Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 6, 2021 - Viva & Barnes

02:02:38

Ep. 64: 2nd Amendment Win; Chauvin Update; Project Veritas; Netflix AND MORE! Viva & Barnes

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Right on the second, I believe.
	Gokunaro, not 27 seconds late.
	Who was it that predicted?
	I would be right on time.
	Good evening, everybody.
	I am enjoying a nice Montpellier, not Montpellier, not Perrier, some local Quebec water from St. Brigitte de Laval, Quebec.
	How's everybody doing?
	Let's just see the obligatory Fs in the chat so that I actually don't know.
	If my audio is not working or if it is working, I think it's working.
	It's a beautiful mic.
	It has not let me down yet.
	Hope everyone's having a good weekend.
	So it's a hot one out there.
	Some are referring to it as a heat wave when you have more than three days in a row above 30 degree temperature.
	And yeah, so apparently that's now what they're promoting by way of panic on the daytime radio.
	It's got to be one thing.
	It's got to be one thing or another that they have to make people nervous about from everything to summertime now, and we're entering our first heat wave.
	It is actually quite hot and almost too hot.
	I wanted to go fishing today, but instead we didn't go fishing that I know of.
	What did we do today?
	I don't remember what we did.
	Oh, we went for a walk to the swamp and I didn't see.
	I've been looking for this caterpillar.
	And I forget the name of it now.
	It's the biggest, fattest caterpillar in North America.
	And it turns into the biggest moth in North America.
	And I've been like, it's my white dragon.
	I've been chasing it.
	I saw one like eight years ago.
	And it was the most beautiful thing I've ever seen in my life.
	And I've been chasing it for eight years now.
	A big, fat, green caterpillar the size of my finger.
	Show the right finger.
	And I can't seem to find them.
	But I will find them.
	And based on the response from yesterday's Viva on the Thawed Ice, I think...
	God, I wish I could just get out on the water every weekend to try to do that and do a talky vloggy while fishy, and then maybe one day I'll actually catch a mass of fish during a vlog, not during other stuff.
	Okay, so let me just see here.
	I fell behind already in the Super Chats before I get there.
	I feel like I'm flailing my hand a lot more tonight than usual.
	We stand on guard for she.
	Funny name.
	I am truly sorry for every single trolling comment I've ever written.
	I was wrong, and I was wrong.
	You are awesome, and I sincerely hope we are in the same re-education camp together.
	I don't know.
	I don't think I've ever found many trolling comments truly offensive.
	I think the internet is what it is and written word translates differently than what would otherwise be a joke.
	Viva, I'm funding a new button down shirt.
	I like this shirt.
	I don't have to wash this shirt.
	And when I only have one shirt to wash, I know when I don't have it in the closet.
	Thank you very much, by the way.
	Well then, that would be a good one.
	Although, rumor and the myth is that Styx...
	And RazorFist are the same person.
	And I can kind of see it now that I've met at least one of them, possibly both of them.
	I'm going to reach out to him because that would be great.
	I think we are...
	I've seen him on...
	I mean, I think we might be connected on Twitter.
	I don't know.
	CNN did say that they were going to start pushing their climate change agenda soon.
	Hey, if it's a three-day heat wave, can they lock us in our homes?
	Well, probably not because they would have to make sure we all have air conditioning.
	Can they lock us in air-conditioned units?
	Government?
	Government air-conditioned hotels.
	You just have to go there for the greater good.
	Okay.
	So before we get into it, if Robert is going to be late, I might get into a bit of a rant, but I wanted the rant to be part of the law stuff for tonight.
	Standard disclaimers.
	Thank you all in advance for the super chats.
	YouTube takes 30% of a super chat.
	So if that bothers you and you don't want to support that way, totally understand.
	There's other ways to support.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com, which you're going to see.
	And here repeatedly tonight.
	Superchats, I will not get to all of them.
	If you're going to be miffed, if you give a superchat and I don't read it out loud, don't give the superchat because I don't like people feeling miffed.
	I try to bring them up even when I can't get to them.
	That being said, superchats are not a purchase into the conversation, nor is it a purchased abuse comment.
	So if it is an abusive comment and I see it and I choose not to bring it up, that is also the right that I reserve.
	In the event that, you know, some of the super chats are just a way to get an abusive comment highlighted.
	That's it.
	You know, no legal advice, yada, yada, yada.
	For educational purposes only.
	And that's it.
	On the menu tonight, there's good stuff.
	I mean, good stuff in the legal sense, but like interesting topics.
	Chauvin updates.
	Chauvin updates.
	I mean, it's an amazing thing when...
	Defense is asking for probation and prosecution is asking for 30 years.
	This reminds me of...
	I don't want to use the first movie reference tonight.
	And I won't.
	Chauvin update.
	Then we're going to have Project Veritas update.
	We're going to have a Second Amendment lawsuit coming out of California, which is fascinating.
	And I've got questions that I'm going to have for Robert that I know I didn't know on my own.
	Let me just get to my list of other things that were on the menu for tonight.
	Netflix lawsuit.
	Ooh, Fauci.
	Fauci's got some explaining to do.
	An amazingly interesting graffiti lawsuit coming out of New York.
	Okay, some other good ones as well.
	Lindell versus Dominion.
	I don't know if those words now are taboo words.
	I think I missed a few Super Chats.
	I did.
	I did.
	I missed a lot here.
	Okay, let's get what we got here.
	I dig the glasses.
	What brand?
	Can't read them.
	Mascot?
	Originals.
	New York City.
	The only problem with the glasses is that one of the lenses is slightly off.
	I think there might be a corrected astigmatism, which I still have.
	And so I've been seeing a little bit blurry out of my right eye, which has been making me nauseous and a little bit cranky.
	Love you, bro.
	Thank you very much.
	We got abusive comments.
	Okay, jokes we take down.
	I hear someone coming down.
	Come, come say hi.
	Oh my goodness.
	Marion found...
	Viva.
	Great.
	Well, you can come say hi so people know you exist.
	There you are.
	Viva.
	So great.
	What am I looking at?
	Have fun.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Okay.
	What else we got?
	We got...
	Yeah, I saw it on Styx live stream.
	Okay.
	Styx is coming.
	We will get to them.
	We will reach them.
	Thank you very much.
	Say it again.
	No grapes.
	I got carbonated water.
	Okay.
	So let's see what we got here.
	Cutie.
	Oh, I didn't bring that up on purpose.
	Occasionally, by the way, if I do bring up an inappropriate comment, I'm claiming accident because it happens.
	Okay.
	Viva, I showed my dad your videos.
	Now he's a regular viewer.
	God effing speed.
	Aaron, thank you very much.
	Okay.
	With that said, I see Robert's in the house.
	He's looking good.
	One more super chat just before we get there.
	Security camera 12. When you're on a pleasure craft or a small boat, you should be wearing a life jacket regardless if it is required by law.
	A life jacket on a boat is like a seatbelt in a car when you need it.
	You do not have time to put it on.
	Security camera, yes.
	Security camera 112.
	Yes.
	That being said, the law is the law.
	Common sense is also a thing that I appreciate.
	I have swam multiple marathon...
	What are they called?
	Triathlons.
	Olympic triathlons.
	When I'm alone on a boat...
	And I am calm waters 100 meters from shore on a paddle boat that doesn't flip.
	I have the life jacket as required by law.
	I don't always wear it.
	That is a discretion decision that is left to my...
	me.
	Should you peel some of the grapes?
	She should peel some of the grapes.
	We should do surgery on one of the grapes.
	Okay, with that said, Barnes is in the house.
	Let's bring him in.
	Robert, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	You got a haircut, Robert.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	I noticed someone said it, and now I'm noticing it.
	You look 10 years younger.
	Yeah, I do.
	Actually, one thing I forgot to mention.
	We're also live on Rumble.
	So Rumble.com, they have a new live function.
	They have live chat now.
	So they are really...
	They're growing, and they're growing fast, and it's great.
	Robert, let's...
	I don't know.
	Let's do the book right away before we...
	Before we forget to do it this week.
	Sure.
	One is Gary Will's book, Nixon Agonistes, which is a good, if you want to understand a different sense of conservatism, it's a little bit more of a populist version of conservatism, but it can be difficult to understand.
	It's one of those books you have to read four or five times to really get where Will's is coming from fully.
	But it's really good.
	It's the best explanation of it.
	Buckley could never figure it out himself, interestingly enough.
	And then the other one is Tom Wolfe.
	Electric Kool-Aid test, which is a great cultural reference point for things that are happening today, frankly, even though it was written about 1968.
	Okay, and we got Detslav Akhmandkari.
	Okay, keep fighting.
	The emails don't prove who created.
	I'm just saying, seatbelt thing wasn't about seatbelts.
	Okay, Robert, let's start with the biggest one of the week, I guess, is the Chauvin update, the Chauvin trial, getting to sentencing now, and you'll correct me if I'm wrong.
	I think I understand everything there.
	Prosecution, defense have submitted their memoranda for sentencing.
	As far as I understand, the sentencing guidelines in Minnesota for this type of crime tend to be somewhere in the order of 15 years.
	Defense is asking for probation with time served.
	Prosecution is asking for 30 years.
	I think the most material thing in all of this is the aggravating factors.
	Do we call it a decision, opinion that the judge issued, I don't know, a month ago now, where he concluded to aggravating factors that, you know, aggravating factors presumably as it relates to sentencing, right?
	They're going to have an impact on sentencing.
	Those aggravating factors were Chauvin committed the crime in the presence of children.
	He committed the crime with a particular, I forget what the word was, but...
	Well, I mean, basically, typically you would get, without aggravating factors...
	10 to 12 years, which in Minnesota would translate often into about 6 years of actual custodial time.
	That would be probably a medium security facility.
	Sentencing is not only the length of time you serve, the probabilities of you getting out early, and it impacts also where you serve your time.
	It often matters in ways people don't think about right out of the gate.
	What the prosecution is seeking is 30 years, which would be a maximum security facility in which he would probably do more than 15, 15 to 20 actual time just on these charges because he still faces tax charges.
	He still faces additional federal civil rights charges, which would add time to that.
	So that gives some sense of what he's facing.
	What the defense is asking is probation on the grounds that the incarceration system doesn't work.
	It will be interesting whether any of the opponents of incarceration, a very popular movement on the legal left, what do they say about Chauvin?
	My guess is they'll go into the night and hide, which will embarrass their ability to be politically honest.
	They're saying, look, don't focus on how we want to let rapists free and kiddie and child.
	You know, abusers free.
	We just don't think the incarceration system works for anybody.
	Well, if that's true, then that would be true for Chauvin.
	My guess is they won't say anything.
	But that's the core of the claim and by the defense.
	And I think it comes down to the judge.
	He has very broad discretion.
	Almost all judges do in this area.
	Their factual findings can be subject to review of a certain type, but I don't see a court of appeals overturning him on this aspect.
	In all likelihood, my guess before all of this at the time of trial was that it would be a likely 18-year sentence.
	I'm going to stick with that because I thought the judge was hostile to Chauvin but wanted the trial to be seen as a fair trial and actually did work mostly hard to create that outcome.
	I mean, there's some rulings he made that I think undermine that, but I still think that's his driving motivation.
	In other words, he wants Chauvin harshly punished, but...
	Doesn't want to be seen as being vindictive.
	And so I think he'll stick pretty close to where the guidelines go.
	And that would be about an 18-year sentence.
	And so I think that's where he'll end up.
	I don't think we actually ever went over the...
	Is it an opinion, a memoranda, the conclusions of fact for aggravating factors?
	However we...
	Whatever it's called.
	I don't think we ever actually talked about it.
	But I was inclined to believe, and I still do, the judge looked like he was going out of his way.
	To be impartial, to give the fairest trial possible under the circumstances, notwithstanding not changing the venue, notwithstanding a number of decisions during the course that you could say they're bad decisions, and then you could look for motivation, whatever.
	But in this Aggravating Factors memorandum, there were two conclusions he came to, which I had questions about as a matter of law, and I watched Nick Riccato's breakdown, and he raised the same issues.
	Two of the aggregating factors in particular.
	One, committing the crime in the presence of children.
	As a matter of fact, I don't recall how old the children were in the circumstances of this video.
	I didn't think they were children in...
	I mean, I think they were teenagers.
	I don't know about that as a matter of fact.
	But that factor, how is that typically applied in law?
	Because it seems to me, committing the crime in the presence of children, the children being not targeted by the crime, but rather being...
	Witnesses, it has to be something of an intentional or at the very least center item and not something totally incidental where any crime committed on the street can be a crime committed in front of children where this aggravating factor can come into play.
	How does that factor typically apply in criminal law?
	It varies.
	I mean, these are specific to the state of Minnesota.
	So each state has its own sentencing procedures.
	The federal system has its own separate sentencing procedures.
	These were the procedures that he could have had the jury determine instead of had the judge determine.
