jurors who hate people like Alex Jones, being an independent content creator, an independent voice.
	All right, Robert.
	There were a bunch of questions as to appeals we've talked about before, whether or not the lawyers could have done anything differently as sort of, you know, playing Monday morning quarterback, and I think people can adduce or deduce from everything you've said What counsel could have done, or ought to have done, or might still be able to do, but everyone has to understand.
	Go for it.
	Just briefly on the appeals, the problem is his directive, his only right of appeal, in Texas, they divide the court of appeals, and they got to reconstitute the Texas courts of appeals.
	In the Texas court, a lot of states, the court of appeals is for the whole state.
	Not in Texas.
	They divide it by geography, which they shouldn't do, because what happens?
	In any case related to Austin goes to the Austin Court of Appeals, where five of the six judges are liberal democratic judges, where one of the judges who wrote the bogus constitution violating opinion early on in the motion to dismiss stage of the case used partially leveraged that, platformed it, to run for the Supreme Court of Texas.
	Now she lost, thank God, but that gives you the mindset.
	So the only place he's got remedy In Texas is the Texas Supreme Court that doesn't have to take the appeal.
	Two justices of the Texas Supreme Court were interested in taking the case early on, but that wasn't enough votes to have them hear it.
	Hopefully they step up to the plate.
	But if enough people in the court of public opinion don't make a stir, they likely won't.
	And the same is true in Connecticut.
	All the judges are bad at every level.
	The only hope is the United States Supreme Court.
	And once again, and that's also the role Alex Berenson is playing.
	Alex Berenson is playing the role of, in the court of public opinion, saying everything is okay here.
	I'm a New York Times independent investigative reporter.
	I covered COVID honestly, so you can trust me to prevent Alex Jones from getting a sympathetic ear in the court of public opinion.
	That's why he's out there pushing his narrative, attacking any of us who defend him.
	And that's the other goal.
	The moment I appeared and represented Alex for about six months or so, I had hit piece after hit piece after hit piece after hit piece.
	I had a lawyer quit working for me.
	I had clients turn me down.
	I knew all that was going to happen.
	They're like, hold on a second.
	You represent Alex Jones.
	I had some famous clients like, ah, I can't hire you right now.
	You're representing Alex Jones.
	I knew that would happen because that's why they kept all of so many lawyers out from representing all the way through.
	The goal has been to strip them of every core right and liberty we know is what makes the American justice system unique.
	And that's why it's such an outrage and it's such a dangerous, perilous precedent.
	Even if you hate Alex Jones, you should be terrified at what they're doing to him.
	Okay, we will not be able to end it better than that, or no one will ever be able to say it better than that, Robert.
	Now let's go from the Alex Jones case, where things are not working the way they should, and pivot through someone who said they would get to discovery with big tech but didn't, into a case of someone who's going to get to discovery with big tech.
	Yeah, somebody who keeps his word, and it's a great white pill moment as Rumble has sued Google.
	And I remember there was a bunch of the tech dirt, some of those other publications, where all the little Silicon Valley fake tech legal people.
	And what I mean by fake, I mean they pretend to be independent, and they're not.
	And they're like, oh, Rumble's not going to have any success here.
	This case is going to get dismissed.
	This is just more alt-right garbage, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	There are very serious lawyers involved in representing Rumble in this case.
	Very serious people backing the case.
	And they went in front of, I think it was a liberal democratic appointed judge.
	It was a Barack judge.
	I mean, it's an Obama judge.
	And that judge said, well, go ahead.
	Well, just so everybody, like, refresh your memories, people, because this case is like a year and a half old now.
	I remember where I was when I did the original assessment of the case.
	At the time, I, you know, barely knew Chris.
	I knew of Rumble.
	I was ice fishing in the townships in winter, before the last winter, Rumble sues Google, alleging antitrust violations and damages.
	Massive damages to be determined.
	And the basis of the lawsuit, it's not even a political lawsuit at its core.
	Rumble is not suing Google on the basis of antitrust violations because they're politically biased or they're slanting or skewing results for political purposes.
	They're just doing it because Google owns YouTube, the biggest search engine on Earth, owns the biggest video hosting platform on Earth, and uses the results of the search from Google to siphon or cannibalize or just artificially direct traffic to YouTube results for Alphabet's aggregate benefit.
	And this is like cat videos type things.
	And So they were suing on antitrust violations, tying a bunch of theories of antitrust that Google uses its results to redirect traffic to its other entity, and they reap the benefits.
	And Rumble had some interesting methods of determining it, that Rumble would be the first one to post a video, and despite the fact that it was the first one to post it, or maybe even the only one, search results would direct to YouTube videos.
	So they sued.
	Antitrust violations and damages to be determined, but could be, you know, in the billions, if not the tens of billions, because you figure if they've done this for two billion videos, each video is worth at least a dollar in AdSense revenue.
	That's a big freaking lawsuit.
	Google moved to dismiss But one thing they didn't do, they sort of did not move to dismiss the claim in its entirety.
	They sort of, for some reason from the get-go, acknowledged that there might be some valid Sherman Act claim in it, but they made a motion to dismiss in separating the action, separating some of the claims so they could dismiss some and then maybe fight some limited claims.
	Then they made a motion at the same time to strike certain paragraphs allegations on the basis that they were, I suspect, redundant because they certainly were not irrelevant.
	Well, actually, it was a motion to strike to basically get rid of 80% of their theories.
	So they reclassified part of their motion that dismisses that, and then they try to get at it another way by a motion to strike, with the same objective being to gut two of the big legal theories that Rumble's bringing against Google, violating our antitrust laws.
	Okay, fantastic.
	Actually, flesh that out a little more, because that's sort of an important detail.
	It is.
	To go into it fully would require an antitrust lecture.
	So essentially, it's Google's using its power to screw its competitors.
	That's the short answer.
	And they have more than 75, more than 70% market share that usually meets antitrust requirements.
	I think at this point, depending on the market, it's as high as 90, 95% in some markets.
	And they have basically been usurping aspects of, they've been using their control of Google search algorithm To elevate arbitrarily and artificially YouTube at the expense of Rumble.
	And so like when you search...
	Rumble videos won't come up, YouTube videos will.
	Even if you went into each one's relative platform, you might find the Rumble one is much more popular on that particular topic or by that content creator than YouTube.
	This is scheming, this is using, and there's multiple technical ways that Google does this.
	So there's things called tying, there's other aspects of leveraging your market power to help one product against another product.
	Now, I think we need to expand our antitrust law and have an invite out to Matt Stoller.
	He comes from the left, but a great antitrust advocate to do a sidebar with, because he would be also good for explaining aspects of this, that our law should be more robust.
	But even under the existing law, they had nice, neat, clean claims.
	And what the judge did is the judge just rejected all of their arguments and said, All motions to dismiss, denied.
	All motions to strike, denied.
	Discovery, here we come, which is going to be mighty interesting for Google.
	And now, Robert, I mean, they're going to limit the discovery, but they're going to limit it to that which is relevant and of interest for the general public.
