Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 19, 2021 - Viva & Barnes

02:01:49

Ep. 66: Father's Day Special Live Stream! Viva & Barnes LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I was going to show up nine seconds late just to make a splash of an entrance, but I cannot taint my perfection of, what's the word?
	Punctuality.
	So, everyone, good evening.
	Let's see if I get the standard Fs.
	Audio is nine seconds.
	Is unacceptable.
	Unsub.
	Good.
	I saved a sub tonight.
	Good evening, everybody.
	It's Father's Day, and...
	I have been thinking this almost as a joke, but one never knows.
	With the tendency of politicians increasingly to refer to mothers as birthing people, I was just waiting for someone to actually non-ironically suggest that Father's Day should be non-birthing person's day.
	I don't know if anybody did it on social media.
	Someone had to have done it.
	Because it's the joke that is just sitting there.
	It's the low...
	What's the word?
	Low-lying fruits?
	The low...
	It's the low fruits.
	I mean, it's an obvious statement that people can be making in this day and age where you have presidential presidents.
	Or maybe it's non-presidential presidents.
	When you have presidents, instead of referring to women as women or mothers as mother, as birthing people.
	So I don't know.
	I don't know if that joke has been made.
	And by the way, let's...
	I just got distracted by a chat.
	Let's get this thing started.
	I see two Super Chats that I missed, and that's not possible that I can't see them.
	Happy Father's Day, Vipry and Robert.
	Yes, I need to wish Robert a Happy Father's Day.
	I forgot to mention that to him when we first spoke or texted early today.
	F in the chat for Happy Father's Day.
	Booyah!
	Father's Day.
	A day like any other that...
	I don't like Father's Day.
	This is not going to be the rant.
	I don't like Father's Day because it's a...
	It's a created day that puts pressure on you to do something special or different on Father's Day where every day should be special and different and you shouldn't get treated better or worse on any given day because it's a holiday.
	That being said, I celebrated this Father's Day the same way up until now.
	I celebrate every day and the same way I would love to celebrate every day, which is wake up, take the dogs outside, squeeze a little pee and poo out of Pudge, clean up a little poo in the house.
	Today I went fishing with the kids on a paddle boat and caught a big pike.
	Like, big pike.
	For anybody who hasn't seen it, it's on my second channel, Viva Family.
	It was big.
	And I, again, forgot the net, and I had to take off my shirt to grab it so that I wouldn't, you know, do damage to its mucusy skin.
	Beautiful fish.
	But, um...
	Yeah, Father's Day, it's an interesting day.
	I guess you reflect, but it creates all sorts of obligations and expectations.
	You have to call your dad.
	You have to call your brothers.
	You have to feel like you should do something special, when in reality, just do what you do every day.
	The only thing that it really made me realize is that the last year, I'm not whining, and I'm not complaining, and I'm not looking for things to find fault in.
	The last year has been incredibly difficult.
	And I was just thinking about it, actually, the other day, where...
	Anybody who has not had kids, it's an experience you cannot relate to.
	You cannot try to impart that on somebody.
	Aunts and uncles can hang around with someone else's kids, and you never get the same dynamic, you never get the same feeling for when they are your own kids, and you've been raising them day in and day out for as long as they've been alive.
	And it's an experience you can try to explain to people, but it's like a rollercoaster.
	You can try to explain to someone what it feels like.
	To drop at 160 kilometers an hour and feel your stomach leave your body.
	Maybe they can relate to it because they were in a car on a windy street.
	But until you've sat on a roller coaster and you know that once that bar locks down, you are locked in until the end of that roller coaster.
	You can't understand that.
	And it's the same thing for parenting.
	And the last year for everybody has been maybe more so in Canada than elsewhere.
	It's been 16 months of 24-7 parenting, working.
	And trying to survive and trying to raise kids that are not going to be traumatized by what's been going on in the world.
	Trying to raise kids that are not going to lose faith in the future.
	That are not going to learn to tolerate this as their future.
	And in a depressing way to raise kids to just think back to what it was like when we were kids.
	I remember talking with somebody.
	I went to see fish at Sugarbush.
	I don't remember when it was.
	I think it had to have been 96 or 97. Fish at Sugarbush.
	There were, I think, 20,000 people there.
	It was one of those experiences that it changes who you are in the sense like you feel something new that you've never felt before in your entire life.
	And it's questionable.
	Everyone says, yeah, things are going to go back to normal.
	We'll see.
	But it's questionable.
	And to think that We have had these, you know, defining experiences as to who we are and who we become in life.
	And it's going to be, you know, our children, if they haven't already been deprived of it substantially, will be on a going forward basis.
	And how do you, you know, how do you raise kids to not be bitter, traumatized, hurt by this, and to not have them grow up to think this is normal and they should somehow tolerate this.
	And the last year has been that 24-7.
	And it's been an evolution just to see how we have evolved as a family and how we have evolved in our responses, our reactions, our assessments, our knowledge.
	But it has been a tough year, and I'm sure it's been a tough year for everybody, and it's the second Father's Day in this context.
	By the way, in Quebec, let's work our way into a little bit of the rant, but before we get there, happy Father's Day.
	Too bad there has been a war on fathers and men in general in the West for at least a few decades now.
	It's interesting.
	I do remember growing up and my father making jokes.
	Why is the father in all the sitcoms a buffoon?
	Doesn't know what he's doing.
	Gets made fun of by the wife, by the kids.
	I remember that.
	I think it's cliched humor.
	I never really viewed that as politically maybe as I do now.
	But also, arguably, it has never been as pronounced and accentuated as it's been now.
	Oh, by the way, so here.
	New shirt tonight, because this is my Father's Day gift from the kids, and I dare say, don't ruin it with how bad The Simpsons has become.
	I choose to believe that this is season eight of The Simpsons.
	My kid is upstairs now watching the episode when Homer Simpson becomes the clown, which becomes Krusty the Clown he follows across.
	One of the best episodes ever made.
	If you want to send the whole shirt, okay, here.
	Yeah, it's just basically this.
	Ouch.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	Here.
	And the funniest thing was the youngest didn't get me, let me just get back in focus, didn't get me a Father's Day present.
	And so he's running around the house and he comes back with this as the gift.
	We got this at Christmas down at the Atwater Market.
	But it's very funny because, you know, anything on a shelf is a gift.
	The rant, by the way.
	So just so everybody has the update of where things are in Canada.
	Some places in Quebec have gone to the green zone.
	Others are still in the orange zone.
	For the grace of God, thanks to the government, we're allowed having non-family members into our house.
	But only one.
	Only one family member at a time.
	Only one member of another family at a time.
	That might be the orange.
	The green zone, which is supposed to be the normal, but it looks like it might be the new normal, has all sorts of...
	Draconian, for lack of a better word, it has all sorts of arbitrary restrictions.
	Restrictions on stores.
	And that is, considering the fact that 78% of Quebec has received their first vaccine dose, and something like 12% when I last checked, so it might be more now, had received their second dose.
	That's the new normal.
	Yeah, Special Canada Science.
	I put out a picture.
	What was the picture?
	It was an outdoor municipal garden that had a restriction of four people.
	A big poster.
	Wash your hands, disinfect, two meter distance, and a maximum of four people in an outdoor municipal garden.
	It is...
	It's not...
	Texas is free, just saying.
	Well, on locals, I owe everyone on locals an ask me anything, and I've got the top ten questions.
	So I'm going to get to that and put out a Locals exclusive very soon.
	But I think I'm going to do one of the questions here now because it's a good question and it relates to Father's Day.
	Sticks said on his live show this morning that he's willing to do a sidebar.
	Just get a hold of him.
	Daniel, people have told me that.
	I have gotten a hold of Sticks.
	It is only a question of whether or not he's available this Friday, but it's going to happen.
	It's going to happen.
	It's either this Friday or next Friday.
	We have some time zones to work out.
	But it's going to happen, and it's going to be amazing.
	I may need to message Razorfist at the same time just to make sure that they are, in fact, different people.
	And if Razorfist does not answer my message, then I might start to think they are, in fact, the same people.
	Okay, disclaimers, yada, yada, yada.
	Superchats.
	Thank you in advance for the Superchats, for everyone who gives.
	Just bear in mind, YouTube takes 30% of Superchats.
	So if that bothers you, and I can understand why it would...
	You can support me elsewhere, Patreon and subscribe for it, but Locals is the place to be if you're going to put out five bucks a month.
	Go to Locals.
	That's where Robert and I are, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	They take a cup, but it's still less than YouTube, but it's a free speech platform, so people like that.
	I try to get to all the Super Chats.
	If I don't, and you're going to be offended, miffed, insulted, don't give the Super Chat.
	I don't want anyone feeling bad.