	And ultimately, there was no difference in what the jury likely would have determined and what the judge did.
	I think it did.
	Some of his, the way he described some facts in that sentencing memorandum or sentencing order.
	On aggravating factors showed that what I suspected was true, which was that he was not...
	If this had been a bench trial, he would have come to the same verdict as the jury.
	I think he was very hostile to Chauvin.
	He was also, however, someone who valued the perception of fairness.
	And I think in his mind, he thought he was doing a fair trial, too.
	I have no doubt about that.
	I mean, someone that was by a bad judge would have tried to rig the system.
	I don't think he did that.
	I think he may have created that effect by some of his decisions, but I don't think those were intended by other course of conduct that he engaged in.
	But I think that he always thought that Chauvin should hang, but he wanted people to have confidence in the outcome that produced it.
	Ultimately, he failed because of how the jury determined things.
	But I don't think he's going to correct that on his own.
	And I think he'll come in with a sentence that will look good from a PR perspective, but not look vindictive.
	If he comes in with something 25 years or more, it's going to make a lot of his decisions look worse.
	Because then people are like, well, okay, you came in with an extraordinarily harsh sentence that's harsher than almost all murderers get in Minnesota.
	Then people are going to look at that venue decision and some of those jury decisions a little differently.
	If he's smart, he'll come in 15 to 18 year range.
	But we'll see.
	I think he's smart and he will.
	But, you know, 25% chance he goes high.
	All right.
	I'm going to bring in Beavis Wallace's question because this is going to bridge into another question I had on that aggravating factor finding.
	Does Barnes believe that the prosecution proved murder beyond a reasonable doubt?
	I mean, we don't need to go over it again because we've gone over it at length in previous streams.
	The felony murder...
	I didn't think they...
	None of them.
	None of them.
	I didn't think they convicted him of anything beyond a reasonable doubt.
	But, I mean, just so everybody appreciates, and there was a beef going back and forth with, you know, it's not so much a beef, but Nate was...
	I thought there were legal defects, too, with the proceedings, and other people have...
	Well, a lot of people, Nate doesn't really disagree that the law is crazy.
	He just thinks it's legitimately interpreted the way the judge did.
	I think the Minnesota Supreme Court should set it aside.
	But whether they have political wisdom to do that, that's the long shot in this case.
	In my view, the Chauvin trial is not about Chauvin.
	He'll go to prison on something between all the things he's facing.
	I think he may be guilty of a civil rights violation because you don't necessarily have to prove causation to prove that.
	But it could have even been after he was dead that he did things that could be a civil rights violation under certain circumstances.
	So legally, you're medically dead.
	But putting that aside, to me, the case was never really about Chauvin.
	The case was really about our legal system.
	And could it produce a trial that was fair, both by perception and substance?
	I think it failed both of those tests.
	But the sentencing will be the last straw to show how much is this judge really anti-Chauvin?
	Versus how much does he value the perception that he's not being vindictive and this was not a vindictive system?
	That's what this sentence will reflect, in my view.
	And just so everybody appreciates the nuance out there, felony murder, he was found guilty of felony murder, which means that he had to be found guilty of the underlying felony which led to a death, hence no actual intent to cause murder, but rather to cause the felony that resulted in the murder.
	The distinction, or the thing that everyone, you know, most people have taken issue with is that...
	In this case, the underlying felonious act leading to murder was the assault itself.
	And on the one hand, you have a finding of felony murder.
	And on the other hand, you also contemporaneously simultaneously have a finding of manslaughter, which typically implies a lack of intent.
	And this comes into the second question that I had about that aggravating factors memoranda, where the judge came to the conclusion that he acted with particular cruelty, I think was the term he used.
	And the question is, people are asking it, and it's a legitimate question.
	If he's found guilty of manslaughter, which means negligently causing someone's death, how can you then come to the conclusion of particular cruelty in the negligence that led to the death?
	I mean, it's almost like particular cruelty in the reckless...
	I mean, how do you reconcile that?
	Because the particular cruelty is specific intent, and manslaughter implies a lack of intent, but rather a reckless disregard.
	It shows where the judge's mind was, in my view, that the judge was extremely anti-chauvin.
	Some people have thought a bench trial would be better than a jury trial.
	That's almost never true.
	They've looked at cases and studied, and unless somebody that's part of the politically protected class is on trial...
	Bench trials tend to be worse than jury trials on average, depending on where your viewpoint is on average.
	But usually they don't differentiate much at all.
	Whatever biases a jury has, a single judge is even more likely to have, frankly.
	So he put any illusion of him being a fair decision maker to rest with the decisions he made in that memorandum.
	And now the question is, they've submitted the sentencing memorandum.
	Are there...
	Arguments on this?
	Are there pleadings, or is it strictly written?
	And, second question, what happens to the pending motion for a new trial?
	That's all pending, so presumably he'll make all of that at the same time.
	I mean, it's unusual to have a sentencing judgment.
	You're supposed to do that before the judgment's issued.
	So you make a ruling.
	I assume he'll have an oral argument on all of it, and presumably at least before he issues a final judgment, because you have the sentencing and then the judgment comes after that.
	He'll clearly resolve those other motions, I would presume.
	I think he's going to turn them all down.
	I imagine that looks to where it's going.
	Given his findings of fact, it would be very peculiar at this point to actually just undo everything and then make him go do it again.
	He's come to conclusions of fact that he's stated now to say that it was based on an improperly conducted trial would call into question the very conclusions he came to that he...
	Put to paper.
	Okay, shall we move on to the next big one, which I know people are talking about, the Second Amendment decision coming out of California?
	Sure, so the great ruling, the judge is a Cubano, and I think that's partially why he was also the one that struck down the earlier ruling that's now pending en banc before the Ninth Circuit on California's rules regarding certain kinds of ammunition.
	So he's a very knowledgeable gun judge.
	That's quite evident.
	Appointed by W, senior judge.
	So that means he kind of gets to take what he wants to take to a certain degree because he's no longer on active duty in the same sense as a regular judge.
	And clearly, I mean, he issued a very thorough decision after a bench trial, 94-page ruling, that went into extensive detail that showed that under any legal standard of analysis, It's probably the best, most, if you want to understand gun rights issues in America,
	from either perspective, reading his decision is a good way to get there because he'll give you both the evidentiary and legal roadmap of what the different issues are because he applies it under ultimate scrutiny, strict scrutiny, and intermediate scrutiny, applies it under the various alternatives that could have existed.
	The simple problem for California is...
	The same problem that liberals that support gun control find when they do data analysis, which is there's very little evidence supporting most gun control laws.
	And so what the California state legislature did is they just didn't make any findings.
	And that's what backfired on them.
	There was no extensive hearings.
	There were no details.
	And the judge took huge advantage of that in his ruling.
	So it basically said that...
	The AR-15 is banned in California, for folks who don't know.
	For folks who don't know, it stands for Armalite Rifle and not Assault Rifle.
	I think that's one of the...
	Common misconceptions out there, but just to throw that out, sorry, Robert.
	The word assault rifle didn't exist in political lexicon until the late 1980s.
	It was a smart, made-up political term on the left to try to restrict Second Amendment rights in the country, because that sounds scary.
	Most people think machine guns and Uzis, and this was during the time of drive-bys in the 80s, and the last time we'd had major gun control was the 1920s when Machine Gun Kelly and those folks were out doing things.
	The Valentine's Massacre in Chicago, those kind of events.
	And so it was playing off of the drive-by shootings with automatic weapons in the 80s was the pretext for assault weapon bans.
	Now the problem is...
	A gun like the AR-15, assault weapons is a made-up term.
	It's not really rooted in the guns itself.
	It's just a legally, politically superimposed term.
	So that's problem one, because then you don't really have a close evidentiary connection between an actual gun.
	Then the second problem is, what they really targeted were guns that were uniquely accurate and very effective.
	In other words, the more effective the gun was, quick and accurate, the more they called it dangerous and thus tried to ban it.
	But the judge's point is that's precisely what makes it a very effective self-defense weapon, is you're more likely to be accurate.
	In other words, hit the bad guy, not hit the wrong person.
	And you're more likely to be able to be quickly effective if, say, three people are raiding your house.
	And as he details, there's been over a million burglaries a year in the United States, home burglaries.
	And so it's not like it's an unheard of, unprecedented, unparalleled phenomenon.
	And so in that context, and now he started off with aggressive language meant to frame the debate.
	And it's going to be controversial, but I think it's successful.
	So, like, I had a recent debate where I used a particular term, and my goal was to get other people to repeat it again and again and again and again and again.
	There's someone in the chat, I've noticed it, every 20 seconds.
	Exactly.
	And I want to thank them.
	You're using my term.
	He who defines the term wins the debate.
	So keep using the term.
	The fact they think it's sardonic or critical is even more self-ironic.
	And so I think that's why he chose the language.
	He wanted them to reconceptualize the debate.
	The question is, is this particularly useful as a defense mechanism?
	And so he started off with language that's going to enrage the left because his opening sentence was, like a Swiss Army knife, the AR-15 is...
	Particularly good both for home defense and homeland defense.
	Only a Cuban judge would have this kind of aggressivity.
	They have a certain acerbic wit that's born of that life experience and everything related to it and escaping Cuba.
	That's why they're very strong on these issues.
	In my experience, Cuban judges have been way above average.
	Not always the best defense judges to have, but definitely way above average otherwise in constitutional...
	But what he just details is that this gun is particularly effective for home defense.
	That means it's within the second...
	The other thing he did, which was, for me, fantastic, the point that I've been trying to hammer away at is that the Second Amendment is about self-defense.
	That's what it's about.
	Particularly self-defense within the home, but not only self-defense within the home.
	And he says that about a dozen times.
	He says this is about self-defense, self-defense, self-defense, self-defense.
	So if this is a particular means of self-defense that best protects self-defense, then it has to at least meet strict scrutiny.
	And he's like, it doesn't.
	The three levels of scrutiny are if it takes away core Second Amendment rights, then it's struck down, period.
	There's no deference given to the government.
	If it simply imposes on something that is the core issue that's being protected, then it's strict scrutiny.
	Then they have this ridiculous standard, but they call it intermediate scrutiny, which is just watered down.
	And here the judge does a great job describing how bad intermediate scrutiny analysis tends to devolve into.
	My view is the court should scrap it, just go to strict scrutiny, and that's it.
	Don't have any lower than strict scrutiny.
	Maybe rational basis, but that's another crackpot waiting to happen.
	But he just details it in excellent detail that it doesn't meet the highest level of scrutiny, obviously.
	It doesn't meet strict scrutiny.
	And he points out it doesn't meet intermediate scrutiny because the legislature didn't create the evidentiary findings necessary to say, why is this gun particularly likely to be used in a criminal way and not likely to be helpful for either self-defense or militia use?
	And in fact, their main argument was an argument that highlighted how effective it would be for self-defense or militia use, the two interests protected by the Second Amendment.
	So now, the Ninth Circuit, who knows?
	Whether this gets affirmed will really be what the Supreme Court does in the other gun cases pending before this term.
	All right.
	And for anybody who may not know the backdrop, bottom line, in a nutshell, 30-year-old, 32-year-old piece of legislation that...
	Places certain limitations on three aspects of firearms.
	I couldn't get into it because I don't understand anything about it.
	I just know the words on a paper.
	But something to do with the way that they are tailored, the grips, the capacity of the magazines.
	So this 30-some-odd-year-old law, which effectively banned, if it's not the AR itself, it's certain modalities or certain functions on it.
	Apparently, I guess it had never been contested before, or challenged, I should say.
	And it was challenged.
	And like you say, Robert, it's an interesting thing.
	I didn't get into the weeds of the decision, but the judge did basically say in a critical way, there was no history of the legislation.
	There was no evidence presented at the time, so I have nothing to look at now, talking about the 14,000 pages of evidence and statistics.
	But yeah, so he goes into the statistics, says knife violence versus longarm or longarm violence.
	hands and feet and bludgeoning and other objects versus rifle violence.
	And people confound a lot of statistics in the debate.
	I've seen it.
	I've learned it.
	One of the main statistics people confound in gun violence, in quotes, is including suicides.
	And then the other thing they sort of confound to inflate statistics is gun violence versus handgun versus firearm.
	This judge did a good job.
	Breaking down the points, which were not all firearm violence, not all forms of firearm violence, specific and specific to what was being challenged and concluded didn't meet the required burden to justify the violation.
	Yes, the opening paragraph were pure fighting words, like a Swiss army knife.
	It's good for defense and in battle.
	I forget exactly the terms, but...
	I said he did it in a way that was going to trigger response.
	It got the media covering it with certain angles.
	And it got Gavin Newsom coming out.
	But one of the things I didn't mention is...
	So it's going to...
	Not an appeal, but I think it's going to a panel of three judges this decision right now.
	There's no outright appeal, or has it already gone to appeal?
	No, it'll be going to appeal.