	But yeah, that covers all the big topics.
	I mean, because he didn't strike anything, discovery is relevant to every part of their claim, including their subclaims.
	Well, that's it.
	And to the algorithm, how do the results get populated?
	The question is this, Robert, is it not, they're going to make a motion that this be done under seal because it's going to reveal trade secrets.
	And if Rumble doesn't win, they can't have that out there.
	What are the odds that this is going to actually be accessible or viewable or readable to the public?
	The parties will ultimately probably will be because the parties ultimately probably agree to a protective order that will limit initial disclosure of documents.
	But any document disclosed in court usually becomes part of public record.
	I don't think that will be put under seal.
	Often can't be.
	And so limited aspects of trade secrets can stay under seal.
	But that will be about it.
	A lot of their other activities is not really trade secret material.
	And so I like what will happen is they'll probably be summary judgment motions brought down the road.
	And that will disclose a lot of the underlying information, and much of it will not be subject to sealing or trade protection.
	So there'll be two critical aspects to it.
	One, Rumble will know.
	Rumble will know what they're up to, and Rumble's the biggest competitor to YouTube.
	And that's very beneficial.
	It's also, I mean, like, we help craft Rumble's new proposed rules.
	And, you know, one of the concerns is Google leveraging their power at Google Play to try to limit an Android.
	To limit Rumble's access to that platform.
	I can tell you that Google is not going to be likely to mess around with Rumble while they're facing this massive lawsuit for screwing around with Rumble.
	Now that it's moving into discovery stage and Rumble's going to know where the dirt is.
	So that will be very beneficial to Rumble's ability to meaningfully compete and try to fully prevent Google's and YouTube's algorithmic manipulation and monopoly in the YouTube's video space.
	And it may unravel it all together.
	I mean, this is the biggest suit against Google in terms of what they're doing in censorship algorithmic manipulation that's pending in the country.
	And Rumble has the best case.
	And now they're going to get to go forward full blast into discovery.
	And they're going to get to depose people, they're going to get to they're going to know the secrets either way.
	And some of those secrets will not be trade secrets, that they'll just be dirt that they can publicly disclose as needed or necessary in the litigation in the legal file, in terms of What's appropriate to be disclosed.
	So usually- Pointing out that we're almost 4,000 on Rumble and 11,000 on YouTube, despite the fact that YouTube, you know, is more sizable in terms of market reach.
	Rumble's really coming up there.
	And speaking of which, it's time for some Rumble rants.
	Lostcore23 says, Viva Barnes, still in Austin.
	Check out the Crowded Barrel Distillery and Salt Lick Barbecue.
	Also check out Plebian Media for the Fabian Socialist who built a lot of this.
	And then we've got Rihanna says, save free speech.
	All that I know is I was on 6th Street to go to the Museum of the Weird at noon.
	And I admit, I feel at risk more often than most people.
	I did not feel safe on 6th Street, even at noon.
	We went from the Museum of the Weird to our car and went somewhere for lunch.
	The Rumble News is fantastic, it's massive, and we'll see where it goes.
	And people, bear in mind, this was not even related to politics.
	This was just viral videos, money-making.
	Imagine how much worse it probably is when it comes to suppressing political issues.
	I don't know, certain people's channels, certain people's podcasts like Dan Bongino could be amazing.
	Robert?
	Oh, no doubt.
	I mean, and in the other, well, there's multiple white pills of the week, despite the inanity and insanity of the Alex Jones trial, which is the big wins in the vaccine mandate context.
	But also, before we get to that, the FBI Uh, getting exposed with multiple whistleblowers coming forward.
	Uh, you might have to field that one because, uh, I'm not, I'm not up to speed on it.
	So yeah, the, what's disclosed is to both, uh, uh, the Senator Charles Grassley out of Iowa, runs the Senate Judiciary Committee, as well as Congressman Jim Gordon, is what we're finding out is what some of us have been saying for quite some time, but now it's being confirmed by other whistleblowers within the FBI.
	Which is you have a small cadre at the top of the hierarchy of the FBI controlling any politically sensitive investigation, and they magically always go in one direction because of the political prejudices of the people involved who are willing to lie and defraud the process.
	That's what makes John Durham such a disgrace.
	Durham was serious.
	His job was to purge the FBI of these people, and he didn't.
	Instead, he covered up for these people, primarily.
	By the limited nature of his inquiry and investigation.
	But you have like, you have like Peter Strokes' wife that's connected, that's now has an SEC position, that's looking into Trump's truth social.
	Well, I mean, that's a conflict.
	She should be nowhere near it.
	But another, but that was just that just recently came out.
	The other aspect was you had the same guy connected to Russiagate scams against Trump.
	So bad that other FBI agents were texting that this guy's theories are so nuts and his prejudice so obvious that they're all going to get torched when somebody did a FOIA request.
	You know, that kind of stuff.
	So he was over the top trying to basically stage a coup against Trump, weaponizing his FBI power.
	Somehow, magically, some of the exact same people, in one case the same guy that was principally involved in both, is running the Hunter Biden investigation.
	And that he illicitly helped shut down the investigation.
	He was one of the principal sources lying to the press saying that the laptop was Russian disinformation.
	And that information came forward to Senator Grassley.
	And then on top of that, what came forward to Congressman Jim Jordan is that the Biden Justice Department is so weaponizing the FBI, they've been imposing performance metrics on FBI officers, telling them they have to get a certain number of domestic terrorism cases.
	And here's the problem.
	The FBI's job is someone reports a crime, they investigate, not they go out and find the crime, which usually ends up inventing the crime or entrapping someone like Whitmer to commit the crime.
	What they're also doing is they're mislabeling crimes as domestic terrorism because they have to for their performance metrics checks so that the DOJ can then lie to the world about how dangerous domestic terrorism is in America.
	We need a Patriot Act too.
	We need to be spying on everybody.
	Um, you know, we need to be stripping everybody of their rights.
	So, three levels of exposure this week about extraordinary FBI corruption.
	Hopefully something comes of it when the Republicans take back the House and the Senate.
	Credit to Grassley, credit to Jordan for going public with it.
	But, you know, people like Julie Kelly have been on the front line of this, and Darren Beatty have been on the front line of this.
	Uh, and I've been talking about it now for five years.
	If you dig in, this is exactly what you're gonna find.
	I mean, this is the classic definition of the deep state.
	I mean, the deep state's just a dual state, and the part of the dual state, the administrative state that's immune from elected office holding in the public, is in the law enforcement national security arena.
	Intelligence, military, uh, high-ranking police powers and prosecutorial powers.
	It's turning out it's all true.
	It's like, anybody thought that was a conspiracy theory, and we're just getting true You know, proof and proof and proof and proof and proof.
	But now it's people in the FBI that are so tired of it.
	Finally, and frankly some of them I think should have stepped forward sooner, but you have the realities.
	They see what happened to Ed Snowden, so not everybody.
	They see what happened to Julian Assange.