	If your super chat is abuse for the sake of abuse, I may not bring it up.
	It is not a rite of passage to be abusive.
	And what else?
	No legal advice.
	Nothing in here is legal advice.
	Let's see what we got here.
	Without commenting on that particular comment, I get the impression that our national leaders have something of a loyalty, if not to their own future in international markets.
	They have other loyalties than to their own existing citizens who are suffering, but that's it.
	Okay, let's see what we've got here.
	Hey Viva, have you heard about the Friendly Geordies situation where an Australian political journalist producer was arrested by an anti-terror task force?
	Vaguely, but not in any detail.
	Fish made amazing music.
	They helped me through depression.
	I love them.
	No politics, just music.
	They don't bring any of it into their songs.
	Meatstick.
	Their last...
	Glorious.
	Some of their stuff was just glorious.
	It's like, I never got into the Grateful Dead, but I loved fish.
	Okay, what was I going to say?
	The question that I got from locals, I can't remember who asked the question.
	Whenever we do the sidebars, I like to go over people's early life, history, upbringing, to get to understand them.
	What do we, you know, someone said, so what about mine?
	Now, I've done a video on this way back before the vlog was the vlog, and it was just, you know, I was going to a high school to do...
	Interact with some high school students to talk about my growing up and my history.
	It's nothing special.
	I was the youngest of five kids, still am the youngest of five kids, eight and a half years between my oldest brother and me.
	Four boys, one girl.
	Girls in the middle.
	Born and raised in Montreal.
	In fact, I'm born and raised a kilometer and a half from where I live.
	It's convenient.
	I lived in Paris for one year when I did an exchange with McGill, and I lived in Quebec City for four years when I studied law.
	My father...
	Was a senior partner at Stikeman Elliott, which for anybody who doesn't know, it's one of the top, they call them the seven sisters, like one of the best law firms in Canada.
	Huge international law firm.
	So growing up, my father worked a lot.
	And I say this without any bitterness or judgment.
	He worked a lot.
	Being a father of three kids, I do retroactively, retrospectively question whether or not he worked as much as he did.
	Because being in the house with five kids, some of whom misbehaved, and we're going to get to that.
	At some point, I can actually understand it being easier, to some extent, working like a dog seven days a week.
	Of course, my dad had five kids to support, so he had to work like a dog to support those five kids.
	We all got along.
	Politically, we are very different, but I don't want to get into stories that are not mine to share, but we're all politically different, but we all get along.
	I was the youngest of the five kids, was a bit of a troublemaker, and that troublemaker culminated in high school where I bounced around from three different high schools.
	In five years.
	And I was up to no good.
	And whether or not it was to get attention, whether or not it was because I was hyper-creative and hyperactive and wanted to, you know, get it out, who knows?
	And that is where I also met Fish.
	But Fish prepared for a lifetime of fishing.
	So I was a bit of, you know, I got away with things growing up in high school that would put kids in jail now.
	Without exaggeration, no hyper-bleed.
	Kids would go to jail for the things that we got away with growing up.
	It was a different world.
	And I suspect every generation is going to say it's a different world.
	But the things that I got caught for today would have ruined people's lives.
	And the things that I got away with, but for the grace of God, goes I. And then I settled down when I hit CEGEP.
	CEGEP is in between high school and university.
	It's a two-year program.
	That was finally where I was able to thrive intellectually, as in get good grades, because I had miserable grades.
	In high school, I settled down in a number of respects in Sejep.
	Then I got to McGill, met my wife, and hit the straight and narrow since then.
	Still have a bit of the badass somewhere inside of me, but it materializes itself from time to time.
	It's a funny thing.
	Defiance as a kid gets you into trouble.
	Defiance and questioning everything as an adult makes you a functional adult, a healthy skeptical adult that is tough to fool.
	And, you know, and sees through the bullcrap.
	Okay, so that's a bit about me.
	What else?
	We can get into the weeds later.
	I'll post a link to the video that I did, which not a particularly good video, but whatever.
	Okay, now I see Robert's in the house.
	Let me just get this one last chat.
	And it says, as Benchvere posted to IG today, happy non-birthing secondary legal guardian of unspecified gender day.
	Okay, see, this is the thing.
	I have a good...
	Oh, I'm glistening because I put beard oil on and now it's all over the place.
	I have a good sense of humor.
	I can think of the witty, sassy, snarky, edgy things to say.
	I don't get joy out of doing it, and I just know that there's other people, Ben Shapiro, but others who do it much better, like Michael Malice, like Dave Rubin, like Gad Saad.
	They do it better than me.
	I will voice my opposition in a number of ways, but I've just found that jokes on the internet only get people into trouble.
	High risk, low benefit.
	As opposed to just, you know, calmly or hyperly speaking your mind and telling people what you think.
	It's tough to misunderstand us in a two-hour stream, and it's tough to misunderstand me in a 20-minute rant.
	Okay, with that said, Robert is looking good here.
	Robert, I came extra casual tonight.
	How are you doing?
	Hey, yeah, I like the Simpsons shirt.
	So, yeah.
	Good, good.
	Happy Father's Day to everybody out there.
	Thank you.
	Happy Father's Day to you as well.
	Robert, by the way, I didn't even tell people what's on the menu tonight.
	It's nuts.
	What's going on in the world is nuts.
	Nuts to the point where it'll be the first movie reference for anybody who gets it.
	And I don't remember if it was an episode of The Simpsons, but the gist of it was, it was like an undercover cell that was planning to do something bad.
	And then it turns out that everyone in the cell was an FBI agent.
	And then they're all like saying, is everybody else here in the FBI?
	And like, yeah.
	Is anyone not in the FBI?
	Like, no, not me.
	I don't remember where it's from.
	I just remember the distinct memory.
	Nuts stuff going on in the world today.
	I mean, do we just start?
	Well, everybody, what's on the menu?
	January 6th.
	I love Big Brother.
	Not just forcing people to plea, forcing them to beg for forgiveness, submission, breaking Winston is what it is.
	1984, for anybody who doesn't get it.
	And we're going to get into some of this, whether or not there were a lot of FBI unindicted co-conspirators or non-indicted.
	More FBI stuff, I guess, or the police seizing bank vault.
	Safety deposit boxes of patrons, not of the bank, and then exercising civil forfeiture.
	We're going to do Project Veritas.
	Oh, the McCloskeys.
	We got a lot.
	In fact, I'm going to have to go get that email when we start talking about this.
	Robert, let's just start with the January 6th.
	Everybody wants to know, do we know how many...
	Are there people still in detention, being detained?
	Are they still in jail?
	Do we know how many and do we know what is going on with them?
	At least 30, to my knowledge.
	And their treatment continues to get worse.
	And when there's adverse public coverage about the issue, so I believe Julie Kelly went on the 11. Radio show.
	And not long after that, they were facing more retaliatory action from the people that, from whatever facilities they're in.
	Technically, they're in the marshal's custody, but the marshals don't maintain the facilities themselves.
	So they're either, usually it's the Bureau of Prisons maintaining it, or sometimes it's a local jail, depending on where they're at.
	But to my knowledge, they're all in different federal facilities at this point, many of them facing solitary confinement.
	Many of them facing various forms of physical assault on a regular basis.
	Many of them have been there now for months and months with very little justification, in my view, for it.
	And we see the legal establishment, both the left and the right, making excuses for it.
	The president of Russia and the foreign ambassador to the United States from Russia both highlighted...
	How bad this treatment is as a way to counteract criticism of Russia.
	They're like, you can say whatever you want about us, but we aren't doing this to our people.
	You are.
	And so it should be internationally embarrassing more than it is, but the media generally doesn't cover it.
	And you have some pitiful apologist going on in the bail context about the indictments of the attacks on Tucker Carlson and Darren Beatty this week.
	A lot of it was rooted in nonsense, and a lot of it's from the same people.
	That gaslit Trump supporters about what Durham and Barr were going to do.
	That gaslit Trump supporters about who and what Amy Coney Barrett was going to be.
	We'll get to that later in the show that it's now becoming crystal clear who she's going to be.
	And some of us predicted it.
	Some of us didn't.
	But as one example, there's this guy that claims to be a big defense lawyer.
	I have no idea who he is, and he hides behind an anonymous name called Shipwrecked Crew.
	I'll give him credit.
	I think that's a well-titled name, because if you are on his ship, you will end up wrecked.
	He was one of the big defenders of Amy Coney Barrett, attacked me personally, because I said that Barrett was not going to be this great defender, Trumpian populist-type defender on elections or anything else.
	But he was actually trying to tell people that bail is run by pretrial services officers that work for the court, and prosecutors have almost no role but to sit there.
	That's just a flat-out lie.
	So when people like that are just making up stuff like that, then you get a sense of there's a great desire.