	He stayed it for 30 days so that they could request a stay from the Court of Appeals.
	And he gave the Court of Appeals 30 days to grant the stay.
	If the Court of Appeals does not, then it will go into force.
	And so then it will go on appeal anyway.
	So if the Ninth Circuit doesn't like it, they'll issue a stay.
	If they do like it, then they will not grant a stay.
	And then it'll be probably six months to nine months.
	But the Ninth Circuit on Bonk is handling another case that came up from him.
	That was on bump stocks and other things like that.
	The arguments are even stronger on his side.
	So if the en banc decision reverses him on that, then they'll reverse him on this.
	If they don't reverse him on that, they're not likely to reverse him on this.
	But he has created, like Stickman did in the COVID context, he properly shifted the burden of proof to the state.
	To prove why they had met their scrutiny.
	The state kept saying, no, they have to disprove us.
	And his point was, that doesn't make any sense.
	If we're going to have any scrutiny of state actions, the state has to bear the burden of showing why this is rational, why this is reasonable, why this has a relationship to a particular legitimate state objective.
	And so I think he did a stickman-like factual detail that's going to be hard for them to overturn without basically trying to reverse Heller and its progeny.
	So that's what this is really about.
	Actually, that's the perfect segue.
	That was my next question.
	And I didn't mean that had it gone to appeal.
	I just thought a panel of three judges had already been appointed from something I read.
	No, not yet.
	Okay.
	Heller.
	By the way, the panel that handles injunctions is a roving panel.
	They're not likely the panel that will handle the ultimate case.
	Okay.
	And can you briefly explain for those who don't know what the Heller decision is and why it was so important?
	Yeah, so before Heller, the Ninth Circuit in particular, had said that there was no Second Amendment rights to self-defense, that there was no Second Amendment rights for an individual to own a gun, that an individual could not even sue, did not have standing to bring any claim on their restrictions on their Second Amendment rights because they didn't have any according to the Ninth Circuit.
	So what Heller said is, no, all that's wrong.
	The Second Amendment is an individual right that gives you a right of self-defense by which the means of that right of self-defense Is the right to bear arms and arms that would be effective for self-defense or the effective for militia use as an extension of collective public self-defense.
	And that's what reversed the whole equation.
	And the Ninth Circuit has tried to...
	Whittle that down.
	And other circuits, federal courts have tried to whittle that down.
	That's why it was a big deal for the U.S. Supreme Court to take a case that I think will broadly expand the Second Amendment rights that will then lead to these cases being more likely.
	I think that the Second Amendment is likely to hit its sunshine support, to hit its peak of support in the next decade.
	Fascinating.
	And I didn't actually bring up this chat.
	Can't wait for Runkle to bring...
	Viva Up to Speed.
	Runkle is coming on Wednesday, Robert.
	That is our next sidebar.
	And I did want to say thank you to...
	I lost the chat.
	How can we challenge a law so late?
	There's no statute.
	The law is still on the books and still effective.
	That's why.
	So if the law is not on the books, it doesn't matter.
	Or if it's not being enforced.
	But this law is being enforced every day in California.
	You can challenge that law anytime you want.
	This was the first challenge.
	Yeah, as far as I know, in federal court.
	But that was because when it was first passed, the Ninth Circuit said no individual could even bring a suit.
	That's why.
	So this is a post-Heller, and it was a good set of litigation brought by the Firearms Policy Coalition that's doing really, really good work.
	I mean, frankly, the NRA and some other people should be more involved than they are, but that's another story.
	This is the group that's really bringing the best legal actions across the country on Second Amendment grounds.
	Okay.
	And these are the chats here.
	I brought this one up.
	Gavin Cross, thank you very much.
	And Viva, you need to come down here to Oklahoma and let me take you to the gun range.
	First, let's have the borders open up first.
	I was going to say that's a good transition in the other Second Amendment case out of Pennsylvania.
	They tried to prohibit people from doing target practice in their own homes, outside their own homes.
	Basically, they blocked it.
	You could only go to select gun ranges in certain parts of the city, and that's it.
	You couldn't do target practice.
	The Pennsylvania Court of Appeals struck it down and said, you know, look, target practice is critical to improving your accuracy.
	It's a core right of the Second Amendment.
	And completely banning it in the whole communities under the guise of zoning laws was not at all constitutional.
	Now, there was a judge who dissented.
	Who is clearly one of these whiny liberal types.
	Like, guns are scary, scary, scary.
	You know, one of those people.
	But guns are scarier when people don't practice accuracy.
	That's when guns are scary.
	They're not so scary if people know what they're doing with them.
	Well, if we go by the statistics, they're also scary when people illegally possess them, by and large.
	But that's getting into the debate and the actual statistics.
	So, I mean, this one is new.
	I mean, I'm not totally familiar with this one.
	Zoning laws banned people from using weapons on their own property, I presume, indoors, outdoors?
	Or was there any distinction?
	Just anywhere on your property?
	Period.
	It had to be in the act of self-defense or something like that.
	So in particular, they were trying to prohibit gun ranges and target practicing out back or anywhere that wasn't specifically specially zoned for in limited parts of the city.
	And there are ways to limit problematic people who are doing dumb stuff.
	Uh, there's nuisance laws that already apply to some of that stuff, but this was just complete.
	So, you know, you could live on a 10 acre farm and couldn't, you know, practice shooting in your backyard, in your very big backyard.
	So the, uh, so it was a good, another good second amendment, a lot of good second amendment decisions, because I think a lot of people correctly anticipate that the U S Supreme court's about to give real teeth to the second amendment.
	Amazing.
	And the last Supreme Court decision was Heller.
	That was 2008.
	Well, there was a second one in 2010 that extended it, McDonald, that made it clear the Second Amendment applied to the states vis-a-vis the 14th Amendment.
	Okay.
	Then we got a chat here that says, from the ACLU website, the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right.
	Any idea what this means?
	What's a collective right?
	It means just the state.
	That's what it means.
	The Second Amendment issue has also been a massive learning curve and an interesting one because, yes, I, in previous videos, have used the term assault rifle because I'm quoting from things and people get upset.
	Viva, it's not a real term, yada, yada.
	I appreciate all that.
	I mean, I'm sometimes just reading from the actual judgments or the articles, but it's been a learning curve.
	And the Second Amendment and the history of the Second Amendment.
	Living in a country now where the government and everybody thinks the only reason you need to own a firearm is for hunting.
	And this is literally things that our leaders have said.
	It was a very big learning curve to see what it means in the United States and what the history of the Second Amendment is.
	A well-regulated militia and the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
	It has a reason.
	And I don't know what the collective...
	I don't know what that means.
	It sounds like it means that the individuals...
	Only a state-approved militia had any rights, which made no sense, by the way.
	Because that's just an extension of the state then.
	You don't need the Second Amendment.
	Completely redundant.
	That argument never made any sense.
	But, by the way, it's what the legislature did here that was problematic.
	They only looked at comparing the use of an AR-15 and similar guns in the context of recreation versus its use criminally.
	They didn't even look at the possibility of its use for self-defense, which the judge hammered away at.
	I will not read this one out loud, but yes.
	No, it wasn't the ACLU.
	I get mixed up between the ACLU and the ADL.
	They've both done questionable things.
	Okay, so the Pennsylvania decision, two to one, does it go higher?
	It may.
	The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is very liberal, so we'll see what happens.
	Okay.
	What shall we move our way into next?
	If you can think of something that segues best before I look at our list.
	Well, for a suit that you could say is not well-armed for the transition would be the Mike Lindell suit against Dominion.
	Okay, and this is a tough one.
	I read through it.
	I really skimmed through this because it's more of the same.
	Lindell is suing for abusive process, violation of civil rights, and defamation, among other things.
	First question, before we even get into this, he's...
	Suing for abusive process, why is that a separate suit and not a counterclaim in the existing suits?
	Well, it probably is a counterclaim.
	But he wants to sue in Minnesota, not in the District of Columbia.
	Now, that's probably a sage decision.
	He's been sued, I believe, in the District of Columbia, and he's brought his own suit in Minnesota.
	Now, Minnesota has no anti-slap law at all.
	In D.C., it's not enforceable in the federal courts, so that risk wasn't present.
	But the draw of the judge and the draw of the jury might not be very favorable.
	What's interesting is there was public news some weeks ago that he had hired Dershowitz to examine this case.
	Dershowitz's name is not on it, which suggests to me that they didn't take Dershowitz's advice.
	I think Mike Lindell is a well-intended individual, but I think people have been giving him bad intel and bad information to lead him down a path of self-destruction.
	I don't want to get into the allegations of the lawsuit.
	It's everything we've been hearing for the last...
	Little while.
	That has since become a Voldemort of a discussion on YouTube.
	But it's nothing new.
	The lawsuit is 55 pages, goes over everything that was talked about, back with the Kraken.
	What I just found interesting or, say, funny from a strategic drafting perspective, it starts off with fact and then goes into an allegation.
	Fact.
	And there's, like, the first 10 paragraphs are facts.
	Which are the very essence of the facts that need to be proven, but saying their facts as an allegation is ironic.
	Yeah, go for it.
	He didn't get off to a great start because this local law firm in Minnesota, some people thought I was attached because it has the same Barnes name on it.
	Not me.
	I did not file the suit.
	And it was a different law firm, but that law firm fired the lawyer the next day.
	Because they said they had not authorized the suit.
	The local lawyer just went out on his own.
	So now, you know, that's not a great start to a case.
	But it's a Texas law firm that appears to be the real foundation of it.
	And there are ways of attack that could have, I thought, been interesting.
	But that was not present here as far as I could tell.
	Aside from regurgitating a range of stories, the legal defects in the case.
	First claim is abusive process.
	Whereby, for malicious prosecution, they have to win the underlying case, which they haven't done yet.
	Now, abusive process you don't, but abusive process is not somebody sued me and I think that they're suing me based on lies, or I think they're suing me because they want to suppress my speech.
	That by itself is not abusive process.
	Abusive process is...
	Trying to use a court proceeding to do something that's illicit within that process.
	Seizure of something.
	Information you're not entitled to.
	Illicit forms of discovery, but disguised as part of the suit.
	Things like that.
	Even if that were the case, would he not have to do that in the jurisdiction where the abusive process occurred?
	Not necessarily, because he lives in Minnesota.
	Because he suffered the injury there, and it would be known that he would suffer the injury there.
	So I think he's okay jurisdictionally in Minnesota, but I think the judge is likely to dismiss, filed in federal court, likely to dismiss the abusive process claim just on its face.
	The next claim is defamation, and the problem there is litigation privilege.
	So it appears that what he's alleging is that, hey, what they said in the lawsuits against me were defamation.
	Well, that's a straight-up litigation privilege issue.
	So I don't see how he gets around that.
	If he would have focused on what they had said beforehand, but it doesn't appear that's to be the case by my reading of the complaint.
	I won't say ambiguous.
	He did throw it in there where he said they accused him of promoting the big lie.
	And the way I read it, it was before, during, and currently.
	So I don't know.
	It was vague.
	The way I read it, it captured the leading up to the litigation.
	But even still, litigation privilege, am I mistaken?
	Or does it not apply to statements made in anticipation of litigation, which all of those statements would be in any case?
	It doesn't necessarily apply to the statements in anticipation of litigation.
	But what he actually said in the defamation cause of action itself is he references they said these things in the lawsuit.
	And that's where I was like, you know, there needed to be specific on this date.
	They made this statement on this network.
	I mean, do to them what they did to him.
	And that, because Dominion made a lot of statements before they ever sued him in the press.
	But that isn't the focus, at least within the cause of action itself.
	Then, and also just somebody calling someone a liar is not, that's usually going to be protected opinion.
	It usually needs to be a little more than that.
	And so that's also a problem.
	Likely going to be dismissed.
	Maybe they'll let him amend.
	Then the third cause of action is a civil rights claim claiming this is a conspiracy to stop him from participating in the electoral process.
	But again, just speaking is not part of the electoral process.
	That's supposed to be somebody did something to prevent you or try to prevent you from voting, not just saying something that you feel is free speech.
	There's law on that.
	So that's almost guaranteed to fail too.
	Then the next one is claiming that they're a state actor.
	Well, they could be a state actor in other contexts, but not this context.
	So that civil rights claim is going to get kicked.
	And then my favorite, always a sign of bad lawyering, they have a generic claim that just says civil conspiracy.
	Folks, civil conspiracy is not a tort.
	That's a means by which somebody commits a tort.
	So it's civil conspiracy to do A, B, C, or D. So you say this person violated this law and the method by which they did so.
	Was by conspiracy or by aiding and abetting.
	It'd be like saying tort, aiding and abetting.
	It's not a tort.
	It's like what we talked about in the Triller lawsuit, which was an allegation of conspiracy at large with no underlying tort and no specifics.
	But yeah, even this conspiracy to...
	The first one was conspiracy to deny civil rights, which, I mean, again, this...