	Nobody wants to be that example, but they're using some of the political cover of Grassley and Jordan to be able to get the truth out that the FBI is being completely corrupted by the Justice Department, even now to the level of the everyday agent is not allowed to do his job except for political purposes.
	You know what's amazing, Robert?
	I mean, when you're explaining it, it's not news to me, although I just didn't know that it had been confirmed by whistleblowers, because we've been talking about it for at least as long as we've been talking.
	It confirms the Hunter Biden cover-up.
	I still am inclined to view the Hunter Biden cover-up as more, not just covering up for the president, but using that to be weaponized against the president.
	Like, they have this intel, They're going to use it to get what they want from the administration.
	But we'll see if that ever comes out.
	Hunter Biden, January 6, it certainly explains why they're throwing around domestic terrorism as the chief accusations in that House Resolution 503, so they can then qualify it as this, so they can then use it for more surveillance.
	Another Patriot Act, except they'll call this one the January 6th Act.
	I mean, it's it's who are the whistleblowers and have any big names been confirmed yet?
	We don't know who they are.
	We just know that there are people with access to inside information about how badly corrupted all these investigations have been.
	Okay, hopefully that changes something, but it won't because you got Kinzinger crying over January 6th and you got everybody thinking that, you know, January 6th Committee is doing the Lord's work and that's using the Lord's name in vain.
	Speaking of people relying on, you know, poor information, all those big corporate employers that thought they're just going to get away with denying and depriving people of their religious objection rights from vaccine mandates took a massive blow this week as a major Illinois facility, in a case pending in Illinois, not considered, by the way, a very sympathetic jurisdiction to challenging these issues, to give you an idea.
	agreed to write a more than $10 million check to the people who were wrongfully terminated or were told that their religious objections would not be honored.
	Even if they took the vaccine afterwards, they're being included in the class because their religious objection rights were denied.
	And so that was good to see, too.
	So it's saying, look, if you denied religious objection rights, you can be sued not only by the people who didn't take the vaccine, but by those who did, "because you denied their religious objection rights." It was a more than $10 million check that was being written, collected in the proposed class action settlement.
	And in the same week, And a lot of corporate lawyers had told me, I mean, there are people with Harmeet Dhillon's firm, not Harmeet herself, but other people with her, oh, you can't sue on these grounds early on.
	I remember I was one of the only lawyers saying, yes, you can sue and religious rights are the path to go.
	That's where we put the letter that came to me from the sea in Las Vegas up by Lake Mead that keeps disappearing and all the dead bodies keep popping up as Lake Mead keeps falling.
	Turns out you can't trust where you even bury a body these days, poor mobsters.
	They should have planned around global warming, Robert.
	And 100 plus feet.
	It's not like two feet.
	They hid the bodies well.
	Oh, they did.
	Yeah.
	And they put some in some barrels, the old school way, that kind of thing.
	But nobody anticipated, I guess, the lake completely being empty.
	But the basis of the template letter that Thousands of people used because I've heard from people all across the country were able to benefit from that use that to assert their objections and keep their job without having to be jabbed.
	What was it?
	People should watch our sidebar last week with Francis Christian to understand the risk of the jab and watch the one on rumble because that has the full thing because we go into questions that.
	YouTube doesn't like and put them on rumble.
	Or just go listen to Dr. Kieran Moore, one in 5,000 chances of myocarditis per dose among a demographic, a very young, healthy demographic.
	Yeah, and Francis Christian did a great job of breaking down how that risk is actually even bigger and so forth and to help people understand, not to make Viva more neurotic.
	But it was, a lot of them said he couldn't sue on these grounds.
	Big, big win.
	Sent shockwaves, I'm sure, through corporate America.
	All their corporate law firms that had conflicts of interest, they gave bad advice.
	Well, they're representing Big Pharma, they have stock holdings at Big Pharma, and they're telling their corporate clients, don't worry, you can't be sued if you deny people on religious grounds.
	Tyson's lawyers should definitely be double checking their legal malpractice insurance.
	Because now it's been fully, clearly established in this great precedent that I think We'll see more up.
	So great, great work by Liberty Council that pursued that case.
	They've pursued a lot of great cases across the country.
	I think they're based out of Florida, by the way, up in north central Florida, I believe.
	But that was big.
	And then another big win.
	A federal judge issued a permanent injunction against the Air Force protecting a bunch of people, including people in the reserves.
	From a vaccine from religious discrimination based on those who had asserted a religious objection to the COVID-19 vaccine.
	So those are two massive vaccine mandate wins against the mandate and protecting religious rights in America.
	And hopefully that will be the precursor of things to come, especially as places like D.C.
	and New Jersey are considering trying to impose it on young children as a condition of public education.
	Or in D.C., if you just happen to live there and your kid's a certain age, You're going to have to take it.
	So the, uh, that those suits are coming, but I hope these, those were big wins to push back against, uh, all of that activity.
	I use the same letter from the sea and got to thank Robert in person down in Miami.
	Thank you both.
	Dan was Dan.
	Yeah.
	Met him in South beach.
	Robert.
	There's two, I want to get to one thing, which is off topic.
	We hadn't planned it.
	You'll let me know if you have any knowledge to dispense on it.
	Are there any correlations between monkeypox and the Fauci juice?
	Also, is it true it's mostly spread by within a certain community?
	Well, I mean, it's by certain activity.
	So the, um, yeah, so the, I mean, there's various memes about where you put the mask to avoid monkeypox.
	So that, that would kind of help illustrate that.
	To my knowledge, I have not seen any evidence of a connection between monkeypox and the vaccine.
	Doesn't mean it can't exist, but I haven't seen any evidence to that, as yet.
	Well, and there was, I'll say, a fake news story and a fact check that it was being misdiagnosed.
	Monkeypox was being misdiagnosed.
	Sorry, let me rephrase.
	It was actually shingles.
	So shingles was being misdiagnosed as monkeypox.
	So that was fact-checked false, which makes me raise some more flags.
	No, sorry, it wasn't.
	It was not actually an article that was ever published by CTV, which was the screen grab that people were showing.
	Right.
	There'll be a lot of misinformation.
	My understanding is only certain kinds of behavior is leading to it spread.
	So that's my understanding at this point.
	You can put it together yourself.
	It's called schlong, uh, Tucker Carlson called it schlong COVID.
	Look, bottom line, keep your schmeckle in your pants.
	You'll have a happy marriage and you might avoid a certain, uh, you know, viruses.
	Um, okay.
	Then there was this one, Robert, which we hadn't discussed it.
	I don't know what the situation is, but someone asked twice and I don't want to ignore it.
	Before you guys get started, please ask Robert what he thinks of the Serbia situation.
	I don't know enough detail.
	I assume that's about Kosovo and the Balkans.
	The, um, and so the, uh, there was a good Lord of War.
	Oh, we can.
	That's a good bridge, though, to The Lord of War.
	We watched that as the locals community.
	It was our movie of the week.
	Discussed it on Friday.
	For those that don't know, Lord of War is a movie with Nicolas Cage, 2005.
	It is based on Victor Bout.