	It's so embarrassing for the legal establishment, what Darren Beatty and Tucker Carlson and Julie Kelly writes for the American Greatness, Lee Smith and others are highly, and Dinesh D'Souza.
	are highlighting about this case that they're going to great lengths to cover for them, make up legal doctrines that don't exist.
	They often approach it from a sort of snobbish perspective, and they're usually dead wrong about the law.
	Shipwrecked Crew has a decent following, 48,000 or 47,000 on Twitter, and he said a few things.
	I think we're going to get into another one that is untenable in and of itself.
	The people being detained right now, by and large, what charges are they being detained on?
	Is this trespass or more?
	Yeah, sorry.
	Almost all minor offenses.
	Almost all minor offenses.
	So sometimes conspiracy arguments.
	And it's some of those conspiracy indictments that triggered the curiosity of Darren Beatty and Tucker Carlson and others this week.
	And a story that sort of went around the world because of its explosive insights.
	And potential consequences.
	So, we'll see how that goes.
	But that isn't the CIA inducing it, I swear.
	But the whole nature of the system is sort of being exposed.
	But a lot of these people, pretty minor charges.
	So they may be felony charges, but they're still minor charges.
	And the basis isn't consistent either with the Eighth Amendment, in my view, or the Bail Reform Act, which I've never considered constitutional in the first place.
	Four Supreme Court justices originally agreed with me.
	Unfortunately, it was just four.
	But the Bail Reform Act of 1984...
	Effectively, in my view, undermined what the Constitution was supposed to require.
	Because there's no evidence that these people are a flight risk.
	There's no evidence that these people are such a risk that there's no means of pretrial detention other than actually detaining them.
	Pretrial conditions of release that will secure their appearance at trial.
	They could have fled and none of them did.
	And then none of them are accused of the kind of crimes, particularly violent crimes, gang-related crimes, certain drug crimes that can warrant pretrial detention in my view.
	It's nuts because we're seeing some of the stories.
	I mean, it's coming out of New York that has had the bail reform and the judge's hands are tied, but they literally released violent offenders who go on to commit violent offenses here in Washington.
	Regardless of what you think of the January 6th riots, even if you think it's an insurrection, we've seen what some of these people were arrested for and detained for, and it's not insurrectionism.
	I mean, it can hardly even be called violence for a lot of them who have been detained.
	And for everybody who, like we've said multiple times here, like everybody who says...
	The system should release people, reform, rehabilitate, yada, yada, yada.
	And now you've detained people.
	And effectively, you may not have ruined their lives, but you definitely ruined their year because you can't keep a job while you're in jail.
	And these are not things that should have kept people in jail to begin with.
	And now we're seeing some of these written statements that they're being compelled or advised to produce in order to beg for forgiveness.
	For anybody who doesn't know, there were two, I don't remember the names of the two individuals, but one is literally a grandmother.
	Like Robert's been saying they're locking up nannies and yada, yada, yada.
	It's not an exaggeration.
	This woman is literally a grandmother.
	I think she has five grandkids, two kids, 49 years old, never had an issue in her life.
	Her lawyer drafted a three-page...
	It's beyond a groveling mea culpa.
	It is like...
	It is...
	It's a re-education camp.
	It's...
	I mean, it is the scene from 1984 just...
	You know, with less violence.
	It's, you will say this, you will grovel, you will break yourself so that the system can reshape you and you will apologize and you will say that you love us.
	And it reads that way.
	She's watched three movies to rehabilitate herself.
	Schindler's List and a couple others.
	Yeah, basically a liberal reading list, a liberal film list, of complete confession, and a confession that's way beyond the alleged crime.
	It's really what that is saying, is that her crime was being a Trump supporter.
	Her crime was having populist beliefs.
	That's what that really exposed.
	I've never seen a sentencing memorandum like that in my life.
	Where basically a defense lawyer felt the only chance she had to avoid jail for very minor offenses, I think in her case, all misdemeanors, that no violence of any kind whatsoever, no conspiratorial objective, basically just walked into the Capitol.
	Probably had good trial defenses, but is not someone who has the means to defend herself meaningfully.
	Basically had to go through, hey, tell us the Orwellian camp you went through and your re-self-education that you went through, and maybe we won't whack you across the head.
	And I, look, I don't play the identity card.
	I don't think anyone has ever heard me play the as a blank.
	And I'm not doing it now.
	I'm just saying, that list is offensive.
	Because, and again, I always say, nobody cares if you're offended.
	It doesn't matter.
	I'm just saying, I'm telling you, it's offensive.
	The idea that the prosecutor and the system is trying to equate what happened on January 6th to three of the, how do you measure atrocities?
	To the Holocaust, to the two other ones.
	It had to do with Native American treatment in the United States.
	The idea, if I were a member of any of these groups, I would find it offensive that they are trying to cheapen, exploit those tragedies by equating the January 6th riots, which we know six people died from, or five, all but one of them of medical emergencies.
	Sicknick was the last holdout that we got confirmation on.
	And the only one who was killed was killed by the police and not by...
	The other rioters.
	Yes, some police were roughed up and there were some incidents, as there are pretty much every riot.
	But the idea that in this memorandum they would equate January 6th to three of the greatest atrocities of all time, among the three of the greatest, it's offensive on a spiritual level.
	It is just idiotic on a practical level.
	And they make her do it.
	Her charge was no violence, no damage, no nothing, just accessing the property.
	And you're right, Robert.
	It reads like they are trying to shame Trump supporters for being Trump supporters by labeling them all as domestic T-words by virtue of the fact that they went into this building, some of them not even knowing that they weren't allowed.
	Precisely.
	And so that's where, so the political nature of this is important to understand for the big controversy that broke out this week, which was Darren Beatty of Revolver News, who was a former Trump administration appointee, wrote a piece that just laid out, all he did was follow the indictments themselves and what the grand jury alleged.
	And he pointed out that the people identified as the most culpable.
	The leaders, the instigators of the conspiracy are strangely missing from being identified or indicted.
	And so his point is like, how is it you have all these people who are clearly the key instigators behind the worst alleged acts not be indicted, not even be identified?
	And so that was step one.
	And he's mostly asked the question.
	He said, now you can look to history for a possible answer.
	If you look at the Chicago 7 trial, which is probably the most analogous trial, people should study it because the biggest one where people were blamed for politicized reasons concerning an alleged riotous set of events.
	And that's relating to Chicago Democratic National Convention 1968.
	Many films, many documentaries out there on it because it's the left.
	So the left actually pays attention, unlike they're doing to this case.
	Or you can look at how they infiltrated labor unions to instigate events.
	How they read Operation Northwoods to understand how the Joint Chiefs of Staff try to convince the President to stage events.
	Or you look at just everyday infiltration that's taken place with COINTELPRO.
	You can look at whether things went AWOL.
	You'd have to go to see a hush-hush at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	By the way, great late Father's Day gift for anybody out there.
	Get them a subscription to vivabarneslaw.locals.com because it's the gift that gives back.
	To look at whether Oklahoma City may have implications on this accord.
	But at a minimum, there has been extensive documentation on the post-9-11 terrorism cases that almost every one of them was led, instigated, and created by a Fed.
	95% of them.
	I mean, I remember watching some of these indictments and I was like, this doesn't fit like some hardcore terror cell.
	They didn't infiltrate a terror cell.
	They found some nitwit kids that can make themselves look like heroes.
	But he mentioned that.
	And then Beatty also mentioned the recent Governor Whitmer case that we spotted from the get-go as a potential high-risk entrapment case.
	And of course, more and more evidence is coming out that the main instigator was an informant and an infiltrator and a government asset.
	And so he said, what if the reason they're not identifying these culpable people, that they're not indicting these culpable people, is that they were actually on the government payroll or government assets in one way, shape, or form?
	This, Tucker Carlson covered it, and this struck such a nerve that all of a sudden the entire legal establishment of both the left and the right, the usual suspects of the National Review, the usual suspects of the shipwrecked crews of the world, these people came rushing in to say, no, no, that's not even possible, because if you're a government informant, you can't possibly be a criminal co-conspirator.
	Now, there are several problems with their claims.
	Problem number one is, Then why is there, if an informant cannot be an unindicted co-conspirator, why is there more than a decade of case law, particularly from the Eastern District of Wisconsin, where I practice, where they say the government can hide the identity of an unindicted co-conspirator under the informer's privilege?
	And the informer's privilege, for people that don't know it, is the government has a privilege to hide the identity of an individual who is an informant.
	It takes extraordinary levels of begging and screaming and whining and yelling and proving in order to get a judge to ever divulge that information.
	I've been through massive battles on that.
	So their explanation makes no sense.