	If that were to be able to succeed, it would sound like you could actually create anti-slap legislation in circumstances where anti-slap legislation doesn't exist.
	Anti-slap laws exist for a reason.
	He needed more facts, different facts, than what he's already said.
	If he had said, these people met on this date at this place, and they agreed to do this and this, things like that, but that's not what's really there.
	It's a rehash of his old complaints.
	And saying, hey, they're suing me.
	Well, the other claim was RICO.
	Here's a problem.
	They're alleging extortion.
	They're saying cease and desist letters are extortion.
	This has been resolved by federal courts over and over and over.
	There are some state courts that allow cease and desist letters or settlement demand letters to be extortion.
	And I often tell my clients.
	Learn to speak in a certain way.
	They often want to say, you tell them if they don't do this, I'm going to embarrass them and ruin their careers.
	I'm like, that's illegal.
	Can't do that.
	We've talked about this before.
	Threatening a civil suit is not extortion.
	Threatening an ethical complaint.
	Threatening a criminal complaint.
	Threatening a statutory complaint.
	Threatening public exposure, public embarrassment, these kind of things can be.
	But in the federal system, they've made clear that any use of the legal process and threats of the legal process are never extortion under federal law.
	So that's another claim.
	The judge is going to see this and see it as bad lawyering and weak allegations and want to get rid of it as quickly as possible.
	This was a very poor start out of the gate.
	Lord knows how much money he spent on it.
	And it's not a sign of good lawyering.
	It's not a good case.
	And what will happen is people will use it.
	There was a good debate on Eric Hundley's unstructured podcast and YouTube show with Richard Barris and Nate on the election.
	For people who hold Nate's position, cases like this are a godsend.
	And for people who don't hold it in the honest way that Nate holds it, for people that hold it in a dishonest manner.
	Those people, too, will love this.
	They'll really love this.
	Because they'll say, see?
	Another lawsuit rejected as frivolous and based on nothing and a bunch of garbage.
	When, in fact, it's just bad legal claims.
	Bad lawyering.
	But that's, I think, another sign of it.
	So I think Mike Lindell has his heart in the right place, but his lawyers are in the wrong place.
	And prediction that this does not, more likely than not, this does not survive.
	80% chance this all gets dismissed, ultimately.
	Yeah, I mean, I read it, and I started reading faster and faster the more I just saw that it was just rehashing a lot of the stuff from the past.
	It sounds like he wants to tell the story again, but...
	It reminded me of the Kraken.
	When I first read the Kraken suits, one of those little crawfish saying, I am Kraken, hear me roar.
	It had similar responses.
	I mean, this was not impressive.
	And then he went out on Steve Bannon and said Donald Trump is going to be president in August.
	This is not going to happen.
	And so this is not helping him or helping his car.
	It's not going to happen.
	It allows CNN, Brian Stetler, and the others to say this is how delusional Trump is because we've heard he's been saying it.
	And it allows him to put it in quotes, the actual statement, which is preposterous on his face.
	For folks out there, there's no way Trump believes that.
	I mean, Trump told me back at the very beginning of this that he thought he had a couple of weeks to get this resolved in his favor, and that was right after Election Day.
	So he was always well aware that if he didn't win early, then it was done.
	You know, he played out the string just to assert the rights, but he had no, you know, misplaced.
	The idea that he thinks he's going to be president in August is all hogwash.
	It is...
	It's beyond fake news.
	It's preposterous.
	And the only reason they say it is because, like I said about Maggie Haberman, it's because her own base is so willing to believe this rubbish that they will.
	And they'll talk about it so that CNN talks about it.
	And it's not the wrap-up smear.
	It's just the fake news circle word.
	I'm going to bring this up because I don't know what eggplant energy means.
	And if it's a bad thing, don't...
	Well, I want to know what it means.
	But after listening to Barnes talk about the Second Amendment...
	It's like Nick Ricada's crowd.
	You always have to be careful repeating whatever it is that they're asking you about.
	Eggplants, I mean, that can go places where I have no idea.
	Just so it's known, people, I don't know what that means.
	Now, with that said, we've got a new member, Digitalis.
	Welcome to the club.
	And let's go from a bad lawsuit or a poorly drafted week in the law, I don't mean to be judgmental, to a well-drafted lawsuit that is going places.
	Project Veritas.
	Let me just get that off here.
	Sorry about that.
	Interesting developments.
	I was having a text discussion with Nate, but it's impossible to talk a law on a text message.
	I just had procedural questions.
	I'm going to ask you, Robert, and we're going to see if there's anything to them.
	Project Veritas sued New York Times for defamation.
	New York Times filed a motion to dismiss.
	Saying it was opinion and, you know, therefore cannot be defamatory, among other things.
	Their motion to dismiss was dismissed.
	They then filed a plea, a defense, I forget what it's called in the States.
	They filed a defense.
	Now, I don't know if a court ordered the deposition or if it was in whatever the timetable equivalent is in the U.S., but they were to proceed to deposition.
	New York Times, after filing a failed motion to dismiss, which they are appealing, and after filing a plea or a defense, have now made a motion to stay the depositions pending an outcome on their appeal of the motion to dismiss.
	And their argument is that if we succeed, we will, let me rephrase, if they fail, they will be irreparably prejudiced in that depositions will have been conducted, whereas if they The first question I had is, is there not an argument that they are precluded From making this motion to stay the depositions in light of the fact that they filed their defense already?
	No, not necessarily, no.
	I mean, they can go up on...
	I don't know exactly what the New York appellate process is, whether any slap allows an automatic appeal.
	In some states it does.
	Or they're requesting an interlocutory appeal, which is tough.
	My general view is this.
	The New York Times should be stuck with the same rules that they demanded Alex Jones be stuck with.
	Because when Alex Jones was sued in Connecticut and Texas, the New York Times had their politicized reporters demanding discovery go forward in those cases before he was given an appeal.
	Discovery that was some of the most crazy discovery I've ever seen in an anti-slap case.
	And yet now, when they're the defendant...
	They're demanding no discovery go forward until they get to exhaust all their appeal rights.
	So what utter hypocrites.
	They should be stuck with the same rules that they tried to stick on Alex Jones and that Alex Jones got stuck with.
	It was good enough for him.
	It's good enough for the New York Times.
	And so that's my core principle.
	I hope the judge lets discovery go forward.
	Everybody would love to just exhaust their appeals first.
	Very few people ever get that right or that privilege.
	And the New York Times should be no different, especially when evidence may go missing.
	I mean, what's the great expense?
	They're going to bear a little cost.
	That's it.
	Oh, so that's the greatest thing.
	First of all, I think it is an interlock appeal, so whether or not it's of right.
	Yeah, so I was thinking, okay, what's the argument to stay the depositions?
	Okay, the costs and the inconvenience of incurring depositions.
	All right.
	But when I read their motion to stay or their memorandum.
	And they say there's no risk of spoliation of evidence or witnesses not being available.
	Holy crap.
	I gotta feel stupid.
	I didn't even think about it.
	Oh yeah.
	Those emails, the internal emails, have a high risk of going missing if this gets delayed.
	We all know everyone knows what bleach bit is.
	But they said what they're doing in saying that they're not doing it.
	No risk of spoliation of evidence.
	No risk of witnesses being available.
	And no prejudice.
	You know that many of these witnesses are going to forget what happened.
	Because this is already decently distant from when the event happened to begin with.
	And they contradicted themselves already between their motion to dismiss and their answer.
	So did they do that because people didn't recall correctly the first time around?
	So there's no reason for Discovery not to go forward in the proceedings.
	New York Times should not get special treatment, privileged treatment, any different than Alex Jones got.
	If it's good enough for Alex Jones, good enough for the New York Times, time to sit down and get deposed.
	And if you get caught lying and get embarrassed, well, you shouldn't have lied and should have done the bad stuff in the first place.
	That's my argument, is that if they had a right to appeal and to stay the proceedings anyhow, even under anti-SLAPP law, they chose to file a defense.
	And what that means is, if they succeed on their motion to dismiss in two months, six months, a year...
	The lawsuit gets dismissed.
	The plaintiff now no longer gets to examine them on their defense to see if they lied in their defense, so they file a document which can never be challenged, and if they are lucky enough to succeed at their second kick of the can, the lies that they may have uttered in that defense never get challenged, never get exposed, and the record stands that way.
	That's fundamentally unfair to me.
	That's why I think I would have argued.
	Go for it.
	What the New York Times is really arguing is they don't want to be embarrassed.
	Everybody knows why they don't want to sit for depositions.
	They're not really that worried about a couple of days of legal fees.
	That isn't why they're scared of depositions.
	Why is the New York Times, the great truth teller, terrified to sit down and have their witnesses tell the truth under oath?
	They should welcome that.
	They should be eager for it.
	They should want to publicly defend themselves under oath.
	Instead, they're scared and terrified to do so and begging a judge not to allow it to happen.
	Why?
	Not because of cost, because they're scared of the truth, because the truth will not set them free.
	I hope maybe an argument or someone finds something that supports my theory, because it is a logical theory.
	They've chosen to file a plea, and then now they're saying, we want to get two kicks in the can to never be challenged on it, when our plea...
	Like you said, Robert, contradicts the arguments we raised in our motion to dismiss.
	In their motion to dismiss, they said it was supposed to be opinion.
	No one would take it as fact because that's how it was drafted.
	In the plea, they say Tiffany Hsu is not an opinion reporter.
	Who was the other one?
	Maggie Astor?
	Not an opinion reporter.
	It didn't appear in the opinion section.
	They basically admitted it was not intended to be opinion in their defense, which contradicts the arguments in their motion to dismiss.
	And now they've made a statement.
	A judicial statement in their defense, and they say, we don't want to get examined on it yet because there's still a chance this gets dismissed.
	Bullcrap.
	There has to be something there, but maybe there isn't.
	Now, there was a temporary stay pending the briefing, and I guess, are there going to be arguments on this, or is it written only?
	Usually there is.
	Usually there is.
	And I think I might know that there is in July.
	So they've gotten the mini stay until they adjudicate on the motion for the request for a stay.
	So we'll see what happens.
	But James O 'Keefe and Veritas are pushing hard because they're pissed and they want to get this to deposition ASAP.
	Well, speaking of truth that the New York Times is scared of, they have discovered the birth certificate of a famous public health official.
	And it turns out an R and a D were missing from his name.
	Because his name is supposed to be Fauci rather than Fauci.
	Now, the other thing Fauci forgot is never in writing.
	And always in cash.
	Apparently, he forgot both lessons, of course, because it turned out he sent real money, traceable money, laundered through an NGO for gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which may have been the source of COVID-19.
	And he has emails.
	As soon as this story broke, he's right now, the emails are very cutely phrased.
	So the Epoch Times did a good breakdown of this, showing what the meaning of this is when you put it in the context of a calendar of other events that are taking place.
	And that's where it's obvious that he was coordinating the effort to suppress information, including working with Google, working with Twitter, working with YouTube, to suppress information.
	This goes to Bobby Kennedy's suit in the Facebook case where he was saying the government is behind these efforts to suppress independent health information about COVID-19.
	Well, now there's evidence that that was taking place in these emails.
	Plus, this was a coordinated effort.
	Fauci demanding people get on phones for certain calls, sharing certain articles that had this content in it that he wanted suppressed.
	Many of the people that put out the story that said that there was no basis to believe a lab leak could even be responsible were telling him the opposite.
	And admitting, you know, there's kind of a problem.
	This kind of thing looks like it's kind of human-engineered, and we have that research you did, you know?
	Let's back it up a little bit for those who may not know Dr. Fauci.
	Everyone knows who Dr. Fauci is.
	I guess the most material things that have been discovered recently, statements made...
	Well, the exchange with Rand Paul, where he denied on Rand Paul questioning...
	Funding any research in this lab in Wuhan.
	I believe he also denied any gain-of-function research, which now has turned out to be false based on these emails that were disclosed.
	It also kind of puts this 2017 article that Nate Brody and I talked about with Eric predicting that Trump will undoubtedly face something like this in his presidency.
	It puts that into a different angle now, but let's only argue the facts.
	First question.
	Who got the emails?
	It was a FOIA request, or how did the emails get uncovered?
	There's been a bunch of FOIA requests.
	So some of the emails came out through BuzzFeed, which seemed like a control mechanism.
	As the guys at the Duran, you can see them on YouTube.
	They also have their own Locals page, theduran.locals.com.
	They were talking about the timing of this is suspicious, but that it looked like that...
	The fact that BuzzFeed was one of the first sources said somebody was trying to put control on this.
	But for further backup on this, two things.
	One, Rand Paul probably knew what he was doing.
	And that's where Fauci didn't understand.
	Rand Paul did a very nice job setting a trap for Fauci.
	It might be the case that Paul might have seen those emails already when he asked those questions.
	So he knew Fauci had spent the last year trying to cover up complicity.