	Now, there's things that are different between the movie and Bout's history, but not too radically different.
	And Bout was known as the Merchant of Death.
	The Lord of War reference was a reference to, I believe, Charles Taylor, referring to, instead of saying Warlord, he would say Lord of War, instead of saying Bloodbath, he would say Bath of Blood, stuff like that.
	And the former Liberian, interesting leader, shall we say.
	But the, so what has happened is apparently the Biden administration is now offering, years ago, so the Lord of War, famous arms runner, all across, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Appear to often be working with the United States, in particular, to get arms to places that are not supposed to go, right?
	And then, late 2000s, as Putin rose, it appeared he reconnected to the Russian power structure, and that may not have sat well with the boys at the CIA.
	So they set him up in a DEA investigate case that was pure entrapment.
	The judge implicitly acknowledged that.
	by giving him the sentence, which was at the lowest possible sentence he could give.
	It was always a big question legally, because here you have a person who's not a US citizen, goes to a, I forget what it is, I think it was Thailand, to meet with people who are also not US, at least his understanding, not US citizens, to get arms to a revolutionary group in Colombia.
	None of that has anything to do with the United States, and yet the United States criminally prosecuted him.
	And there are some of us at the time, they're like, this is a dangerous precedent that we're setting.
	Russia mostly objected based on those grounds, though it appeared that they also objected probably because Bout had worked himself up into being more on the Russian side as the Russian-West divide started to rise at that time frame.
	So they've always wanted him back.
	So apparently for the WNBA star who was caught with a bunch of drugs in Russia, Um, and the, uh, there was a joke that, uh, she escaped prison because nobody watches WNBA stars in Russia anymore than they do in America.
	That was, but she's, she's already pled guilty.
	Um, the, uh, and, and a guy caught, uh, spying in Russia in exchange for those two, the U S would send Victor Bout back to Russia.
	Russia says, well, we want actually somebody that's also in, if we're going to do a equal exchange, it's gotta be two for two, not one for two.
	We want the, uh, The German, a Russian who was charged in Germany with assassinating a former Chechen who had been part of the war against Russia and arguably the war against Chechnya.
	The Chechen radicals became Islamic radicals who ended up being opposed by most of the people in Chechnya as well as Russia.
	That part of the story was not told as that well in the West.
	And that's where it is currently.
	But you know, some people were shocked.
	They're like, hold on a second.
	We're trading a guy called Merchant of Death for a WNBA star.
	They're like, that seems a little out of whack.
	But that's because the backstory is very different than the front story.
	By the way, Lord of War has probably among the most original, compelling intro sequences, intro credits.
	Like, you'll see it, you'll never forget it.
	I remember there was a magazine called Colors once upon a time that had a
	Had a publication detailing all of these weapons of war and it was it was I Had seen the cover of this magazine called colors before Lord of War And if you if you watch it, you'll know exactly why great movie great intro Well, and why the Balkans reminded me is there's a line in the movie Yeah, two great lines in the movie One of the great lines is that those who know don't care and those who care don't know and if you want to change that equation
	You're going to have a lot more success with the latter than making... You're not going to get the people who know to actually care, but you could get the people who care to actually know.
	But the other thing he said is, you know, you can trust the Balkans.
	When they say they're going to war, they keep their word.
	He says that as part of the arms dealer thing.
	So the Balkans are the Balkans, unfortunately.
	But an interesting case.
	I thought it might develop, but I was still surprised when it actually did develop.
	Biden was willing to capitulate on someone.
	So it's because of the pressure from the wokesters for the WNBA star.
	So I think who they really want back is the spy.
	But I ask this question.
	What are the risks of reoffending, of the Lord of War being re-released into Russia?
	And does it even matter?
	There's someone who fills his shoes on a practical level anyhow.
	He was skilled, though.
	That man was gifted.
	That man was gifted.
	So he had a unique—that they capture right in the movie, where Nicholas Cage says, "Look, I do this because I'm really good at it.
	This guy was really, he was, I think, ethically Ukrainian, by the way.
	There is a scene in the movie where his brother got so addicted to cocaine that he has mapped out the Ukraine with cocaine.
	And I was like, that looks like a Zelensky meme, because that's it.
	I was like, that'd be apropos.
	Uh, but he, but I think it's more right principle for Russia, like both the people they're wanting back.
	It's not because they're currently useful or politically protected.
	It's because it's making their point that they're loyal to their own and that they didn't like the precedent they set without.
	Okay, and let's get from a good arms dealer to a bad lawyer, Robert.
	Avenatti, he's sitting in jail.
	How long is Avenatti going to be in jail?
	Don't know, it's gotta be at least 10 plus years between all the charges.
	It's a long time.
	Normally.
	And now he, at the same time, had sued Fox News for a quarter of a billion dollars.
	Of course.
	Some people get emotionally distressed more easily than others, and Avenatti.
	So he sued Fox News for $250 million for defamation.
	It got tossed.
	Because they destroyed his highly valuable reputation.
	Well, so people want to talk about judgment-proof plaintiffs.
	At this point, Avenatti's judgment, not judgment, sorry, not judgment.
	It'd be very hard for him to prove damages.
	Very hard for him to prove damages.
	Defamation.
	It doesn't matter.
	He didn't even have a defamation claim and he filed suit in the wrong, he didn't do things procedurally correctly either.
	So I mean not that people might not find this too interesting but he filed uh where did he file for a state court or federal he filed he filed in state and they took it to federal and then he thought he could he could bring it back to state by adding a defendant who had a tie to the state and they just said no which by the way that's what the Sandy Hook plaintiffs did in Connecticut they tagged on somebody that had marginal connection to the case so that they could keep it in state court away from federal court
	The federal court went along with it because, frankly, everybody's terrified to do anything meaningful with Sandy Hook.
	That's why the gun company insurers end up writing huge checks.
	They're all terrified of the Connecticut court system because the Connecticut court system is terrified to do anything other than go along with the Sandy Hook plaintiffs.
	Unless, of course, they're suing the politicians.
	Then they say immunity and dismiss the case, which is exactly what they did when one of the parents sued the school for covering up and not having adequate safety.
	And the media was happy to be complicit in that by not covering it in any meaningful manner.
	But the it's an old classic diversity breaking event.
	So diversity is the plaintiff and the defendant are from two different states.
	If any of the other defendants are from are also are from the same state as the plaintiff, then you don't have diversity.
	You don't have what's called complete diversity.
	So he was trying to, but he did it so blatantly.
	That when you game it like that, they're not supposed to allow it.
	To my knowledge, in the Connecticut case, that other plaintiff, that other defendant has already been dismissed, and yet they're still keeping it.
	That's supposed to automatically go to federal court at that point, and the federal court's still pretending, no, no, it can't get involved.
	I mean, this is why everything in Alex Jones' cases are crazy.
	But that's what he tried to do.
	He got caught doing it, and correctly, the court was like, no, no, no, no, you can't play that game.
	You can't try to defeat diversity with a bogus defendant suit.