	How is it Andrew McCarthy and Nash saying, this is not even possible?
	How is shipwreck crew saying, this is not even possible if that case law exists?
	But that's only one example.
	Second example, famous mob case in New York, where the problem was the key witness in the case was an informant, government informant.
	And what did the Second Circuit Court of Appeals say back in 2001, so 20 years ago?
	They said you can absolutely be a criminal co-conspirator, an unindicted co-conspirator, and be an informant.
	So these people are out there making statements that are blatantly false about the law.
	What they're talking about is that...
	It's, of course, illegal for the government to be doing some of this activity, but that's sort of like a circular argument.
	Their argument is the government can't have done any illegal activity because it's illegal for the government to do that activity.
	And the history would say that they're full of it.
	And so the actual law is they could absolutely, that Darren Beatty and Tucker Carlson may have stumbled across one method, one means of proving government culpability and complicity.
	Now, there's a bunch of other ways, too.
	You could have government...
	And just think about it.
	If you have a government informant, what's the probabilities they just sit there and listen?
	The way you become a successful infiltrator and informant is you inspire the ideas.
	And this has been almost always the case with government informants.
	My first reflex now, and call it...
	Conspiracy, whatever.
	It's more just living experience.
	The more the media and the same players, like you say, reflexively come out and staunchly and violently oppose certain suggestions, much like they did a year ago with the idea that Jon Stewart, what he said recently, might have been the case.
	And then a year later, you find out.
	I don't know how many times someone with a memory longer than a goldfish We'll have to live this before they start noticing a pattern.
	I've noticed the pattern and I can't unsee it.
	So when I see people reacting like this, and this is not like, this is less outlandish even than the initial claims of where the virus came from.
	This is, everybody knows.
	It's happened time and time again that the FBI, it always becomes a question, are the FBI informants catching a crime or are they causing a crime?
	Are they...
	Catching a criminal or are they what sort of entrapping what would otherwise be somebody who might be easily influenced?
	And we've seen them do it time and time again.
	So the idea that anyone comes up today and says, no, government now is totally different than it's ever been in the history of government kind.
	I'm suspicious.
	And we saw it with Whitmer.
	I'm not just suspicious.
	I think it's probably more likely than not, but we'll see.
	But so in all of these indictments, just clarify this for people out there who may not understand, they're referring to the indicted and what we call unindicted co-conspiracers who are not named in the pleadings or in the indictment themselves, but seemingly participated in the event?
	It's beyond that.
	They're the most culpable.
	And that's what Beatty said.
	This seems really odd.
	How is it?
	So here's some of the...
	This is my favorite excuse so far.
	Andy McCarthy's excuse and some other people's excuse is, well, what must have happened is, after it happened, these people felt so bad, they ran down to the FBI and confessed quickly and got a sweetheart deal.
	The probabilities of that are next to nil.
	So now, sometimes they will try to cover for an informant, because I've dealt with this, in almost every major conspiracy case I have ever had, the government has hid...
	They're informants amongst unindicted co-conspirators.
	I've experienced this for 20 years.
	Many of these other lawyers talking, to my knowledge, Andy McCarthy, how many criminal defense cases I've ever known him to win?
	Big fat zero.
	Most of these people are former feds covering for feds.
	So the, I mean, shipwreck crew claims to be this big lawyer.
	Why do you got to hide behind anonymity then, pal?
	Just come on out for the rest of us.
	Let's see who you are.
	Especially given the side on which he's arguing.
	It's not typically the side that gets the wrath of social media.
	I just pulled up this.
	Operation Northwoods, for anybody who doesn't know, look it up.
	It's going to blow your mind.
	The only distinction between that is that that never materialized.
	So people say, yeah, sure, they tried to plot it, but it got stopped so you can trust the Department of Justice or Department of Defense.
	Anybody who doesn't know, check out Joe Rogan's on it.
	It's amazing, but look it up.
	It's earth-shattering.
	But yes, sorry.
	Carry on, Robert.
	Yeah, so that explanation makes – I've experienced it repeatedly, experienced it often.
	Just think about it if you're the government's perspective.
	You have an informant.
	You have an informant who helped lead the – you need the facts that he has provided.
	You know the other defendants will know of this informant.
	So one way you handle it – You just don't indict him.
	You identify him as an unindicted co-conspirator to continue to mask his role as an informant because you're not supposed to have informants as co-conspirators, by definition.
	But that doesn't stop them from doing it, and they've done it repeatedly.
	They did it in the Chicago 7 case.
	The later joke about the Chicago 7 case was that there were seven private individuals and 10,000 undercover agents because there were that many undercover agents all over the place.
	And folks out there, remember Chicago.
	This is Chicago, 1960s.
	You know, when they're going to go in and assassinate Fred Hampton and then lie about it.
	It doesn't get exposed, the Black Panther leader of Chicago, until about 11 years later in a trial that takes place in the late 70s in full.
	Malcolm X would be assassinated with the key aid and assistance of a federal informant that was working for the NYPD as well.
	That's a future Hush Hush episode.
	So this is common MO.
	Common modus operandi.
	What is not common is that you would have a whole bunch of the leaders of the conspiracy run over to the feds, suddenly confess their crimes, and the feds give them complete immunity from prosecution.
	That never happens.
	The only people who get complete immunity out of the gate are people who are informants all along.
	That's who gets completed, and they disguise it as, oh, we just felt so pressured to do that because they came forward to that hogwash.
	So they're definitely hiding something.
	There's something about the identity of these individuals and who they are and who they are working for that is embarrassing to the Justice Department.
	But they need their information in order to convict everyone else of the seriousness of the conspiracy, but they need to hide who they are and what exactly they're about.
	And that's highly unusual, except for the historical pattern of when it's informants, infiltrators, assets of different kinds.
	And it's just the harder the media pushes this, as though the audacity and the shamelessness that it takes to even mention this in the same sentence as 9-11, it confirms my opinion that the MSM is in fact the enemy of the people.
	But the idea that they can even do that is shocking and suspicious.
	Like you say, okay, why are they trying to build this up so much?
	What is the practical purpose?
	And it slowly, like drip, drip, drip, starts to come out.
	You read these confessions or sentencing memoranda that they're forcing these literal grandmothers to draft in the hopes of getting some form of clemency, I don't know, favors from the court while sealing their own...
	Deal.
	What is it?
	Digging their own grave, basically, by admitting, I did it was wrong.
	I didn't know that it was wrong, but I realized now it was wrong.
	I didn't realize that all this violence was going on, but I realized that now I contributed to it.
	It is effectively damning every Trump supporter who was there with only peaceful means.
	And it does seem, the more we go along, it does seem very suspicious as to who instigated this.
	It's funny, not that we mentioned it at the time, but I think you did, Robert, and not to say you as in to point the blame.
	You as in to give the credit.
	And you mentioned the same thing in Whitmer.
	Now, for anybody who doesn't know, what's the latest in Whitmer?
	I did remember that one of the chief witnesses was determined to be the FBI informant who was then arrested on some other felony gun charge.
	Has there been any development in that?
	I know just that it was fully outed.
	That basically the whole idea, they had some dimwit Keystone cops, these nitwit kids who were infiltrated by a federal informant who came up with the idea, took almost all the lead action, all the responsible action to try to actually manifest this crazy Keystone cop theory, conspiracy to kidnap the governor and all these idiotic notions.
	Things that never actually, and almost everything that was done as an act in furtherance of the conspiracy was done by the federal informant.
	And he outed himself.
	That made the government mad.
	And so they indicted him on some separate charges because they were mad that he didn't play ball and keep his mouth shut and play the game the right way.
	So they do this all the time.
	Every case I've ever had, I've found some informant buried in it somewhere in the unindicted co-conspirator list.
	Sometimes put in the indictment.
	Sometimes they try to leave them out.
	The other dumb thing some of these guys were saying was like...
	Oh, the smart thing would be to not identify them in the indictment.
	Two big problems with that.
	One, they need the factual allegations of what these unindicted co-conspirators did to sexy up the case, to make the case of a conspiracy of any danger in the first place.
	So they can't leave them out, or they have to leave out key parts of the story.
	The second problem is, when I was a, well, I am a defense lawyer, one of the first things any good defense lawyer does is you look through things that are missing in an indictment that should be there that aren't.
	Or in a search warrant.
	I found a government informant right away in a search warrant because they thought my client didn't know something, so they left that information out because it would expose their informant, who, by the way, was the chief financial officer of the company in a tax case.
	And he's setting things up to get his client, get his boss into trouble to get himself out of separate trouble.
	The government does this all the time.
	But that's one of the first things I would do.
	So if I'm a defendant and...
	And you have a bunch of information from George in there, but you leave George out, I'm going to be real suspicious.