	Concerning his activities and gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the possibility that COVID-19 was a created, man-made virus in that lab.
	Now, going back to...
	So that's part one, I think, is part of what was happening.
	And then Judicial Watch, a bunch of other people have followed up with a bunch of FOIA requests, been requesting it for a while.
	So they and some other groups were going to get it anyway.
	And some other people have been getting it and putting it out.
	But that's part one.
	Part two is...
	I did an interview with Francis Boyle last May about this.
	Francis Boyle is one of the leading bioweapons legal experts in the world.
	He's been fighting these issues for decades.
	He came out right away.
	I mean, you can see why certain people are banned from social media because the first guy I hear talk about this was Francis Boyle because where did he get a platform?
	Alex Jones.
	That's where he got a platform.
	And Trump was being told this in February.
	Was being told that this likely is a man-made virus and it should be looked at.
	And politically, you can see the benefit to Trump that that was the case.
	Actually, just pause it there.
	Everyone should appreciate that because this was at the time where it was being called racist to refer to it as the Wuhan virus or the China virus, which I can sort of understand the way those words were being used.
	But this was at the time where it was being called racist to identify its place of origin.
	Before, you know, you had the Indian variant, the South African variant, whatever.
	This is when you had pre-election, Trump, you know, openly putting pressure on China and trying to blame this on China where everyone was all of a sudden denying that.
	And it could have favorably impacted his upcoming election.
	So we'll leave that to everyone.
	I appreciate that.
	Massively.
	And so what happens, what the emails disclose...
	Is that Fauci was coordinating this cover-up.
	So Boyle comes out right away, and that's where some of it's getting into the press.
	While Jones is the biggest talker about it, Boyle is a very well-respected source.
	It's just the institutional media won't let him on anymore, even though he helped write the laws that are supposed to prohibit this.
	And to give some further backstory, in 2012, some Dutch and Chinese researchers decided to go out and yip.
	about what gain-of-function research really is.
	There are folks that don't know.
	Gain-of-function, BS level 4. It's my favorite thing.
	It's called BS.
	Biosafety level 4. Gain-of-function means you're taking a virus and making it more deadly to more people and making it easier to transmit to more people and humans in particular.
	There's nothing about that that's bio-defense.
	But that's the legal pretext by which all of this research is done.
	Because we were supposed to be getting rid of these actual biological weapons a long time ago.
	Did anybody know this at the time?
	Because I can tell you, call me stupid.
	I didn't know it.
	I find it shocking and absolutely unacceptable.
	Well, people can look at Francis Boyle has been talking about it since the late 1980s.
	He helped pass the laws, draft the laws in the U.S. Congress to help try to prohibit this.
	But what happened is in 2012, these people come out and yip about all the different ways they've made more viruses more lethal.
	And it shocked a whole bunch of people because they weren't supposed to be talking about this publicly.
	It causes a big controversy here in the States because it turns out the Obama administration has greenlit a bunch of this across the United States.
	So Obama comes in and says, 2014, no more.
	We ban all gain-of-function research.
	So what does Fauci do at the NIH?
	He funnels the money through a group in New York that turns around and gives it to the Wuhan Institute of Virology that then does exactly this research.
	And unfortunately for Fauci, That he had hoped wasn't public.
	And this is what the emails show.
	The articles back in January of 2020 are quoting people from the Wuhan Institute of Virology saying, hey, by the way, the Americans helped fund this.
	And the Americans approved it, even after they supposedly banned it.
	I mean, they can't help themselves.
	And so that's why Fauci's eyes are as big as saucers.
	And he's all of a sudden demanding everybody do these teleconferences and calls to make sure everybody get on the right message.
	And not long after that, and then there's later emails that confirm it, they get big tech on board, they get the media on board, and that's when all of a sudden there's this campaign to discredit anybody who raises the question.
	And the reason why most Americans don't know about it is because the only place Francis Boyle has, even again, well-respected law professor to this day at the University of Illinois.
	One of the most well-regarded law schools in the nation.
	Top 50 law school, typically.
	So the fact this guy can't get on any mainstream press should tell you something about the mainstream press wanting to suppress information about biological weapons.
	And that goes back to more than a half a century of biological experimentation, which none of this would come as a surprise to you for the audience.
	You wouldn't have had to wait for the emails or the public disclosures or the stories to break if you had been a member.
	Because there were Hush Hush episodes that addressed this over a month ago.
	And so they give the whole history of it.
	But he's hand got caught in a cookie jar.
	Biggest problem for him is he doesn't face certain problems.
	People are asking, can you sue him?
	He's a government official.
	Almost impossible to sue under sovereign immunity, unfortunately.
	They should use this as an opportunity to patch a Fauci law.
	That says high-ranking public health officials can be sued for lying to the public about this sort of thing.
	But until that happens, he can't be sued civilly.
	However, he likely lied to Senator Paul, which his lie was a lot more material, and his other lies to Congress were a lot more material than anything Roger Stone ever did.
	So let's see if he gets criminally prosecuted.
	I'm not betting on it, but he is at criminal exposure.
	Okay, so that answers two super chats.
	I said I was going to get to Fauci's legal exposure from the chat I brought up previously.
	Zeprin, welcome.
	And Beavis Wallace, I'm going to take a picture of this and we're going to get back to it.
	I still have a couple more questions about Fauci.
	Okay, the question I'm asking myself while my soul turns to a little bit more stone listening to this absolute madness.
	Okay, so Fauci...
	Is Fauci defying Obama's orders?
	Is it wink, wink, nudge, nudge?
	This is what we say publicly.
	This is what we do privately.
	And depending on the answer to that question, what are the chances that Trump knows what's going on when he comes into office?
	I have reason to believe, I'll put it that way, that Trump was told this in early February, late January of 2020.
	And some stories have come out that he was trying to get members of Congress to push this in February and March.
	And this was around in March.
	He would retweet me about not going down a certain path.
	So he was on this path until he got too much bad advice that told him he would be responsible for everybody dead.
	And he was just a bigot for talking about China.
	And so he backed off.
	But he wanted to actually gain a function issue.
	This research item in particular raised out of the gate.
	And now mostly it was Fauci conspired, frankly, with a whole bunch of people.
	Like what was key was some of the people he was emailing.
	He was emailing people that don't work in the U.S. government.
	But they were people who had become critical in organizing the media and big tech suppression of this information.
	I mean, this was an extraordinary conspiracy.
	It's like a bifurcated plot against the election, as well as a plot against the president and the country.
	Because this information would have been game-changing, not only for the election, but for everybody who would have seen this.
	The number one economic beneficiary of COVID-19 lockdowns across the nation.
	Was the country of China.
	Their economy boomed last year.
	Everyone else has sunk.
	As did certain big tech companies, which seem to have been working hand-in-hand in controlling what stories were censored and what stories led to deplatforming.
	Steve Hilton did a show on the investigation of Fauci based on then-publicly available documents on NIH that have been removed since.
	I don't know who Steve Hilton is, but thank you, Tancrat.
	He's a Fox News weekend guy.
	No, this is, um, this is, it's just, it's just beyond shocking.
	And what's more shocking than all of this is CNN coming out and their angle, their spin is that it's, it's noble Fauci doing his best to protect the world from Trump knowing, and they know damn well that people are not going to go read these emails.
	Cause I, I went through to read some of them, but I, I didn't have the time to do all of them.
	They know there are other people that they're just going to rely on CNN.
	You know, I'm surprised CNN didn't say it was illegal for people to go read the emails on their own.
	You have to listen to us.
	But they're spinning it as though Fauci is the hero and not arguably the villain who probably just lied to Congress.
	And what impact did those lies have?
	Apparently, so what did he have?
	They authorized $600,000 or was it much more from what I've read?
	It was at least that, but the initial, Boyle was the one that was on top of this early on, because he tracks all of this obsessively.
	And so the information then was that something like 1.7 million was laundered through different NGOs that went to the Wuhan Institute of Virology for this research.
	And again, the problem was people at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the official narrative was supposed to be that the money was given to them.
	For research that was not against the rules.
	The problem is the Wuhan Institute of Virology, people had come out and yipped in 2018 because they were so thrilled about what they were doing and made sure everybody knew.
	That's what triggered Fauci's paranoia.
	Because there was an article that came that quoted that information that all of a sudden sends Fauci into this email buzz.
	Boom, boom, boom, boom.
	We got to coordinate a message.
	We got to coordinate it quickly.
	And I'm sure there's more information coming out.
	I think what happened is Judicial Watch and some other people's FOIA requests were about to be granted.
	And they knew that.
	So to try to get ahead of the story, they gave it to BuzzFeed and some other people to try to contain it.
	It hasn't worked.
	Latest polling shows that most of the country now believes that this was a man-made virus.
	And they're starting to catch up to Fauci's role in that process.
	Now, the reason why a lot of people across the West wanted to suppress this is because they're all doing this kind of thing.
	And they're all doing different forms of game-to-function research.
	They claim they're not, but there's good reason to suspect otherwise.
	And basically, people are still developing bioweapons in secret.
	The U.S. has a half-century history of illegally using Americans as guinea pigs.
	People go back to San Francisco.
	Or like I said, go watch the Hush Hush.
	That'll give you the whole detail.
	I think the Tuskegee experiments are another good example where people, which is why anybody says trust the government today, you are naive at best and something else at worst because the government, in fact, does not, it's not that they don't deserve to be trusted.
	They merit all of the scrutiny that they...
	Have earned over the history of government and Western government, not just any government.
	Thomas Frank for The Guardian, who's a liberal lefty, wrote that if this turns out to be true, it will totally shake his and many other people's worldview that had come to trust the white lab coats.
	White lab coats and black robes are never two sources of authority to ever trust.
	Are we waiting on any more release of emails?
	I think 3,000 more documents were released either today or yesterday.
	Some more are coming.
	There's going to be tons more because all they got was just the stuff at the beginning.
	I guarantee you he's been doing good.
	When you go both further back and further forward, you're going to find a lot more.
	If Fauci was smart, he'd get out of Dodge and look into some nice places in Brazil.
	If Fauci worked with big tech, doesn't that make them state agents and lose their private company status, in the words of Clarence Thomas?
	That's exactly why Bobby Kennedy is bringing suits, one of the most important suits, and judges waiting on a judge's decision.
	Children's Health Defense, I think, is the name party.
	I'm not sure.
	I think Bobby Kennedy may be a party, too, but that's why that was a critical suit.
	Again, he was ahead of the curve on this legal issue.
	I mean, it's just so over the top.
	You can't even fully appreciate how bad it is, and people are just going to tune out, and they're going to tune out and go listen to New York Times and CNN.
	Okay, well, look, while we're on the subject of anger, let's just go over one Canadian story the other day, which was coming out of Alberta, and everybody, a lawyer from the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms.
	We might be doing a...
	It won't be a sidebar.
	I might just be able to get him on for 45 minutes next week.
	The courts in Alberta...
	Jeez, Louise, I just had a blank.
	The court basically...
	It was a...
	Ty Northcott, who is a world-class legend of rodeo riding, was going to be hosting another protest rodeo, combining rodeo with protest, political protest.
	He had done one on May 1st, May 2nd in Alberta.
	The courts came out with an injunction effectively enjoining all Albertans from breaking the public health order laws.
	It was either an error or an oversight in the initial order, which basically granted an injunction in a file with named parties and by the wording of the injunction effectively enjoined every Albertan from breaking the law, which is...
	Typically, when you get an injunction, it only applies to the parties of the suit, and you can't bind non-parties in a judgment.
	Typically, there are exceptions.
	What ended up happening is Northcott said, I'm going to host another rodeo protest anyhow in June.
	And he was cited for contempt.
	They filed what is basically a motion to show cause for contempt of court.
	They were going to hold him in contempt for stating, for swearing under oath that he's going to hold another protest in violation of this court order in a file to which he was not a party.
	I spent the entire day doing a video on it, saying how absurd this is to attempt to go over a non-party, sorry, to hold a non-party by the terms of a judgment in a suit that they're not a party to.
	Spoke with the lawyer, and after I did the whole video, the Crown dropped the contempt motion, and then...
	Basically got an injunction against them to not hold this rodeo rally, which they're not going to do.
	But it's, you know, we've talked about the weaponizing of the courts or the courts deferring to the white lab coats as government officials.
	This is now the second time in Canada, Nova Scotia the first time, Alberta now, where the courts are issuing injunctions preventing, enjoining people from breaking the law, the laws that exist in the first place, laws that don't carry jail time for violations, they carry fines.
	But breaching an order of the court is contemptuous, can carry jail time.
	And it's preposterous.
	Oh my goodness, this has been up here the whole time.
	Well, I guess it's apropos.
	But the worst thing about all of this is that the day that all of this is occurring, or a couple days before, the Premier of Alberta is caught in photographs, dining on an 11th floor terrace with his work colleagues for a business dinner.