	I just remember when he was CNN's lover boy.
	He lost again.
	The guy sets a record for losing, which is what he's been doing since 2017.
	I just remember when he was CNN's lover boy.
	Oh, The View?
	Remember The View?
	Brian Stelter was just frothing at the mouth for his presidential campaign.
	Amazing.
	By the way, Big Pete, I'm going to bring this up.
	I remembered what the problem was.
	When are you making a truth account?
	Bongino and Nunes, truth your tweet on the rumble ruling.
	The problem is my iPhone is still set up with a Canadian Apple account, and truth is not available on the Canadian Apple App Store, so I can't get it.
	I'll figure it out sooner than later.
	That's why, though.
	I forgot the reason.
	Now, Trump did have a big win.
	Now, Trump's also looking at a defamation suit against CNN.
	I read the letter.
	Basically, his claim is CNN has continually called him a liar, and they accused Trump of pushing a big lie about the election, and that Trump subjectively believes what he's saying to be true, number one, so it's not an intentional lie, and two, there's evidence to support Trump's position, so it's not, in fact, a big lie.
	And they're looking at suing over that narrative that CNN has spread.
	And under Florida statutes, unlike the Texas Sandy Hook plaintiffs against Alex Jones, they've actually complied with the statute, which is to give notice to say that you have an opportunity for a correction or retraction or apology.
	If it's not issued, then you can file suit and seek certain kinds of damages.
	And there's no mitigation available because there's been no correction, retraction or apology after it being afforded to you.
	That's going to be a tricky Proving that one person calling another person a liar or one person saying another person has pushed a big lie is one of those areas where it's tough to win in defamation, particularly for a public figure.
	So I think that's the hurdle he faces.
	I understand why he's pushing back, but I think that's the that's the hurdle.
	But on the flip side, he did have finally get a big win from the D.C.
	Circuit Court of Appeals, which only reluctantly gave him that win after the U.S.
	Supreme Court slapped him down last year, because this was Congress trying to subpoena all of Trump's personal financial history for years, long before he was even in the presidency.
	And the U.S.
	Supreme Court said, the D.C.
	Circuit was like, go at it, have fun with it.
	And the U.S.
	Supreme Court was like, nope, nope, you need to have limits here.
	And what it talks about is stuff that's actually pertinent to Steve Bannon's contempt case, in part.
	Because they're like, look, you need to articulate what your legislative purpose is, number one.
	Number two, it has to be a real legislation, not just speculative legislation.
	And number three, what you subpoena has to be directly relevant to what is needed to be put into pending legislation to meet that legislative purpose, because that's the constitutional limit on your authority, as the Supreme Court made clear.
	So they came in and the Congress reissued the subpoena asking for the same stuff the US Supreme Court said was already excessive.
	DC Circuit came in and said, about 90% of this is out.
	You can't ask for things before he was president.
	You can't ask for things after he was president.
	You can't, you can only ask, it's still a misapplication of the emoluments clause, because their primary objective is bifurcated.
	They want to see what money Trump made from a government agency.
	Well, they already have that by independent means, but they ignore that part, the court, DC Circuit does, and say, okay, you can ask about that.
	And then they emolument.
	Emoluments and the emolument clause was all about and it's just courts misapplying it because they didn't like Trump.
	The emoluments clause in the Constitution was passed back when our founders were worried that the royalty of Europe would would use a prince or a dukedom or whatever else to get a diplomatic official to work to work for them because that was the old royalty approach.
	So the fear was the King of England or the King of France or the King of Italy or wherever, Austro-Hungarian Empire, would say, hey, if you work for us, even though you're a diplomat for the U.S.
	government or a military official for the U.S.
	government, we will give you a, we'll make you Duke of Normandy, right, or anything else.
	And we put in a clause in the Constitution that said emoluments are prohibited or have to be disclosed and so forth.
	They're applying that to apply it to any financial transaction from any foreign government while you are in executive office.
	Magically, this doesn't apply to Congress, of course, because Nancy Pelosi would have already been in prison for 50 years.
	She's busy doing her little witch travel over Taiwan to see if she could provoke another war for fun.
	But they said it has to be limited to what foreign governments have actually paid while he's president.
	Most of that Trump could care less about.
	So it was a big win because they gutted 90% of what the subpoena was trying to get.
	Alright, and I'll say just one thing so that nobody thinks I'm totally biased.
	I don't think Trump has any claim either for being called a liar, pushing a big lie.
	That's clearly opinion in as much as it was when Tucker Carlson referred to the women who were trying to extort Donald Trump as extortionists.
	Um, and, and it's, it's, I mean, it's, it's stupid.
	I, but then if he loses the case as he should, or if he ever files it as he will, they'll say, ah, Trump lost another student, add it to the list.
	So I would have, I would have focused if I'd been his lawyer on, they made so many really specific, factually false lies about Trump.
	I would have focused on that.
	I was disappointed in going through the letter.
	I was like, okay, this is just kind of a general generic claim.
	And that only applies if your, if your name is Alex Jones.
	You know, the this is trying to take that, you know, and so I don't think it will get very far, unfortunately.
	Well, fortunately, in a certain sense, because that's what's constantly protected should remain constitutionally protected.
	But unfortunate sense that there are specifically factually false statements that CNN has made over the years where they probably could have, you know, where they could have focused on.
	But he's got his own issues as there's massive liberal pressure on the Justice Department as their last Hail Mary to indict Trump, to indict him in the District of Columbia.
	And their theory is the same, apparently, as the Georgia theory.
	So there's been search warrants all over the place, subpoenas all over the place, witnesses all over the place.
	Mike Pence's people are integral in trying to get Trump indicted as well.
	This is not well known, but there's a reason why they're voluntarily testifying in front of the federal grand jury in the District of Columbia, why they're taking potshots at Matt Gaetz and lying about him on CNN and elsewhere.
	Mike Pence still lives in the delusional DC world that believes he's going to be a future His political career is over.
	He's done.
	He's dead.
	He killed it on January 6th himself.
	And he killed it not because he had a different opinion than Trump about his power.
	He killed it because he lied to a bunch of people in the days leading up to that.
	Um, had he been honest from day one and said, Hey, I, I don't believe I have this power.
	I disagree with Pence about what power he had.
	So did Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, by the way, when they were vice president in the same position as Pence, the, uh, concerning counting of electoral votes, but the, uh, uh, but you know, Pence led people to on to believe he was going to do something and then reversed it the very day up and no very underhanded thing to do so forth.
	But their theory is.
	That having a contingent set of electors available to contest the elections that Trump was contesting in the states he was contesting them is somehow fake electors.
	That's somehow a federal crime.
	Two problems.
	One, they can't identify a single federal crime that he violated.
	Number two, you're legally obligated to do this.
	It's undisputed in the material that Trump was given legal advice by constitutional law professors no less, and a range of other lawyers.
	That he was entitled to have a contingent set of electors, so that when you file an election contest, you say, Judge, I have a remedy, and the remedy is that my electors should be the ones sent to the Electoral College, not the others, or my electors should be the ones that count, electoral votes should count, not the others.