	So instead what you do is you say, hey, he's an unindicted co-conspirator.
	We haven't got to him yet.
	We're going to get to him down the road.
	You try to cover up the fact that they were an informant all along.
	You can also be an informant and be a criminal conspirator, of course, at any stage.
	One of their games they like to play is, well, when he was doing the criminal aspects, he wasn't doing it on behalf of the government.
	It was later on that he was working for the government or was in this other capacity he was working for the government.
	He exceeded his work contract, so to speak.
	Yeah, exactly.
	It's a massive effort to elicit false confessions from ordinary people who were not rioters, did nothing wrong.
	Those confessions will be used for Democrat propaganda.
	Hey, can't blame anybody for actually for thinking that or for having that reflex now because it's already happening in real time.
	It came out that there's 14,000 hours of film collected and they won't release hardly any of it to the public.
	Why?
	This is the worst event since 9-11.
	Shouldn't all of it be available for us to witness the horror of it?
	Or could it be because of what they found this week, which was the night before a major guy instigating trouble and giving this idea at a local rally turns out to have been a Fed.
	I mean, how many more of those are going to happen?
	And by the way, let's say there were no informants involved in any of this, or no informants that were working for the government at the time.
	The other implication of this is just as damning because it's that the feds knew all about this before it happened.
	How did it come about that they knew all this information of a unique threat and they reduced the level of security on January 6th?
	How did that happen?
	How is it that some of the film footage is showing other people entering that look like they're dressed in all black and don't look like Trump supporters who just showed up?
	How did that happen?
	How are there photos of cops opening the doors, opening security to make sure people could come in?
	Maybe that's the footage they're wanting to hide from everybody.
	I talked about this in the first ever...
	Hush, hush, at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	And what I did is I laid out, here's what you could probably see coming.
	It was an alternative theory, but that alternative theory keeps coming more and more and more true.
	And as you mentioned, only a stuck pig squeals.
	And the establishment's been squealing a lot this week.
	As much as they were a year ago, when...
	Another issue was the flavor of the day of opposition by the media, as much as they were six months ago when we're still living under the censorship of that incident.
	Now, Lil Panda Cub says, Viva, are they compounding felonies to make people plead guilty?
	I mean, I think the answer is yes, but Robert...
	Of course, you throw in conspiracy charges because those are vague and obscure and they can add all kinds of sentencing exposure to you.
	So yes, of course that's what they're doing.
	They're making their lives miserable to try to get as many as possible to confess for the crime of being a Trump supporter.
	That's what probably 9 out of 10 of them are in there for.
	There's 1 out of 10 that did something stupid that day that warrants criminal consequences.
	9 out of 10 did not.
	And they needed to exaggerate the significance and consequence of the event in order to support a political...
	Now, I'm bringing this up.
	The second half is judgment.
	The first half could otherwise be an arguable fair point.
	Videos used in trial are sometimes withheld because of the need of getting a jury.
	This attorney has no clue.
	I think a great many people will disagree with the second part.
	Two major problems with that theory.
	So one is the idea that video evidence could somehow contaminate the jury, and that's why they have to hide it from the rest of the world.
	Isn't body camera footage almost always demanded and released right away?
	How did that work in the Derek Chauvin case?
	Was Stephen objecting to the footage being released then?
	So were some of these other critics doing that?
	I don't remember that somehow.
	So that's why the government's doing it, because they're concerned about the impartiality of the jury in the Washington, D.C. jury pool, where there's a zero possibility of a fair jury?
	I don't think so.
	People, I know who I saw.
	On that response, Robert, I'm going to wholeheartedly agree with you, especially the idea that they're in Washington.
	The idea of tainting the jury pool, it might already be tainted even before any crime has taken place.
	And if there's 14,000 hours of footage, it's not all 14,000 hours that is going to be relevant to avoiding contaminating a potential jury pool when these people, by and large, tend to be pleading already.
	So I don't think that point holds water, but that's my personal opinion.
	That's not a cowboy.
	That's actually a sculpture, a mini version of Rodin's sculpture of The Thinker.
	Beautiful.
	Now, do we have anything more on this, or do we move on to another issue of compounding felonies to coerce a settlement?
	Yes.
	Nothing more on Jan 6?
	No, that covers it for now.
	But great, shout out to Julie Kelly, Darren Beatty, Lee Smith, all of whom are doing great work on this and have stuck with their guns despite people, especially what annoys me is all these legal establishment people coming so arrogantly, contemptuously, snobbishly, saying this is laughable, this is a joke, this is ridiculous.
	People who are, in some cases, overtly lying.
	In other cases, they're just not that skilled at what they think they're skilled at doing.
	None of them have my success rate, frankly.
	I'll respect a criminal defense lawyer who's won a lot of cases, who has an alternative theory, but you don't hear any of those people saying these things.
	It's the media lawyer types, the Dan Abrams of the world who've never done a case in their lives, to my knowledge.
	Those are the people yipping and yaying, and they have a long history of being wrong.
	In fact, usually the louder they sound, the more likely that what they're objecting to is actually true.
	Well, and look, it was called in the Gretchen Whitmer.
	It came true, if only to degree.
	So if anyone wants to argue as to whether or not it came totally true, the predictions, it came true.
	The only question is whether or not it was 100% accurate prediction, 50%, whether or not it was only one of the six criminals who was an undercover federal, whether or not it was three of the six, whether or not it was the material three of the six.
	It came to fruition to the point where people should, if they disagree with you, Robert, Disagree with you, but they should be quiet and listen and then come to their own conclusions.
	Because your track record on a few things has been impeccable because they were unlikely predictions at the time.
	But this revolt against anybody who suggests the obvious is itself obvious.
	I mean, Andy McCarthy started out by gaslighting everybody that James Comey was going to indict Hillary Clinton.
	That was my first interaction with him.
	And I kept saying no.
	I was like, if they don't indict her by November, they sure aren't indicting her after she's the nominee.
	And he kept saying, no, no, I'm a federal prosecutor.
	I understand all these things.
	No, he doesn't.
	He's either, like I said, he's either an idiot or a liar.
	Either way, he's not trustworthy.
	And now, speaking of another incident of compounding felonies to coerce a settlement, it is one that disappointed me.
	Like I say, it's not my decision to make.
	It's not my pressure to live under.
	But I feel it sets a very bad precedent for everybody involved.
	And for anybody who doesn't know the 30,000 foot overview, go watch the videos, but I've done a number of vlogs on it.
	They were the ones who garnished, who brandished firearms at a group of BLM protesters who broke through a private gate.
	That wasn't disclosed at the time.
	They were just peacefully walking, according to some, but then the evidence came out that they broke through a private gate onto a private street on a very wealthy, affluent private neighborhood looking for the mayor's house.
	Mark and Patricia Molkowski came out, one with a big gun and the other one with a little gun, pointed at the crowd, crowd dispersed or walked past.
	They were indicted on, I think it was felony gun charges of brandishing a firearm, displaying a firearm in an aggressive or intimidating manner, whatever, subsection four of that provision.
	In the context of that prosecution, Kim Gardner, the circuit attorney who's prosecuting, Use that case to raise money for her re-election.
	The investigator disassembled the pistol, reassembled it so that it was functional so they could charge Patricia McCloskey.
	Kim Gardner was subsequently taken off the case in a decision which she tried to appeal but was confirmed on appeal.
	She was removed.
	Special prosecutor was appointed.
	Everything looked like it was going the way of pure vindication, possibly with a case for malicious prosecution.
	And what does Mark and Patricia McCloskey do last week?
	They plead guilty to a misdemeanor gun charge of...
	I didn't really understand that it's causing discomfort by pointing a gun or something along those lines.
	I was flabbergasted only because of the reputation of Mark McCloskey, who apparently, from the internet world, has a reputation of being highly litigious, potentially unpleasant neighbor for those reasons.
	He's running for Senate, so that might have come into play, but he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor and says it's a victory because we just have to pay a fine, forfeit those two particular firearms.
	And then we can go on with our day.
	My take, I don't know how to materialize it.
	I don't know how to describe it or what the alternatives could be.
	I feel there's something more going on in the background that we don't know, but I don't know what that could be.
	I would say, but for their political aspirations, that their decision is a decision that most people would make.
	I was talking with someone last week about the Amy Cooper case, and they were like, well, why not go forward with the trial and everything else?
	And I'm like...
	I got a complete dismissal with prejudice in a case that was being led by three investigators who are the cold case division of the New York Police Department, three of the toughest investigators in the world, the prosecutor who just put Harvey Weinstein in prison for life, basically, one of the top toughest prosecutors in the country, in a New York criminal court system where the local city court judges are appointed by the mayor who has publicly attacked my client, in a New York Manhattan jury pool that is going to be a lynching kind of jury pool for a case like this.