	Not social distancing from what appears in the photograph, with a bottle of Jameson, bottles of wine, bottles of San Pellegrino, no masks, living it up, yucking it up, literally laughing at the rest of the world while they break a province.
	Robert, do you have any thoughts of what you see going on in Canada?
	Well, I mean, I think for people who don't know, aren't Nova Scotia and Alberta considered some of the more conservative, you know, pro-continent?
	Constitutional rights jurisdictions?
	Well, Nova Scotia's east, Alberta's west, and then it typically gets more conservative the more west you get.
	I don't know how it went in Nova Scotia, but basically Quebec and Ontario, and everyone hates us for it, are the reason why the Liberals got elected.
	Everyone west of Ontario, much more conservative.
	So they're angry at Ontario and Quebec for having re-elected Trudeau.
	Nova Scotia, I think...
	I don't even know.
	I actually don't know.
	I think they're more liberal, but I'm not sure.
	But Alberta, they're supposed to be conservative, and they are, and they hate the rest of Canada for having put these people in power.
	But Jason Kenney is conservative.
	Five years ago, he was tweeting about how bad it was that communist China is shutting down churches, and he was praising people becoming human shields to protect the churches.
	And then, lo and behold, a few years later, he's locking down churches and locking up pastors.
	It's how times change.
	Yeah, no doubt.
	Sad, pitiful times in Canada.
	The shocking thing is it's going to slowly go back to some normalcy and people are just going to forget.
	Why get upset about what happened last year?
	Let's just get back to normal.
	I won't forget.
	That's what's happening in Canada.
	Let's see.
	What do we go to next?
	Netflix.
	Attempts to create a true crime exception to libel.
	Another one, people are going to hate me.
	I have yet to see true crime, and it's been on my to-do list.
	It's The Making of a Murderer Part 1 and 2, the Steve Avery, but I've seen neither.
	That is what I meant.
	The Making of a Murderer.
	Everyone's like, Viva, you've got to watch it.
	I haven't seen it.
	I know everything that happens in it because I've read the synopses.
	So bottom line, Netflix does this series, Making of a Murderer, which...
	Effectively, the bottom line is it makes the convicted look innocent and it makes the prosecutors look very guilty through the cops.
	I don't know the cop's name offhand, but the one who allegedly planted evidence had a vendetta against this guy from something going way back.
	Basically framed him.
	This was the essence of the series and people buy it.
	Whether or not it's true, people were convinced by it.
	The cop sued Netflix for defamation, among others.
	And what happened there, Robert?
	Netflix tried every trick in the book to avoid service.
	Finally, they got served and they dragged it into federal court.
	That was their second procedural tool.
	And then once there, demanded dismissal.
	And their grounds for dismissal was that because it's a true crime series, that they can't be sued somehow.
	That if it's a true crime story, that's beyond libel law.
	That was their main premise.
	And so the claims against them are defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
	They also try to misuse Supreme Court law that said you can't sue for intentional infliction of emotional distress ever, which is not the case.
	It's just the First Amendment applies to both, that's all.
	And so the federal court, a Trump appointee, the Eastern District of Wisconsin, sitting in Milwaukee, I think it's the city of Milwaukee.
	There's also Green Bay.
	And the court said, no, the case is going to go forth.
	Said that there is no true crime show exception.
	And particularly took them to task, because corporate defendants do this all the time, they pretend their version of the facts are the true facts.
	When this is a pleading stage of the case...
	You have to presume all the plaintiff's facts are true and all the reasonable inferences from those facts are true.
	You can't even consider the defense version of facts at that stage of the case.
	And that's what they tried to get a judge to do.
	And a lot of judges go along because of the corporate power of who represents them.
	But this judge did not.
	Said, look, that's all nonsense.
	That's not the procedurally correct posture.
	And that being a true crime show is not an exception.
	And he pointed out a third thing, which is, he said, it's clear.
	Their other defense was nobody could possibly interpret this to mean that we allege what you just described as everybody who watched the show thought they alleged.
	And the judge pointed out, well, the plaintiff has had death threats against him because that's what a whole bunch of people interpreted the show to mean.
	So that probably means that some people could reasonably interpret it that way.
	I mean, what was unique about the show is they go out of their way to show this guy is innocent.
	Turns out from DNA evidence, he is innocent of that murder.
	Then apparently turns around and gets him given another murder.
	So it wasn't like the most best innocent story case ever.
	So his case is going to go forward.
	So it's going to put some discipline into these Netflix-type shows that often take a broad liberty with the truth, that tend to take one side of the story, and then tend to push and propagate that side of the story.
	And so I think that there may be issues with how this police officer behaved, But it doesn't appear, at least by his allegations, that they really covered both sides of the story and left out key facts that would have told a different story.
	I was going to ask if they, like CNN, had pleaded the fair reporting privilege.
	I didn't read the pleading.
	Did they plead fair reporting privilege?
	They expanded that.
	Their theory was, if it's true crime, it's really covering court events by which everything we ever say is immune.
	And for folks that don't know...
	Fair reporting privilege is if you report precisely what happens out of a court and it's truthful and accurate, you cannot be sued for that because you're reporting something that's public proceedings.
	It's to protect the public nature of those proceedings and litigation privilege.
	Anything else you report, or if you don't report it accurately out of a court, is not at all immune.
	Just because it has some tangential tie to a court proceeding doesn't magically make everything you ever say or do immune.
	It was just a documentary, so you can't sue us because we were documenting.
	The funny thing is, and I guess this is a testament to the plaintiff's claim, I only know what I read and what people have told me.
	My conclusion is Netflix effectively said this cop or this deputy, whoever he was, framed the kid, planted a key that no one else had, and therefore the kid was innocent and this guy was guilty of murder and had a vendetta.
	That's what I understood.
	That's what he says.
	Utterly not true in defamation.
	So I think the judge made the right ruling, smart ruling, sound ruling, sage ruling, and that Hollywood should be held responsible like anyone else.
	Speaking of crazy Netflix series, Eric Hunley is going to have the, I won't say crazy, the unique lady from Tiger King on his show this coming week.
	Eric Hunley has...
	The tiger lady.
	Yeah, Carol Baskin.
	You guys, chat can go crazy and drop whatever comments you want.
	He's going to have Carol Baskin on.
	I think it's Monday night at 6 o 'clock, if I'm not mistaken.
	So probably the best advertisement for Hunley.
	I'm watching it.
	I got some questions.
	It's going to be amazing.
	And also, Robert, by the way, there were over 2,400 people on Rumble.
	8,000 here now.
	It's beautiful.
	Oh, so now, actually, speaking of Netflix, has there been any developments on that cuties indictment out of Texas?
	We didn't plan this, but do you know of any developments?
	Not my knowledge, but that'll be something to check into.
	They were trying to dismiss it, but I didn't think their dismissal would be granted.
	But I haven't heard any update.
	Okay.
	Okay, I'm not bringing up some of the comments in the chat.
	Go watch Eric Hunley and Eric Hunley on Locals, unstructured.locals.com.
	Let's moving on to...
	Oh, the right to graffiti.
	This is a very cool lawsuit.
	I think it's a no-brainer of a lawsuit, but I'm going to forget all the names.
	Oh, his name is either Kaves or Caves.
	K-A-V-E-S.
	And I was pronouncing it Kaves in my head because he's a street...
	What do they call him?
	A graffiti artist.
	I thought Kaves would be much more fitting than Caves, but I don't know.
	Famous street artist.
	I was shocked by how much he charges for some of the rights.
	To some of his murals.
	Only because those numbers are astronomical in general.
	The theory of the lawsuit in a nutshell.
	Talented street artist paints amazing murals.
	Calves has painted a number of murals throughout the nation in New York City.
	New York City has recently implemented a war on graffiti.
	War.
	I don't know if they call it that.
	War on Graffiti.
	Where they were going around to clean up the city.
	Clean up.
	This is non-judgmental.
	I like murals and I like graffiti when it's lawful and when it's actually just not destructive.
	But they have a war on graffiti.
	As part of this war on graffiti, the New York PD put up on Twitter four images of them painting over one of Kavis' renowned murals.
	I think it was called Lightning from Above or Thunder from Down Under.
	I think it was Lightning from Above.
	Visually, that's what it was.
	And they painted over this mural with grey paint.
	Among others, we don't know the other damage that they've done elsewhere.
	This mural was an authorized mural.
	It was featured in car ads, movies.
	He owned the copyright.
	He registered the copyright.
	They painted over it with grey and then posted it to Twitter.
	And I can only imagine what that must have felt like.
	I'm smiling only because it's just so absurd that this happens.
	It's like shredding a work of art.
	He's suing, it's a class action lawsuit that he's filing on behalf of himself and anyone so similarly situated, street artists who have had their murals destroyed by this policy, and basically alleging damages.
	He's alleging a violation of NARA, which is a Visual Authorization Rights Act or something along those lines.
	Basically, there's a specific law provision that applies to works of art.
	He's alleging that the NYPD breached it, destroyed it without giving notice, etc., etc.
	And he's suing for damages, civil rights violations, class action.
	If that's clear, I think that's good enough.
	My first question was, in the States, little academics, why class action versus a joinder of suits?
	Are there enough people to fit a class for this?
	And would a joinder of suits not been better?
	And why not?
	Generally, joinder is if you're going to have like a dozen, something like that.
	But if you get too big, they prefer class.
	So they're anticipating hundreds.
	Is the short answer.
	There was a big real estate developer in New York some years ago that didn't like some of the public art on some of his buildings.
	So he painted over them, got sued, and had to pay a huge sum of money, millions of dollars.
	And the reason is that federal law protects public art.
	And so it has to fit certain definitions to reach that stage of public art.
	But the goal was to make sure some nitwit...
	Does it paint over a Banksy or a Diego Rivera?
	I mean, that's the goal.
	I mean, if you've ever been to Telegraph Hill or some of the other places in San Francisco or Mexico City, I mean, some extraordinary, extraordinary mural.
	I'm a huge mural fan.
	There's big murals projects in many cities in the country, including San Francisco.
	Old Mission District has some of the best murals in the world, or at least the best murals in America.
	Banksy, of course, is famous for the murals he does.
	People can see a documentary on him.
	Fascinating personality.
	Kind of anarchistic in mindset.
	He's kind of like the Michael Malice of artists.
	And Malice has a new good book out.
	If you want to understand anarchy, his anarchist handbook just introduces you to all the big anarchistic authors over time and gives you a good introductory understanding of it.
	So that's why the law was passed, was we want to protect public art.
	This guy's art was, as you know, world famous.
	And somebody in the New York Police Department, clearly they should have been profiling and tagging this as stuff not to paint over.
	And clearly somebody screwed up because they screwed up twice.
	First, they painted over it with gray paint.
	This would be like, you know, seeing a famous painting and being horrified and painting.
	I mean, you can't even imagine, like seeing the Sistine Chapel and being like, oh man, we got to get some white paint up there.
	First movie reference of the night, it reminded me of that scene in Rushmore when the kid, Jason Schwartzman, decides to tear up the baseball field to create an aquarium, unbeknownst to the administration, and the rector comes in and is like, what are you doing?
	Who on earth, otherwise you do this, and you've got some 12-year-old kid trying to impress a teenager, a teacher.
	You have...
	They did it, and they posted it, and it's like...
	Yeah, that was the second mistake.
	They bragged about it on social media.
	And just so everyone knows, in Montreal, I did a video actually, it was a Montreal Monday a while back.
	We have murals, and we're known for murals as well, on Saint Laurent Street, the main.
	We've got murals everywhere.
	There's a famous one on Leonard Cohen, right?
	Yeah, on Crescent Street in St. Catherine.
	It's on the side of a, I won't call it a skyscraper, but a massive apartment building.
	It's glorious.
	Murals are amazing.
	And just because it's done with the spray paint, if that doesn't make it less beautiful, especially when it's commissioned.
	So in this particular case, the lightning from above, they go to private property.
	They don't ask whoever owned the building.
	They don't ask the tenants.
	They don't ask the artist.
	They just paint over it for a photo op because they have no rhyme or reason or process in place to ensure that they don't destroy a one-of-a-kind Work of art.
	The ultimate irony would be if this was all a Banksy project to begin with.
	Now we all got played.
	Sorry, go on.
	Banksy probably couldn't sue because he stays anonymous and hidden.
	So he'd have to hide behind his identity to be able to bring the suit if it was Banksy.
	Credit on him.
	Smart lawyer.
	The lawyer who's suing is the lawyer who won that other big case before.
	So he's very confident.
	And I think the goal of the class action isn't just so much remedy.
	It's to wake up the city of New York to not do this and wake up governments across the country to recognize this federal law that a lot of people don't know exists.
	Yeah.
	No, no.
	It's obviously an oversight.
	It's obviously a mistake.
	The only question is like...
	How does it happen?
	Like, what have you painted over the Sistine Chapel?
	What do you say?
	Oops!
	We were just tearing down old buildings.
	We didn't know anyone liked that one.