	And you set that up as part of your election contest.
	In Georgia, Same investigation, same legal theory.
	He had filed an election contest.
	The court system just illegally and unlawfully never held a timely hearing on it.
	They got away with it because everybody was distracted by Sidney Powell talking about machines and servers in Germany and Venezuela and ballots from China and things of this nature.
	As we talked about at the time, I represented President Trump for a period of time in Georgia And wanted to pursue the signature match issue primarily.
	And other people wanted to go a different route.
	And we know how that turned out.
	But so their theory of a crime is completely bogus.
	And I have no doubt that they at some level know it.
	Well, their theory of a crime, I'm not misunderstanding this.
	When you say that he's legally obligated or he's constitutionally obligated to have a separate set of electors or a slate of electors, it's constitutionally required for the remedy being sought, which itself is a constitutional remedy in theory.
	So am I not also mistaken that this had in fact been tried at one point or it's done as a ploy, not a ploy, but rather a Well, you have to have it because what will happen is you'll get dismissed on no standing grounds.
	What courts have done is, in fact, people have been excluded from the ballot because they failed to adequately name their electors.
	So having a list of electors doesn't make them electors.
	It provides their availability to be electors if courts or Congress so rule.
	So that's all that is.
	So what they're really banking on is a politically corrupt District of Columbia in the grand jury and the trial jury being so prejudicial that they won't care.
	As the Alex Jones jury talked about, let's use election denial and put everybody, you know, bankrupt them.
	This is just put them in prison for asserting their constitutional rights and remedies.
	Um, and so I don't think they have any merit.
	I'm sure people at a high, no president has ever been indicted in America.
	Not, not as ex president or anything else.
	They know they're crossing a bridge that, uh, they, that they're really only banking on the American people, uh, buying it.
	And they're banking on Republicans being too weak to do anything about it if they ever get back power.
	And what they should realize is that the new wave of people coming in.
	Are not the kind of weak-kneed, Mitch McConnell, Mike Pence-style Republicans that they want to hold up.
	Liz Cheney's about to get crushed in her August primary in Wyoming, and there's not going to be a Bush or a Cheney in an elected office for the first time in forever come next January.
	But they might think it's their last-ditch effort.
	To take out Trump because once they, the reason why the Axios story ran about Trump having a bunch of people around Trump planning to take out, basically take out the deep state, they didn't call it that, but you read between the lines, that's what they're talking about, was because they wanted to alert deep state operators that they got to take out Trump.
	And I had a discussion that people can go and look at on InfoWars with Mark Grobaer about why Robert Kennedy was assassinated.
	And so the that's I think what is their mouth I if they're saying Trump will not get indicted.
	I will still stick with the feds not indicting Trump because I don't think they're willing to cross that Rubicon yet.
	The Fulton County who knows because that lady's nuts.
	The DA down there.
	What it does show is, you know, somebody was at J.D.
	Vance's fundraising event, and I'm going to have to reach back out to J.D.
	Vance and some others, but they need to start thinking about getting rid of the District of Columbia, and in every state, they need to start thinking about getting rid of things like an Austin Court of Appeals, and they need to think about getting rid of these so many cases being held in the state capitol where it's all liberals presiding.
	In conservative states, they got to re-examine that.
	I don't think there's any state in the country where the Capitol is more conservative than the state is.
	And institutional reform, because this would never happen.
	They would never go to Florida and try to get Trump indicted.
	Never.
	Because they know that they would.
	No grand jury that was saying would.
	No trial jury would convict.
	They're only doing this because DC is so politically corrupted and politically tainted.
	Um, and so there is a risk because these people, I mean, these are people that are willing to, you know, think about maybe we start a nuclear war with China.
	Let's see what happens.
	So we have a an extraordinary degree of dangerous incompetence at the positions of power in America.
	And in that era, all bets are off.
	My ultimate, I still don't think that they will indict him before November.
	But they're getting more desperate because unless they buy their own fake polls, they're going to get crushed in November.
	Robert, if you give me three to one odds, I'll bet that they will.
	I'll tell you, when you said, you know, no other president in American history has been indicted.
	Well, yeah, I'm sure they said no other president in US history has been twice impeached.
	Let's make it happen.
	They're going to make it happen.
	I'm going to pull this one up.
	Viva loves the Vax.
	I've realized, Robert, we've had nearly 12,000 watching here, 4,000 on Rumble, and the sexbots never came.
	Now, I think that's a joke and not an actual troll.
	No sexbots and no trolls today.
	Or bots, I should say.
	But I wanted to bring this one up because this was the real question.
	Didn't the Senate propose legislation to close that loophole?
	Isn't that proof in itself that President Trump had standing?
	I'm not sure.
	I thought that had to do with Yes, yes, what they're talking about is really about Pence more so, but it's partially about Trump's provision, which is Congress is trying to change the Electoral Count Act.
	So there's a couple of legislative bills going through Congress.
	There's a big tax increase where they're trying to backdoor a global tax agreement through the U.S.
	corporate tax code that Manchin has now signed off on that was going to be used, in my view, as the predicate to try to create a global digital currency system.
	Reality is Putin crushed that by what's happened with the sanctions and the economic war in Ukraine.
	That ship has sailed and it is gone.
	But that doesn't mean they won't try some version of it.
	But in the Electoral Count Act is Congress's attempt to create a procedure for how they count electoral votes in a future presidential election.
	The problem is the Electoral Count Act is an attempt by one Congress to limit the actions of another Congress in the context of their constitutional obligations.
	They likely can't.
	So there's a lot of people that think the Electoral Count Act is unconstitutional.
	So this is, but what's significant is they wanted to claim that Mike Pence never had the authority.
	This is, by the way, the attempts, just like the Alex Jones case, to weaponize the law in new ways.
	They want to criminally weaponize the law to say, if you disagree with their interpretation of the law, you're now a criminal.
	That's really what they're doing.
	Because, and again, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson are on my side, but the theory that Pence had was that he had no role whatsoever beyond a ministerial obligation.
	Non-discretionary obligation to say that certain electors should count or not count.
	But Congress is trying to amend the Electoral Count Act to make clear that the Vice President doesn't have that power, implicitly recognizing he always did, even under the Electoral Count Act, as well as constitutionally.
	Again, folks can go back and watch the early Barnes Law schools at vivabarneslaw.locals.com Where I talked about this history.
	John Adams got involved in deciding electoral college disputes as vice president.
	So did Thomas Jefferson at the founding of our country.
	So the idea that the vice president had no discretionary role, no power whatsoever, is just not backed up by legal history.
	But that's what they're talking about there.
	Now, a lot of people are wondering about the assault weapon ban they're trying to push through.
	Uh, well, let's just call it is a gun grab, uh, through the Senate.
	The House already passed it.
	Uh, and it's extraordinary, by the way, folks, you know, people wonder why does anyone question the school shooting?
	It's because politicians keep using schools shootings in particular and other public shootings to take away the rights of people who had nothing to do with the school shooting.