	The winning the virtue signal to the world.
	And I got complete dismissal with prejudice with no plea deal of nothing, no diversion, no nothing.
	But it's underappreciated that kind of outcome because people don't understand how often most people will plead to even something they didn't do to avoid the worst consequences when they have the guillotine right at the back of their neck.
	And the problem that McCloskey's faced.
	They have still a St. Louis jury pool.
	It's going to be a Democratic, liberal-leaning jury pool.
	They have a judge that might be decent, but not likely to be spectacular, given, again, it comes from a Democratic constituency.
	And so you have to face that reality, and there's at least a risk of conviction.
	And if you're convicted on the felonies, you might have the governor pardon you, as he's promised to do, but he'll need to still be governor when that occurs.
	No guarantee that that takes place.
	So stop right there.
	That was one hypothesis.
	Someone said they're going to get a pardon.
	Which didn't make sense to me, but when could the governor issue the pardon?
	Is it like president up until his last day, or is it up until the day he is beaten in an election?
	No, it would be up to his last day.
	However, in Missouri, there's no preemptive pardons, unlike the U.S. government.
	So he can only pardon post-conviction.
	That's why he hadn't pardoned yet.
	So there's a bit of a gamble for them that maybe they're not convicted until after he's out of office.
	Now, he's probably going to get reelected, but again, it's a risk you have to put on there.
	It's because they're lawyers that they understand these risks very well.
	But could they not, if he doesn't get reelected, could they not have pleaded then?
	Or would that offer not necessarily have been on the table then?
	Right.
	That's absolutely the case.
	That offer may have been quickly revoked.
	So a special prosecutor had been assigned the case, but usually what their job is to do in a case like this is to cover their path.
	They do not want to confess and admit.
	I've had a bunch of cases where I've got, like the Cooper case, complete dismissals.
	But those are extremely rare.
	That requires you have to turn up the pressure so hot that they think their only solution is to get out of the room.
	Most of the time they look at this as they want a plea to something to cover everything their fellow prosecutors did, that their fellow policemen did, or a grand jury in some cases did.
	That's their instinct.
	They almost never want to capitulate by giving a straight dismissal.
	They hate, hate, hate doing that.
	And usually there's something behind the scenes when that happens.
	So here, I think they were just, it may be the case that they saw their trial exposure based on facts we don't know.
	But I don't think that, the only reason to think that is, this is a very logical decision to make, except for the fact that he has political ambitions.
	However, it may be the case he was using his political ambitions to pressure the prosecution, rather than actually be, because he hadn't shown much political aspirations before this case.
	So a smart lawyer.
	Might use and say, you know, I'm going to run for the Senate on this case.
	And he says, I'm going to make sure there's a lot of attention brought to this case.
	So think long and hard about how you're going to do this.
	And it may be the case that he doesn't pursue that much.
	It will tell you where he is six months from now.
	It will tell you how much he was just using a smart legal strategy rather than really wanting to pursue politics.
	Because you're right.
	That's where this damages him the most.
	Because he pled, there will be a depressing effect on his potential vote.
	But to be honest with you, knowing who else was running, he was highly unlikely to win.
	So that's where I suspect, and again, it'd just be a smart legal move, he was using political public office as a way to leverage this deal, which was for him a very good deal.
	These are minor misdemeanors, no effect on his bar license, no effect on his gun rights, no real effect on anything.
	Tiny fine, and you're completely out of this.
	And the other side, what they want out of this is to save face.
	So like I told people in the Snipes case, the only upside to them doing a compromise verdict, nine of them wanted straight acquittals, three wanted some convictions, so they gave him a few misdemeanors, was if he'd got all acquittals, they would have come back after him again somehow, because that would have been too damaging.
	And they've done this repeatedly in cases where somebody gets acquitted of something and they come back on them on something else.
	Just look at how they've treated Trump.
	They try to find this on him so that doesn't work, then they go to something else, and they go to something else, and they go to something else.
	And so he would know that.
	So he would know that his case was so hot that something that saved face for the prosecution means it's all done and he's clear.
	So he made the practically, pragmatically sound decision.
	It's not something that James O 'Keefe would do.
	As James O 'Keefe pointed out, his great regret is taking that plea deal.
	He will never bear false witness against himself.
	Well, that answers, and to make sure that that's clear for everyone, because that clarifies it for me, is the offer that he got, this is like deal or no deal.
	Take the deal, pick another, or no deal, pick another briefcase.
	Oh, what your briefcase is, the governor just got beaten in an election, and you know that your trial's not coming up before he's out of office.
	Well, now your misdemeanor plea just went to whatever, you know, a lesser felony.
	Now I totally understand that.
	There's a part of me that thinks maybe if the political aspiration is in fact genuine, that maybe pleading guilty he thinks will garner him some support with the political other side.
	I think he knows it hurts him.
	He seems pretty sound.
	Personal injury is not in the criminal defense space, but a pretty smart lawyer.
	And he's played this pretty well because a lot of other people would have been railroaded.
	And if I were watching the Derek Chauvin trial, obviously a very different case, but it has some constituent components of it.
	For example, you have people like Tim Pool predicting there's no chance for Kyle Rittenhouse.
	Now, that case is going to be different because I have a personal say in how it's going to be different.
	I understand that reaction.
	The reaction to the Chauvin verdict is, wow, nothing's going to matter.
	They're just going to railroad anyone.
	And the problem is the jury pool.
	The St. Louis jury pool would not have been a favorable jury pool for them.
	What they gave the special prosecutor was a way to save face, to say, look, hey, I got convictions that they admit they did wrong, got them to forfeit the guns.
	I got what I needed for political cover without any risk.
	He gets to pay a small fine, pay and serve no time.
	Doesn't have any risk with his law license.
	Doesn't have any risk with gun ownership.
	It's a win-win situation.
	It's unfair to have to be in that situation, but it's what you face when you're facing the power of criminal prosecutors.
	It's shocking to me how everything was shocking, how not only was this happening, but Kim Gardner was effectively escaping any sort of reprimand or repercussions.
	She's getting her comeuppance in another case.
	We'll see where that goes.
	But I was flabbergasted when they pleaded guilty.
	You know, McCloskey's tweets were sort of that trying to save face, but, you know, you can't save face in that stage.
	But now I very much understand.
	I understand the plea deal, given the politics, because, yeah, I took for granted that that deal would always be on the table for long enough for the pardon to always be in play.
	But no, and that changes a lot, especially with his law license, because apparently, tell me if this is right, it was in a CBC Associated Press article pleading guilty to a misdemeanor.
	He does not run the risk of losing his law license, but a felony he does.
	Yeah, almost none.
	I mean, if he gets a felony, it's a major problem.
	Misdemeanor, there's always risk with misdemeanor, but very, very, very low risk.
	And here's the other problem.
	Nick Riccato also did a good broadcast on this as well.
	And is that even a pardon doesn't necessarily solve his gun issues or solve his bar licensure issues.
	He could still be disbarred based on the factual findings of the jury, despite the pardon, and he could still lose his gun rights or it would take him years to get him restored, even with a pardon.
	So that's why a pardon only prevented criminal punishment.
	It didn't necessarily solve his other issues that he might face.
	And John Doback asks, would you, Viva, or Barnes say justice was done?
	Oh, no.
	He never should have been charged.
	Never should have been.
	A disgrace that he was ever charged.
	And the whole, everything about it was a disgrace.
	But it tells you how even special prosecutors work.
	They think, how do I say face, not how do I get justice?
	And seeing in sites, seeing sites says, don't forget that Kim Gardner got financial backing from Soros.
	This is not a controversial or discriminatory thing to say, people.
	This is now recognized fact.
	And McCloskey was playing it hard on Twitter afterwards.
	That might salvage some points, but I think a lot of people feel miffed.
	But I think...
	Look, I didn't feel personally miffed.
	I just was shocked.
	I understand it now, and I think anybody who watches this segment will be more forgiving on McCloskey's decision than I was inclined to be before we did this.
	You know what?
	Good segue.
	Never bear false witness on thyself, which was James O 'Keefe's...
	Only regret, he said, if he could even say it like that, which was when he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor.
	Where was it?
	Was it in Louisiana, right?
	Oh, yeah.
	Eastern District of Louisiana.
	Great.
	Baton Rouge in New Orleans.
	James O 'Keefe pleaded guilty for a misdemeanor.
	I forget what it was.
	Entering a federal building under a false pretext.
	It's the most popular sidebar we've done to date, so we're going to break 100,000 views sooner than later, excluding Rumble.
	By the way, we're also streaming on Rumble for anybody who is interested on that.