	Okay, and the civil rights violation aspect of it.
	I mean, what weight do you put on that?
	Is it a civil rights?
	How is it a civil rights violation?
	I think that's a reach.
	I think the stronger claim is the federal law that clearly protects this.
	That's the claim to pursue.
	And that has, I don't know anything about that law.
	That, I presume, has statutory damages set out.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	I mean, the damages they got in that other case were huge.
	That real estate developer is still squealing about it.
	Yeah, imagine someone paints over the mural.
	It was commissioned in the first place.
	You're painting over it, and it's iconic.
	Viva going fishing at sunset.
	If I catch something, hopefully I can post a pic on locals.
	Catch something.
	I didn't get a bite all weekend.
	Not that I really, I don't care anymore.
	I just want quiet on a boat, but didn't even get a bite.
	Okay, so that's good.
	We're going to see where that...
	I mean, it's a fascinating lawsuit.
	The one thing I found interesting, actually, about the lawsuit is it referenced a street artist who was jailed for 180 days in the beginning.
	And I presume that that's in a circumstance where the street artist didn't have authorization to do what they were doing.
	And then the lawsuit quickly goes in to clarify that the lawsuit is not talking about unauthorized works.
	It's talking only about specifically authorized works.
	I'll post a link to it because it's a good read and it's interesting stuff.
	What was the next one that we were going to go to?
	I had it right above that on the list.
	School vouchers.
	Yeah, so in Vermont, the U.S. Supreme Court, it's twice in the last four years made clear that you cannot pass a law.
	Well, you cannot, in enforcing a law, discriminate against someone solely because of religion.
	So Vermont has a system whereby if they don't have a local high school in your area, You have a public high school.
	You can go in your county, and Vermont's a small, sparsely populated state.
	Then you can go to a private school instead, and they will pay your tuition.
	Well, so what the student did is went to a local religious school.
	Well, given it's Vermont, in the state's half commie, they refused to do it just because it was a religious school.
	And the Second Circuit Court of Appeals came in and said, no, no, that's been clearly unconstitutional since the U.S. Supreme Court made clear in two recent decisions over the past five years, and reinforcing these rights.
	But it's very important for religious schools to be included within charter schools, within voucher programs, and this really protects that right.
	And the point of the Vermont law, it's a good law, is to give power to the family to pick which school they want their kid to go to.
	And I'm in favor of this across the board nationwide.
	Why shouldn't kids get scholarships to go to any school they want?
	The teachers union should not have a monopoly on the education of citizenry simply because of their economic or social status, which is the reality as it currently exists.
	And so I think this is a great second circuit ruling, great ruling for school vouchers, great ruling for charter schools, great ruling for religious schools, but most importantly, a great ruling for people's rights to pick their own schooling for their own children.
	I mean, I was unclear how the voucher system itself worked.
	Is it a government credit you can use wherever you want?
	In Vermont, if we don't have a high school in your county, we'll pay the tuition of whatever school you pick, private school you pick.
	Okay.
	And is there a cap on that amount or no cap?
	Or it depends on the school?
	Not really.
	I mean, that's my understanding is not effectively.
	So now none of those schools were charging that much.
	So it didn't really particularly matter.
	Okay, so basically they said, if there's no school in your district, we'll pay for any school, but not a religious one.
	Effectively.
	That's not what the law said, but that's how they were administering it.
	What did the law say?
	The law said any school, period.
	Didn't discriminate.
	But the local people said, no, we're not going to support a religious school.
	Because that's them.
	That's Vermont.
	They're anti-religion.
	It was a quote by...
	I forget who the quote was by, someone can find it, but it basically said the decline of a society can be measured in the respect it gives to religious rights.
	I was actually going to use it in my last video, but didn't found one that was more applicable.
	Does it go anywhere after this, the decision, or is it just relatively clear-cut and required the court's intervention, which is sort of the absurdity in the first place?
	Yeah, I think it just required the court's intervention because the U.S. Supreme Court in a...
	A pretty comparable case two years ago said the same thing in a different context involving, but an analogous context.
	So the U.S. Supreme Court wouldn't have any reason to revisit that.
	So I think it just makes this more, it starts to extend that principle further and broader.
	And to do so in Vermont, a very liberal jurisdiction will hopefully, helpfully make it clear across the country.
	All right.
	Very interesting.
	And now, Robert, let's talk about the one that you are involved in now.
	It's a complicated lawsuit.
	I started reading it and I started tuning out because it employs everything that I get bored by in law, which is a massive real estate development, bridge loans and mezzanine loans coming from the bank.
	The bank, from what I understand...
	Basically, unilaterally decided to call all their loans or decided not to finance certain loans, causing the developers incredible hardship.
	The bank then sued the developers, I presume, for reimbursement of the loans.
	And what I read by way of proceeding was the defense and counterclaim, which effectively said that the bank was acting maliciously to call a loan that was not yet callable or basically to not respect the terms of the loan.
	I mean, it's getting involved in that lawsuit at this point was too much work for me.
	So explain the nature of the lawsuit, what it is, and where it's at.
	Sure.
	So what you had is someone who develops real estate in low-income communities that's meant to elevate the value of their local community, create jobs in that local community, and the ripple effects.
	Not only jobs in the construction aspect, but also in the service industry component, because a lot of these are hotels.
	But also spinoff jobs related to vendors and other aspects.
	And basically, he invests in places nobody wants to invest in.
	And predominantly benefits low-income African-American communities.
	Has been doing so for almost a quarter century.
	Basically, it had a project, The Last Hotel in St. Louis, Missouri, that was, I think, the only project that had been started in that particular neighborhood or area in 20-plus years.
	There was a lot of these urban areas in large parts of the country, New Orleans, other places where he's invested, that he invested in places everybody had been scared of since the 1960s.
	If I could stop you there, is the developer well-known, or are they public figures that people would recognize, or no?
	No, the name wouldn't be someone outside of the industry you wouldn't recognize.
	But basically helped.
	So he just does extraordinary work that's win-win-win and uses a wide range of tax credits to be able to make it economically viable for the banks to do.
	But the primary beneficiary are low-income, usually urban, usually African-American communities.
	But what happened is the U.S. Bank has a division.
	In Missouri, in St. Louis, that presides over all of these projects.
	And the person who headed that basically became a wokester after Ferguson and Michael Brown and decided he was going to weaponize the bank's resources to only favor certain political groups at the expense of other political groups, even though in doing so, he would be hurting the ultimate beneficiaries.
	So he's going to be hurting Low-income, urban, African-American communities.
	But in the names of helping them, he was going to make sure that money only went to politically allied groups and wouldn't go to anybody that his politics he didn't like.
	And in this case, this particular individual was known as a Trump supporter, even though he wasn't a very loud Trump supporter, just was a Trump supporter.
	This enraged the little woke component.
	Here you have a major United States bank that's a Midwestern-rooted bank.
	U.S. Bank, based out of Minnesota, that's politically weaponizing large parts of its operations to economically punish any political dissident in the name of helping a community that they're hurting by doing so.
	And that's the extraordinary thing about the case is twofold, that they're hurting the people they're supposed to be helping.
	And then second, this is politically weaponizing private capital to discriminate.
	Against even big real estate developers to make sure that they hold the line politically.
	Imagine what would happen if you could no longer get credit or capital just because of your politics.
	That's how scary this can be.
	But when I read through the lawsuit, I didn't see it framed with this vigor in terms of the motivation for the conduct of the bank.
	It's only hinted at.
	That's the backstory.
	So that's the story that would come out at trial.
	So I represented him in a separate part of the proceedings.
	I didn't draft the suit, so you kind of see that in the suit.
	This suit is drafted, is toned down, and doesn't have some of the flourishes I would have included in.
	Well, it's toned down.
	It's technical.
	So, you know, it's about the bank promising financing and bridge loans.
	Because they broke a lot of rules.
	But this is what, when they say there was a breach of the covenant of good, and my theory was that what they're doing, like most people think political discrimination is legal.
	And my view is it's not.
	My view is it probably violates public policy prohibitions, and almost every state says you can't do something in breach of public policy.
	And secondly, in contracts or equity, There's, in contracts, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
	And my view is people out there that are getting discriminated against, vendors, contractors, employees, employers, whomever, who have a contractual relationship, my view is what they're doing when they're doing it for political purposes, that's really a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
	And I can tell you this bank might have made a mistake, but...
	They admitted to me early on they had no political motivations whatsoever.
	They recognized that that was their obligation legally, was not to do so, but they were doing so, and there's lots and lots and lots of evidence of it.
	That's what will come out.
	This is a case that, on the surface, you only get a glimpse of what's revealed underneath.
	We had a similar case in Canada, Banque Nationale Contra Sousis, which was the national bank.
	It wasn't for political animus.
	They just basically called a guy's loan, even though they didn't have to and there was no legal basis for doing it.
	Liquidated stocks in order to pay the loan that they held in escrow or as collateral.
	Cost the guy millions of dollars.
	Because they did it so intempestuously within like 24 hours of calling the loan.
	And they were smacked by the Supreme Court, but it had to get there.
	And they basically said, it's a breach of good faith.
	It's an abuse of right.
	Breach of good faith.
	Even though, in theory, you might have had the right to do it, you did it in such an abusive manner that it has to be sanctioned.
	In this case, though, it sounds like they didn't even have the legal basis or the contractual right.
	I don't know if we call it call the loan or to refuse to finance certain bridge loans.
	It sounds like they didn't even have the right to do it.
	They did every shenanigan known to man.
	So in breaching the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, they also broke a lot of the other rules too because this was a by-the-book guy.
	This was a guy who had zero problems up to this.
	This was a guy who had made this bank tens and tens of millions of dollars.
	So what's terrifying is that the bank could get this out of control.
	What happens when you're wokesters?
	Now start running capital and credit departments of major financial institutions.
	That's a terrifying prospect for a lot of people.
	It goes back to Dan Bongino's parallel economic systems, political economic systems.
	I'll bring this one up.
	Stephen Goldstein.
	Credit is not a right.
	It is a privilege.
	And thus you are not entitled to good faith.
	You cannot claim probable violation.
	You need to identify the specific one to go to court.
	Yeah, but here a contract already existed.
	So this isn't about...
	Claim going to a bank and asking for credit.
	This is about going to a bank and getting the credit.
	And then the bank has a duty of good faith and fair dealing from there on out.
	Yeah, I was going to say, it's sort of like a bank saying, okay, we've extended your credit.
	You have 30 days to pay it back.
	Now we claim it back within 15 days.
	And if you don't pay, we're going to charge you 2.5% interest per day.
	So unless you make credit in a different way, I don't know.
	Mr. Barnes would...
	Today is the 77th anniversary of D-Day, back when Americans were whipping up on Nazis, which I probably was doing a couple of weeks ago in a debate, maybe.
	Now you've needled a crowd, Robert.
	So the lawsuit's been filed.
	I mean, it's interesting.
	We'll talk about it periodically.
	It was just an interesting lawsuit of what seems to be the abuse of the...
	Economic systems in ways that we've already seen hinted at vis-a-vis Trump.
	Banks, don't give him loans.
	Bankrupt his businesses because of politics.
	This is not how you unify, so to speak.
	Robert, I guess we have extra time for this.
	We didn't talk about it, so I don't know if we're prepared.
	DeSantis' Florida bill banning trans athletes.
	Are you up to speed on it?
	We do also have two SCOTUS decisions to get to.
	Okay, so you know what?
	Let's do DeSantis real quick.
	What's the nature of the legislation and where is it going to go?
	So basically it's just that biology will define access to public school sports in the state of Florida and that it will likely face the same suits that West Virginia and Arkansas are facing.
	Likely will be by the ACLU again, because they have an interesting definition of what their focus is, that will be alleging the same thing we discussed last week.
	So there will just be another Florida case along with the West Virginia and Arkansas cases that will determine, is gender identity a recognized as equal as gender?
	Under the 14th Amendment, under the civil rights laws?
	And if so, is this law still constitutional?
	Because there is a long history of differential gender treatment in sports due to the different physical capacity of gender.
	So I think those will be the two key arguments.
	The same arguments that we discussed last week will apply to this law.
	I think the law is constitutional, but we'll see.
	And now it's a state law.
	I just find it interesting that as far as it goes, you're going to have basically two opposing parties both claiming protection under the same laws, under the same Title IX, to justify what they're going after.
	It's a very peculiar situation where you're both going to have the opposing parties arguing the same laws to justify the diametrically opposed conclusions thereafter.
	Yeah, because it's really whether gender identity is a certain kind of...
	Is it an immutable trait class?
	The Supreme Court holds up its traditional law that says you need to be part of an immutable trait, a class of immutable traits to be protected under the 14th Amendment.
	And my view is transgender doesn't fit that.
	Gender identity doesn't fit that.
	But they argue it does.
	So that's why.
	And they actually make some arguments that are counter the politics of that movement in order to try to get there.