	And so people start, what incentive is there for those gun-grabbing politicians to get to the bottom of any school shooting?
	As long as they, in fact, they benefit the more they happen.
	Just reality.
	And Robert, just to interject there as well, they benefit politically the more they happen.
	They benefit politically, the worse they are.
	And then you look at Uvalde, where you have nearly 400 police officers waiting 70 minutes while a man who they know is on a rampage is in the school.
	They disinfect their hands.
	They don't have radios.
	They don't have radios.
	When people say false flags or hoaxes, the media likes to run with the it never happened type of false flag or hoax, whereas other people might just say they're letting it happen.
	Right.
	They're involved with these players and you cannot blame people for thinking this.
	When you find out after the fact, you see video cops doing nothing or to stand down, disinfecting their hands, not having their radio while a man for 70 minutes kills people.
	Sorry.
	And yeah, exactly.
	And the media almost always lies about it and tries to cover up what really happened in terms of school safety.
	They have no incentive to improve school safety as long as they politically profit from the lack of school safety.
	That's the reality of it.
	And the politicians who love gun control should realize that.
	And all false flag means, for those folks out there, the origin of it is from pirates.
	So pirates wanted to sneak up on a ship, so they would put up the flag of an ally, or of that country that that ship is there.
	And then when they got close, took it down, put up the old Jolly Roger, and said, ha ha, surprise, surprise, we're gonna be taking the booty now.
	That's what false flag originates from.
	So false flag is about who is culpable.
	Not that an event didn't happen, not that the pirates didn't rob the ship, It's that who is or what is responsible is being disguised.
	And almost every war we've engaged in in America has been tainted by a false flag event.
	So that's why people are concerned about this kind of stuff.
	But here you have Congress rushing through gun control, using Uvalde to do so, when the gun is not the reason Uvalde occurred.
	And the question is, is their gun grab constitutional, given the Supreme Court's decision?
	It's barely two months old.
	This is the last one that just came out about New York making it excessively difficult or, you know, excessively burdensome to exercise Second Amendment rights.
	Exactly.
	So I think no.
	But I always wait on these things to see the actual bill, to see what actually passes.
	Because you don't know what's going to be.
	So it's like, why speculate?
	What I can say is the Supreme Court was clear on what's constitutional and what ain't.
	And California's laws are going to get struck down.
	New York's laws are going to get struck down.
	Some Colorado laws have already got struck down.
	These efforts to ignore the Supreme Court opinion will not meet constitutional scrutiny.
	And the courts so far are enforcing the U.S.
	Supreme Court decision.
	So I think we'll be in good stead there.
	So I think most of this is looking good for public opinion.
	Um, though it does appear there's efforts at a gun registry, there's ATF agents trying to do random audits, audits of people's gun ownership.
	One poor sap, you know, tried to do it against, I guess against some grandma, and she was like, I don't know who you are, called the sheriffs, and the sheriffs came and tased him and arrested him.
	So the, uh, hey, you know, you know, ATF, you know, you better make sure you have constitutional authority.
	Your old grandma, you know, you might run into, I mean, you know, someone like JD Vance's grandma.
	I remember she kept Clint Eastwood's gun with her for people that showed up at the wrong time, wrong place.
	So the, uh, uh, but we'll, we'll see, but hopefully that will get struck down.
	A lot of the budget stuff that people are talking about, it likely, it may pass.
	It depends on cinema, but it's mostly, it's much more brought down.
	But it has some taxes in it that will hit people, but not at a huge rate.
	But it's mostly about tying in the corporate tax rate to the global agreement, which is not really global.
	It's just Western Europe and the United States trying to create a financial system where they have a shared tax rate against all corporations.
	And there's no advantage by going to Europe rather than the US and vice versa.
	But what it's really designed to do is as a global
	Globalist style surveillance mechanism and I think used to justify digital currency as a collection mechanism down the road However, it might only apply to Europe in the United States because that Central America Latin America Africa Asia are all saying no Thank you outside of maybe Australia New Zealand and Japan Otherwise, it's a giveaway to some climate climate folks It's not going to lead to massive internal regulation other than the oil industry will continue to restrict bad timing probably for that
	But otherwise, it's basically a giveaway to some Democratic donors who are in the green energy space.
	Let's take care of some chats before we have to wind this down.
	I got a text message and it seems the family is having a little too much fun without me, so I have to join them.
	Listening to the Democrats talk about guns and what was in their bill made me lose brain cells.
	What's the odds of good old Mitch being censured from his constituents in Kentucky?
	Robert, you might have to field that one for me.
	I'll bring it back up.
	Low.
	Now, I'll tell you now, I think Mitch McConnell's waiting for a new Republican governor in Kentucky, and he will step down.
	But I thought that election was this year.
	I think it's actually 2023, so maybe a year off.
	But I do not believe Mitch McConnell will be in the Senate when Donald Trump returns to the White House.
	I brought this one up.
	This was not a super chat.
	I just wanted to clarify this.
	Jones has not yet, Robert, tried to or filed for bankruptcy protection.
	It was one of the one of the corporate entities, not Alex Jones or InfoWars itself.
	So, yeah.
	So, I mean, on Friday, the operating company for InfoWars filed bankruptcy, filed for bankruptcy.
	Now, typically that stays the judicial proceedings.
	Which company?
	Which company?
	Free Speech Systems.
	Okay.
	So there's two defendants in the Sandy Hook cases now, Alex Jones and Free Speech Systems.
	Previously, companies named InfoWars had been added, but those companies were mostly empty shells.
	And they had to file for bankruptcy to finally get those companies dismissed from the suit because they shouldn't have been included in the suit in the first place.
	Then, but previously, Free Speech Systems had not filed for bankruptcy.
	Free Speech Systems is the operating company for Infowars.
	That's in the bankruptcy documents.
	And they filed for bankruptcy on Friday.
	I don't have any personal insight as to that.
	So I can just say what's public.
	And what's public is that, but I can say by interpretation, which is if anybody was watching the trial, It was a joke of a trial.
	Nobody had seen anything like this.
	Other lawyers had never seen anything like this.
	All the rules are gone.
	It's just, how do we screw Alex Jones and only have a one-sided script written?
	And make sure that everybody judging the one-sided script, the audience is already stacked in our favor.
	I mean, that's what they've done.
	They've ignored the law on pretty much everything.
	And so it's not a surprise.
	Uh, that that's the situation that, uh, InfoWars finds itself in.
	So, InfoWars itself has now filed for bankruptcy, uh, on Friday.
	That's kind of huge, actually, Robert, isn't it?
	I mean, what it does is the other cases scheduled for Connecticut and... Now here, just to give you an idea of what a joke these judges have been, the Connecticut judge scheduled jury selection to begin while the Austin case is ongoing.
	I mean, who doesn't?
	I mean, you're trying to screw the defendant.
	You're doing everything possible to deny him the opportunity of just basic due process and constitutional rights.
	And again, folks, you only do that if you think the true facts are not.