	So it was an amazing live stream and it was an amazing sidebar, but the substantive element of the discussion related to the New York Times lawsuit where they filed a memoranda in opposition to the New York Times memoranda to stay the proceedings because everybody knows they're suing the New York Times.
	New York Times filed a motion to dismiss, which was itself dismissed.
	New York Times then filed a defense.
	And then filed a motion to appeal and a motion to stay the proceedings pending the appeal.
	O 'Keefe wants to proceed to depositions, which is part of the object of the stay, and they filed a response saying, nowhere in the anti-slap laws does it say you stay the proceedings or pleadings for the duration of an appeal of a dismissal of a motion to dismiss.
	First question that someone had asked, and I didn't know the answer.
	Which judge is going to hear or render judgment on whether or not there is a stay of the proceedings both on the interim motion and on the appeal itself?
	Is it the trial judge or the appeals judges?
	Well, first it'll be the trial court judge, then it'll be the appeals court judges.
	Okay, so explain that.
	So now they've asked a trial court judge to stay his proceedings pending their appeal to the court.
	He says no, carry on.
	Then what?
	They appeal that or they just ask the court of appeal?
	Yeah, it's the Court of Appeals, then, to stay it.
	Okay, so the first judgment that we're going to see, if it hasn't already come out, is going to come from the lower court, the federal judge who, not the federal, I'm sorry, the state judge, who dismissed their motion to dismiss.
	Right, right.
	Okay, and now, as far as you understand, under anti-slap laws, you know, James O 'Keefe and their attorneys say that there's no case law that grants a stay of the pleadings of the depositions pending an appeal of the dismissal of a motion to dismiss.
	Are they right or are they wrong, or is there a gray zone in there?
	In New York, they're right.
	But the caveat to that is that New York's anti-slap statute was really weak and was rarely a major factor in a case until they changed it last year.
	So in other jurisdictions, it depends on the jurisdiction.
	In many jurisdictions, the anti-slap laws explicitly provide for an appeal pretrial and a stay of discovery pending that appeal.
	In my view, their best argument is the fact that even though other states have that law, within the law, New York State chose not to include that, which means that, in my view, the New York Times' argument is very, very weak on the law.
	Now, they're trying, and that may be why the New York Times is trying to threaten O 'Keefe's lawyers with outing letters they've written in other cases.
	If they use information that shows the New York Times as being disingenuous in this case.
	Now, the reason why that could be effective is because some of James O 'Keefe's lawyers, I believe in this case, are the people representing Dominion.
	They're very political lawyers out of the D.C. area.
	So they're the kind of people who, frankly, you can intimidate.
	You saw some of his frustration.
	There's lawyers willing to help James that won't get intimidated.
	And he has some of them in the CNN case.
	Harmeet Dillon, we'll get to a later case.
	Harmeet Dillon, Ron Coleman, who are also part of a great case against Twitter that we'll get to.
	But that was the other component.
	It was shocking, though.
	The New York Times would not be resorting to those kind of coercive, extortionate, blackmailish threats if their legal position was sound.
	They know their legal position isn't sound.
	They're just hoping because they're the New York Times, some court will interfere with the proceedings and not allow it to go to discovery because they know how damning that discovery will be, especially when it's James O'Keefe participating in it.
	It's not scotch, by the way.
	It's something else.
	It tastes like Earl Grey tea.
	And it's a special type of gin.
	But there's a lot of ice cubes in there, just so nobody thinks that I have a...
	So no one judges too harshly.
	There were three big ice cubes.
	It's a small glass.
	Okay, so extortion.
	A lot of people are saying what they're doing is extortionary, extortive.
	In Quebec, you know, slapping without prejudice or privilege and confidential does not make it so.
	So I presume that it's the same thing in the States, you know, unless it's relating to settlement discussions.
	In Quebec, those are privileged, maybe not elsewhere.
	Doing what they said they were going to do is itself not illegal or extortionary or unethical.
	But threatening to do it under the guise of coercing a settlement or coercing an agreement itself may not be illegal, but it could be borderline unethical.
	Are we nearing that territory in the States or is the procedure law different that this might actually just be outright, objectively unethical, coercive, extortionary?
	Put it this way, if it was a lawyer representing an underdog person, that accusation would be already made to the courts, and the courts would be inclined to grant it.
	So now, unfortunately, this area of law tends to be selectively enforced against underdog lawyers.
	They let big people get away with it all the time.
	But it's definitely borderline.
	Definitely borderline.
	All right, well, we're going to see what the update is with that.
	Incidentally, full disclosure, I did not realize that the Fox journalist was on Tim Pool the night that we were doing the live stream with Chief.
	And what a world and what a fortunate existence it is that my concerns now or problems now are actually conflicting with one of the biggest live streamers on YouTube.
	It's an unrealistic thing to coordinate everybody's schedule, so I can only apologize when it happens, but we can't coordinate that.
	It's not possible.
	So we're going to see.
	There's going to be a judgment coming sooner than later.
	I will sure as sugar be doing an update on that.
	What do we go into now?
	I think we've got to go into the one, Robert, that has blown my mind.
	The vault's seizure.
	I'm going to make a mistake on the parties because I forget now who seized the vault as part of a...
	What's it called?
	Not an indictment.
	What's the word I'm looking for?
	The document pursuant to which they seized...
	Search warrant.
	Search warrant, sorry.
	Who are the parties in this case?
	The defendant is a private vault company.
	Not the defendant, I'm sorry.
	The object of the seizure is a private safety security box company.
	I don't think it's a bank because I think it's a private institution.
	They were the object of search warrants.
	I don't know if they were federal or...
	No, it was federal.
	They came in and the warrant authorized the seizure of the assets of the vault company.
	I think it's called USPVT or something, whatever.
	The vault company.
	The warrant authorized the seizure of the assets of the vault company.
	The vault company is in the business of holding safety security vault boxes for their customers.
	The feds came in and seized not only the assets of the private vault company, which I guess would be documents, you know, whatever that they have, but all or a lot of vaults of patrons.
	They seized the vaults.
	From what I understand of the proceedings, Despite not having the authorization to do so, they seized them.
	They opened them.
	They emptied the items into something of an unidentifiable mess where you can't really even segregate what itemized what was in what person's vault.
	After having seized it unlawfully, opened it unlawfully, and sounds like the word is confused in French, but confounded it together with other assets, they then proceeded to civil forfeiture of those assets.
	Against the owners of the vaults that were vaulting, keeping their prized items at this company.
	And what was it?
	Something like, is it $80 million worth of stuff that they seized under these civil forfeiture provisions?
	If I made any mistakes there, it's only on the names, I think.
	It's the most shocking thing I've ever read in my life.
	I don't care that some of these people might happen to be mobsters or whatever.
	That's just supposition, you know, who hides millions of dollars in a vault in a bank.
	I don't, not me.
	I don't have that to hide in the first place.
	There was poker chips, gold, jewelry, yada, yada, yada.
	You need to explain what civil forfeiture is to anybody who doesn't understand it before we can get into this.
	Yeah, so it's a misapplication of law, and it's because Scalia actually screwed up on this case.
	They've carved out exceptions.
	I mean, you can't see somebody's property without a whole bunch of constitutional limitations.
	You can't search.
	For someone's property without a bunch of constitutional limitations, except often in the civil forfeiture context, where they've carved out exceptions that make zero sense.
	And they've done so for practical reasons because they wanted to help wage the war on drug dealers.
	And they wanted to preclude drug dealers from having the economic means of procuring good counsel.
	Because when they were procuring good counsel, the Roy Blacks of the world, the governments were getting exposed a lot, and these defendants were walking a lot.
	So it was in the beginning then is when we expanded our interpretation of civil forfeiture laws to basically allow the government to seize your stuff and you have to go through this difficult, onerous process to prove that you're legally entitled to it.
	And they know that often when they raid certain facilities, a whole bunch of people are not going to come forward for obvious reasons.
	They don't want to say, oh yeah, that's definitely mine.
	When, you know, let's say it wasn't on a tax return or it wasn't on a...
	You know, bank statement or it wasn't on.
	Or is it something you're not supposed to have?
	You know, so they know that and they get away with it.
	They get to just steal in mass.
	So, but this case is the most egregious.
	And they fought back with a very good class action because they went through all the different constitutional rights that got violated.
	The first is the Fourth Amendment because the warrant itself...
	Specifically said they were not supposed to seize customers' materials.
	Now, the government likes to do this a lot.
	There's something called specificity and particularity to constituent components of the Fourth Amendment probable cause requirements that limit the scope of warrants.
	And this is because back, I don't know if Canada does it this way, but during colonial times, you could do a general search.
	So you were given a search warrant to just go search this whole property.
	And you could search for whatever you want, and you could seize whatever you want.
	This was the most hated thing about the way searches were done.