	Okay.
	Interesting.
	Now, let's do it.
	We have 14 minutes left.
	The two Supreme Court decisions.
	Which one do we start with?
	So the first one that some people thought was controversial was about computer crimes.
	I actually agree with Barrett, who wrote the opinion with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, and not with Thomas Alito or Roberts, who dissented.
	This law was written in the 1980s to deal with hacking.
	And what's happened is federal prosecutors have said, if you use any form of computer access to do any other kind of crime, even though the computer access was incidental to that crime, That's a crime under this hacking law.
	So the hacking, I think the decision was absolutely right by the majority, by Barrett, to her credit.
	And, you know, Gorsuch joined it, who's, you know, he and Thomas are my two favorite Supreme Court justices, though they're on the opposite sides here.
	Because the point is, the purpose of the law was to get at hacking.
	So when you interpret the language of the law consistent with that purpose, that limits it.
	So what happened is a cop accessed a computer for a purely authorized purpose, but did so because it was part of an entrapment by the feds, giving people information that that person wasn't entitled to use, and that he was in violation of his rules for sharing the information.
	The computer was incidental to his crime.
	They said, oh, that was really hacking, and they charged him and convicted him under that crime federally.
	That's a crock.
	And the Supreme Court, absolutely right.
	Said, no, this is a limited law that only applies to hacking.
	It's got to be hacking.
	That's what's going on.
	If it's not hacking, it's not a crime under the law.
	And I think they were right.
	And then the idea, the rationale, I know very little about this lawsuit, but the idea is that the hacking is unlawful access or illicit accessing via computer to information.
	Yeah, you're using your computer to get access to files you don't have a right to.
	Your definition of hacking.
	Someone who's looking at something with using a computer to access information they weren't legally entitled to.
	Here, there was no question he was legally entitled to this information.
	It would just be a question of leaking it, violating confidentiality protocol, whatever, but not hacking.
	Interesting.
	Now, the question is, though, I'm only thinking of how this might apply to reporters or current lawsuits.
	Does this have any impact?
	On Assange or any accusations against Assange?
	Well, I mean, Assange's claim is that he didn't hack at all.
	Now, their claim is that he aided and abetted someone accessing...
	Well, really, he had rightful access to the files, but not to the sharing of those files.
	So, I mean, I think the claims against Assange are nuts, because just period.
	I don't remember if they charged him under this particular statute.
	They're mostly focusing on espionage instead.
	So the question is whether those statutes apply.
	I don't think they do under First Amendment principles, but we'll see.
	And how actively used was this provision of law in the first place?
	Oh, they've been expanding it and expanding it and expanding it.
	So it was a catch-all for anything.
	They just tried to find somewhere he used a computer, boom, tag, add a hacking charge to it.
	And lower courts were issuing ludicrous rulings, expanding the interpretation.
	And here was a place where Thomas was just wrong.
	Thomas, I mean, I understand the policy concern he had, and he was just looking at the statute's language that could have been better written.
	But within the policy context, it's clear what the majority decision is right.
	Well, here a lying dogface ponies lighter says he was not legally entitled to sell the data.
	But that's not hacking.
	So there's other crimes potentially that could apply to that, but it's not hacking.
	And so they just like to tag hacking on because it was an easy way to put somebody in jail if there was something computer that you could say was something wrong when it wasn't because of access to the computer that it was wrong.
	Question now, does this have an impact on any prior...
	People convicted under this provision of law.
	I don't know if the circumstances are somewhat similar.
	Yeah, it does.
	Any cases pending, this ruling will apply to.
	And it will dramatically shrink.
	The other reason why the court went the way it did is very smart amicus briefs laid out how crazy this could be used.
	Because it could be used in ways people hadn't been like, whoa, hold on a second.
	That now is called hacking?
	Things that just make no sense.
	Think of anything that they can say, You used a computer, got information, and for whatever reason, you weren't entitled to share that information with someone else, even if it's not a crime that you're sharing of it.
	If you start thinking about that, folks, you'll realize how much stuff they could call a crime under this statute.
	So it's critical that they shrink this statute.
	Okay, but now, and this is going to show my ignorance, but pending cases, I can understand.
	Prior convictions on other parties do...
	That depends.
	So there they decide whether they're going to apply it retroactively.
	And so sometimes they say yes, sometimes they say no.
	Okay.
	And in this case, any determination or is that not decided yet?
	That wasn't decided in this case because they didn't need to reach that.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Very interesting.
	And the second SCOTUS decision.
	So a great decision for Indian territory rights.
	So a Indian tribe, a person was driving across Indian tribe, pulled over.
	The Indian police officer, tribe police officer, believed he had probable cause he was committing a crime, did a search and arrested him.
	The person argued that because he was not an Indian, an Indian tribe policeman couldn't do that, even though he was on Indian territory.
	And this goes back to the core, my old Indian tribal law professor.
	Our Indian law professor, who himself was once chief of his tribe, Richard Monette, wrote a great article called Indian Tribe Federalism, which was that Indian tribe treaties should be treated the same, should be treated like state governments related to the federal government.
	I agree with that.
	And two of those parts are about territorial jurisdiction and impersonum jurisdiction, that your sovereignty applies both because somebody is a member of your community and your sovereignty exists because you have control over certain land, authority over land.
	The Ninth Circuit said, no, you only have authority over the person.
	They're always trying to shrink tribes' rights all the time.
	The Ninth Circuit's one of the worst, but the Tenth Circuit's also awful.
	And the Supreme Court came in and said, no, you have rights both over territory.
	In the individual.
	And so you're like any other police officer, if you have probable cause someone's committed a crime, you can investigate.
	And the fact they're a non-tribal member doesn't matter when they are on tribal land.
	And I think that was the right decision.
	And that too, it was a unanimous decision, not nothing.
	So the law was always kind of clear on this.
	It was just the political antagonism to tribal rights that led to bad decisions in the lower courts.
	All right.
	Now, I'm going to bring this one up here.
	This is Beavis Wallace.
	I think I owe you a previous comment that I had to read.
	Next Sunday, it'll be a Fiesta, Texas, in San Antonio.
	I'll be at a Fiesta, Texas, in San Antonio.
	I'll be thinking of everyone.
	Do we have any VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com t-shirts?
	I can wear one while riding roller coasters and eating turkey legs.
	Where is beautiful Cleopatra tonight?
	Good call on the shirt.
	That could be an easy shirt to put up.
	Yeah, maybe.
	Well, I could do a hush-hush.
	I could do a couple of things.
	Oh, yes.
	Okay.
	Well, I'm always open for suggestions.
	Anybody who's out there, email, message, text.
	Maybe we'll do a reply request at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Speaking of which, go into some of the questions from the board, from the vivabarneslaw.locals.com board.
	By the way, folks, when I tweet out that there's a link to asking questions, it means you need to go to the board to ask the questions.
	I'm still getting people responding in Twitter.
	And then they wonder why I didn't answer.
	It's because I said reply at the link, not to the tweet.
	Just FYI, everybody.
	But the first question is, how can the Justice Department get away with seemingly indefinite detention of the January 6th rioters or protesters?
	Good question.
	It's because the courts are not doing their job.
	And there's been more and more evidence.
	Julie Kelly does great reporting for American greatness.
	We have the Russian ambassador now mocking the United States because of its treatment of the January 6th protesters.
	And more countries should do it because it's outrageous.
	No, as well they should.
	And the more that people criticize it, the more the media has to go out and try to turn January 6th into September 11th.
	And the more they do that, the more it turns my stomach because it should turn Every reasonable person's stomach.
	People are actively comparing it to that.
	It's just such an insult to anybody and everybody.
	It's ludicrous.
	Now, Robert, one thing before you get to the next question.
	First of all, 8,000 people watching here.
	Everyone, thumbs up and drop a comment now just to make the chat go absurd.
	But, Robert, this is on the last question we had.
	Kaper2x says, Robert, under that theory, tribes would be allowed to maintain National Guard units, don't you think?
	Potentially.
	Doesn't have to be that case, but potentially.
	Because it's just treating tribes as legally the same way we treat states.
	It doesn't mean treating them identically to states.
	It means the legal analysis is the same, but the tribal treaty would govern that rather than the state federal compact governing that.
	The second category of questions that were asked was Brett Weinstein talked about certain therapeutics related to COVID-19.
	He was issued a warning for merely talking about it.
	So you can go to his Dark Horse podcast and find out more.
	And people were asking, under the Emergency Use Authorization Statute, can a vaccine be authorized if there is an effective therapeutic alternative?
	The answer is no.
	They're supposed to rule out whether any effective therapeutic exists.
	And so some doctors are raising questions about whether they did that research adequately.
	And so that will be maybe part of potential legal actions in the future and whatnot.
	But that's a sort of legal analysis.
	And just so everybody knows, there's a couple of chats and comments I won't bring up because I'm not a doctor and I don't want to keep giving the Tim Pool disclaimers.
	Consult your doctor and I don't want to be looking like I'm endorsing or...
	Extending any knowledge that I don't have.
	Just for informed consent, you should be the one to make the choice based on adequate information.
	And the government shouldn't be able to compel it or coerce it without your informed consent.
	That's what the Nuremberg Code of 1947 and a lot of these laws implementing them were all about.
	Man, there were a lot of questions on that category.
	And...
	Well, yeah.
	Hold on a second.
	Is Zuckerberg...
	Colluding with Fauci, enough to make Facebook a state actor.
	Again, that goes to what we did talk about.
	Yes, and there's several.
	In my theory, I believe it would be yes.
	There's clearly a lot more evidence now that at least as it related to COVID, and it may turn out as to elections too, but definitely that's the Dr. Shiva case, that there was open ordering, not just coordination, not just collusion, but coercion by state actors demanding big tech.
	Engage in this censorship that, as you note, also made them a lot of money.
	They might have had billions and billions of reasons to go along with this.
	First of all, it affected...
	It could have had an impact, a political impact.
	It's preposterous.
	The question really now also is...
	What does Joe Biden know?
	I forget exactly what the statements are that he was...
	Can you ask what does Joe Biden know and when does he know it?
	Because he doesn't know what he said yesterday.
	He's got a dementia defense.
	He's like, what do you mean?
	I can't have criminal knowledge.
	I don't even have knowledge.
	No, it's preposterous.
	Everyone should be outraged.
	The only question, Robert, and it might be the good way to end the stream, is people are outraged.
	What can they do as productive methods?
	To express their outrage and to make a difference.
	Like, what can people do?
	Yeah, so sort of as the exit message, I'll be at a live chat at vivabarneslaw.locals.com after the show.
	You can find it.
	I'll be pinned up there in about five to ten minutes after the show.
	But, you know, you look at what people did on FOIA, and those FOIA requests ultimately is why Fauci had to do preventative defense, which is going to maybe, what Thomas Frank in The Guardian called maybe one of the biggest scandals of the century.
	So that shows what people can do.
	But I'll leave with a story that the members of the board know about, because I've been talking about it this week.
	And that is the 1921 race riots of Tulsa, where my favorite part of that story, and I think the legacy of that story, is not the evil of the people who were burning down buildings and homes and residences and shooting people, but the reaction of a lawyer, Buck Franklin.
	Who is sitting there, after all this has happened, 35 square blocks totally torched, his home torched, his office torched, his home ransacked, all his property stolen, his office ransacked, all his property stolen, friends, family members, neighbors shot dead in the streets, people passing around postcards that would become Klan propaganda for a decade, showing people fleeing, saying, chasing the certain words out of Tulsa.
	And what was his reaction and response with a legal system that was clearly complicit and culpable in what even happened?
	His reaction, he could have just left.
	He could have just abandoned ship.
	He could have said, screw this.
	I'm going back to Indian territory.
	Could have done any of the things that might have been rational and logical for someone to do in that circumstance.
	What he did is he set up a tent, bought a desk, bought a table, bought a typewriter, got his secretary and a young clerk to come in with him.
	And then bought a few law books that had been burnt, the ones that had been burnt, he had to replace.
	And he started filing lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit.
	And the effect of it was that over $10 million of property that the city tried to steal from the black community of Tulsa, he got restored.
	And they were able to rebuild the Greenwood community thanks to his legal actions because he filed so many suits and fought them so doggedly that even the corrupt court system had to capitulate.
	So if Buck Franklin can do it in 1921 Tulsa after race riots, then the rest of us can do our small part to release our inner honey badger, as Gad Saad would say, and fight back.
	And as the Fauci emails show, sometimes you win.
	All right.
	And with that, everybody, thank you for tuning in.
	Thank you for the support.
	Thank you for the comments.
	Robert, as always, thank you.
	We're going to have Ian Runkle, Runkle of the Bailey, Wednesday this week.
	It's going to be nice.
	I don't know what homework there is other than watching his content.
	It's going to be a great discussion.
	And that is it.
	Robert, stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes afterwards.
	Everyone, enjoy what is left of the weekend.

▲