	On the side of the people suing Alex Jones.
	Because if they had confidence in it, they would want a robust presentation of facts in front of an indisputably impartial jury to say, see, you can't question the process.
	You can't question who made the decision.
	You can't question how they made the decision.
	This shows that the people critical of Alex Jones are right.
	Alex Jones is wrong.
	They're doing everything possible to deny him that.
	That trial is now delayed and stayed pending the bankruptcy petition.
	So there'll be no trial in Connecticut.
	There'll be no second trial in Texas.
	Only this trial will go on.
	Unless they can choose or opt to, well they won't, but to drop the case again.
	They could just choose to proceed against Alex Jones personally alone, but they'll never do that in a million years.
	No, no, that's because their goal, and that exposes them by the way, if their goal was really to get remedy against Alex Jones, they would only be suing Alex Jones.
	Instead, Uh, they're suing like they also originally added Owen Schroer to the suit, then dropped it because they knew that would embarrass him in front of the jury.
	So the, uh, these are tactical moves made that they're only allowed to get away with because the judges in Connecticut and the judges in Austin are unwilling to enforce the law when it comes to Alex Jones.
	Um, the, uh, but that that's what's going on, but there won't, won't be any Connecticut trial anytime soon.
	Uh, those bankruptcies can go on for quite some time.
	It also means that the Austin, Texas court will not have the authority to enforce any judgment against Alex Jones.
	It's basically just whatever the jury decides becomes a factor in the bankruptcy proceedings, but now it's all tied up in the bankruptcy proceedings.
	And again, if they were willing to drop InfoWars from it and just go after Alex Jones, then they wouldn't have that problem, but they won't.
	They've been public.
	The plaintiff's lawyer, who was jumping up and down like a bunny rabbit on meth when he saw me in the courtroom, he goes, Bobby Barn!
	Bobby Barn!
	Bobby Barn!
	I was like, man, I haven't gone by Bobby since I was 15.
	I remember where I was.
	I was driving back from Roswell, and as I'm listening to this, I was like, holy cows, this is weird.
	Like, I thought he didn't know the mic was on.
	Oh, and he was staring at me, and he was pointing at me, and I was like, man, I forgot how nuts this guy is.
	How he got to law school, as I've explained to people, is what happened is he got a free ticket to the Nuthouse, and the Uber driver dropped him off at law school by accident.
	But anybody who watched it could see, whoa, that he's the little red-haired, kind of midget-looking dude.
	The total nut job, just a nut.
	But he was the one behind a whole bunch of hit pieces on me, and trying to get me smeared, trying to get me kicked out of court, trying to get ethics cases brought.
	I mean, the guy's just unbelievable.
	Well, you know, maybe they did turn him, you know, maybe it was a frog once.
	By the way, they referenced that clip during the trial.
	Does he ever talk about frogs?
	Alex Jones's statement, they're turning the frogs gay, was a hyperbolic characterization of the fact that whatever chemicals are in the water were in fact interfering with the reproductive abilities of frogs.
	He was right!
	There was another Alex Jones was right!
	I was like, you fill up the Alex Jones's right jar versus Alex Jones's wrong jar, the right jar fills up a lot quicker and a lot more.
	And if you compare Alex Jones's right to CNN was right, that's a whole... Alex Jones wins in a landslide.
	Well, forget that.
	I'll just do the negative.
	Alex Jones was wrong versus CNN was wrong.
	Someone said on Twitter, I didn't realize it was a parody account.
	They said, well, that's because CNN is the truth and Alex Jones is nothing but lies.
	And I'm like, okay.
	Russiagate.
	Sandman.
	What were the other three?
	There were three other right off the bat.
	Jussie Smollett.
	My favorite one is just every war.
	There hasn't been a war that the New York Times hasn't whored for.
	And there hasn't been a war that Alex Jones hasn't spoke out against.
	And so the almost without fail and without exception.
	And he's been right over and over and over again.
	The New York Times has been wrong over and over again.
	And the Alex Jones has never got anybody killed.
	The New York Times has got millions and millions and millions of people killed.
	Lied about the famine under the Soviet Union that was getting tens of millions of people killed.
	That's a great quote.
	If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible and die like a soldier who never forgets what is due to his own honor and that of this country, victory or death.
	Two more Super Chats here, people.
	What are the chances any of the lying crooks, politicians, I will repeat myself, Robert, the Republicans don't seem to be vindictive.
	They seem to be principled and they're not going to go crazy for vengeance.
	etc. will be successfully slapped down if the Repubs take the majority midterm.
	Robert, the Republicans don't seem to be vindictive.
	They seem to be principled and they're not going to go in, you know, go crazy for vengeance.
	No, but they need to be willing to use the constitutional powers they have to, you know, to return the favor where appropriate.
	I mean, the way I put it is we need a modern day Jim Garrison to clean up the deep state and need a special counsel that's just a deep state counsel.
	As the credit to one of the people in our locals live chat, we talked about somebody who's local to Travis County sat in the gallery Friday afternoon, And that what I'm describing is consistent with what he saw.
	Half dozen film crew, extra equipment in the aisles, in the waiting room outside.
	And ask yourself, how is that going to impact the jury?
	The jury knows they're now characters in a film.
	And they know what that film's ending is supposed to be.
	So aren't they going to give some crazy lunatic verdict that will expose this trial for the sham that it is?
	Let's leave it there, Robert.
	Stick around.
	We're going to talk for a few more minutes.
	Everyone in the chat, there's still 11,600 people.
	Put a comment in and make the chat go crazy so that YouTube can't handle the traffic in the chat.
	I'll be going live as often as I can this week.
	Schedule will be a little off, and then I'm back in Florida on Saturday, so we'll be back to the regular schedule, but I'll be going live.
	I can't avoid it.
	There's too much stuff happening.
	Robert, people need a white pill.
	Ah, we've had many good ones.
	I mean, we've had great, I mean, the vaccine mandate cases winning is a huge white pill.
	The big settlement is the vaccine mandate case is a huge white pill.
	The white pill is for those people.
	So, you know, several hundred people risk their jobs and their futures to assert their rights and remedies under the law against being forced to take a vaccine That they did not think what would in fact be safe and effective for them, given their health, under their conscientious rights to object, under the religious rights protected under both the First Amendment and in the employment context, federal civil rights law.
	A lot of people told them they would lose.
	A lot of people told them they were idiots.
	A lot of people, I mean there was a whole article about what's happened to the unvaccinated, how they were openly, flagrantly discriminated against, mocked, criticized, satirized.
	Well your family got to live it in Canada.
	And in terms of how people were treated.
	Those people stood up for their rights, and last week they won one of the biggest, most precedent-setting settlements in American legal employment history.
	So credit to them.
	It shows if you continue to stand up for your rights.
	Like I say, never forgive, never forget, hold the line.
	They held the line, and because of it, they helped all of us have better rights and remedies going forward.
	We cannot end it better than that.
	Robert, stick around.
	Everyone in the chat, everyone on Rumble, thank you all very much.

▲