	And this is why the Fourth Amendment not only had a probable cause limitation, but it said no more general warrants.
	You had to, with specificity and particularity, identify, limit what could be searched and limit where it could be searched.
	Here, it was limited that they could not search even within these other safe deposit boxes, and they could not seize those items, yet they did it anyway.
	You're on mute.
	You're still on mute.
	Alright.
	Yeah, I'm an idiot.
	No, it's not.
	The warrant says what it says according to the allegations and I don't assume that the allegations are wrong on that as a matter of fact.
	But then it's like, okay, good.
	Hey, it's like, yeah, we know what it says.
	Now go screw yourself.
	We're going to do it anyhow.
	And by the time you get to court, it's all, you know, everything's all left up in any case.
	We've got it.
	We've opened them.
	We know what you have.
	There may be issues of...
	You know, the fruits of a poisonous tree or the spoiled fruits of the tree.
	If they find evidence of criminality among the patrons of this vault company, I don't know what happens then.
	But what they're doing is they're forcing people to come forward.
	So those people are going to have to come forward and prove their entitlement to it.
	Those admissions can later be used against them.
	Even though the evidence seized couldn't, their admissions in a court filing can.
	This is the game they play with civil forfeiture.
	This is why they get away with it.
	I mean, I was alerted to this over 20 years ago.
	I was at a conference at Howard University that was filled with a lot of commies, to be honest with you.
	But there were some interesting people there, and they brought up that this was happening systematically in rural counties in Kentucky, late 90s, that your local sheriff was figuring out, you know, I kind of like that truck down there.
	Found an excuse to seize it, believing that the people connected to the truck might not be in a legal position to claim it.
	And so it was becoming a money-making operation for local small-town sheriffs.
	The feds have just taken it and applied it to a whole different scale.
	But the other problem is, under their Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, you're required to return property, even if you legally seized it.
	This is why, under search warrants, you have a right to file a certain motion for return of seized properties.
	They're not allowed to keep it, except under limited circumstances, including a probable cause standard that they have not met yet.
	They're trying to force feed these people into the administrative process that requires them to make incriminatory admissions in order to try to even possibly get their property back and delay its return in the interim.
	And they're wisely identifying that that itself is a Fifth Amendment violation because it's the retention of property.
	Even if they had legally seized it, they've illegally retained it.
	And it's a very good suit.
	It's brought by a public interest organization that does these kinds of Fourth and Fifth Amendment cases.
	Very good class act.
	I think it's 80 pages, something like that.
	It was long, and they went over the various charges.
	It's just the fact pattern is mind-blowing.
	The fact pattern is one where you say, where is my stuff safe in the context of an abusive government?
	Not a safe deposit box.
	There are some places, folks.
	But that's more for private counsel as to where and how you can keep property from snooping and sneaking eyes and stealing, thieving governments or citizens.
	Yeah, or the alternative.
	Don't do it at a safe deposit box company.
	Not safe.
	Bank safe deposit box.
	Not safe.
	Now, you have banks.
	Banks have vaults and banks have safety deposit boxes.
	This particular object of the warrant, is it a private company?
	It's a private company.
	It's not a federal company.
	It's a company that's inviting scrutiny.
	Because, hey, we've got a special safe deposit box system set up that's going to have all this secrecy, and the feds are going to be looking at that right away.
	Never trust a mass-marketed company.
	Mass-marketed company, they may mean well, but they're going to draw the wrong attention very, very quickly.
	Well, and some might say they might objectively draw the wrong clientele to begin with, where you might not be storing the same things in a bank vault that you'd be storing in this place.
	I don't know.
	I'm just hypothesizing out loud.
	I almost bought a bank building years ago because then it would have been under attorney-client privilege because it had a huge vault that could have little deposit boxes in it.
	I ended up not doing it.
	But yeah, it's absolutely possible that that was the intention.
	There's allegations that a lot of storage centers do that because they're a popular place for criminals to stash.
	It's surprising.
	I almost represented one of the biggest alternative product distribution.
	And I was surprised at some of the methods he used that were the safest.
	So it does invite targets, but that doesn't allow them to do what they're doing.
	This is just flagrant Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations.
	And if they get away with this, then you're absolutely right.
	Nothing is safe legally from the government doing whatever they want whenever they want.
	And Lil Panda says, didn't they use two different police?
	One threw everything on the floor, other walks in and says, wow, I need to seize this, so only one police gets the slap.
	I don't know that detail enough, Robert.
	Do you know?
	We only know some of the details, because right now we only know the details from the government's version of events, because we don't know actually what took place inside the seizure.
	We just know how the police reported it.
	What's amazing to me is that the police opened the vault boxes, they intermingled the stuff.
	And then they civilly forfeatured it.
	I mean, civil forfeiture is a shocking concept.
	I never knew of it until I started doing this and everyone was like, Viva, what do you think of civil forfeiture?
	We have something like it out in Canada.
	I've never seen it in practice because I never did criminal in the first place.
	Never saw it in civil.
	It's shocking.
	But 80 million bucks of stuff just seized.
	And now, if some of it is the fruits of questionable practices, come forward and claim it.
	And just let us know where you live and what your social security number is right there.
	Oh, shocking.
	Okay, so...
	Well, we'll see where that goes.
	I mean, what's going to happen?
	The defendants are fighting with taxpayer dollars and even if they lose, they pay out with taxpayer dollars.
	Yeah, I mean, to a certain degree, but it would be key to get constitutional protection and constitutional remedy.
	They're not really seeking damages as much as they're seeking return of the property and the presidential establishment that they can't do this in the future.
	So that's, I think, the key aspect.
	And it does often matter.
	I mean, I brought the biggest Bivens class action against the IRS in its history when they did something kind of similar.
	They seized 60 million medical records of more than 10 million Americans, including Screen Actor Guild, Writers Guild, Directors Guild, Major League Baseball players, every judge in the state of California.
	These were records that had, people would be surprised that Obama's digitization of medical records might have had another intended benefit, which is, you know, let's say you want to know what Woody Allen sold his shrink last week.
	Those records, those kind of records, let's say hypothetically, might have been in there.
	But I brought a big class action to fight it when no one else had.
	Everyone else had just said, I can't do anything about it.
	They had been doing this systematically for two years the time I brought the suit.
	But we got a couple of congressional investigations, big media coverage.
	They folded, capitulated, returned all the records, deleted any evidence that they had of it.
	And some of the key personnel involved got...
	Moved to some very undesirable locations before they resigned.
	So they joined the Barnes former employee resignation list.
	But so it often has benefits.
	So I think it's fantastic that they're bringing the case.
	And by golly, I hope it wins.
	And we got J-Bett says, they recorded the old lady's gold coins as miscellaneous.
	Misc.
	Disgusting.
	Now, everyone, this is a metaphor.
	The term being used.
	Thumbs up, everyone.
	Viva and Barnes are incinerating the deep state.
	Incinerating.
	Did I mention incinerating?
	I hope that doesn't get it.
	Metaphor, non-literal.
	All right, Robert, I guess it's a good segue.
	Speaking of precedent or the absence of precedent, do we start with Obamacare or do we go to the...
	Oh, geez.
	What was the other one?
	Oh, I'm going to lose track.
	There's several different ones.
	There's a Federal Weapons one.
	There's the Religious Charities one.
	And there's the Nestle Child Slaver.
	They issued four decisions this week, the Supreme Court.
	Which one was the one that did not adjudicate on Smith?
	It was the Religious...
	Yeah.
	Oh, yes.
	That was the Bakery.
	Okay.
	So, the Bakery guy is back in the media.
	I mean, he's back in the media.
	He's back in the courts.
	That's a separate case.
	That wasn't even before the Supreme Court, the Bakery guy.
	Okay.
	Which one is the one where they did not distinguish?
	Adoption.
	Philadelphia adoption.
	Okay.
	Sorry.
	There's too much.
	There's too much, and I spent the better part of the weekend reading.
	The Philadelphia adoption case, not complicated.
	It's adoptions in Philadelphia, the state, or the Philadelphia city uses various, call them intermediaries or partners for adoption purposes, not just religious institutions, all sorts of institutions, including religious institutions.
	And what ended up happening is that the church institution that was one of the partners of Philadelphia for the purposes of finding foster parents said because of religious reasons, they're not going to certify or train gay couples.
	Feel however you want to feel about that.
	That was what happened.
	I don't know who took the suit, but someone took the suit against the church arguing discrimination.
	I think it's CADA is the acronym, but I forget what it stands for.
	I think it's one of the big Catholic agencies.
	Okay, so the basic, you know, this is a straightforward fact pattern.
	Arguing discrimination, they won't certify us.
	They, specifically this church or diocese or whatever it is, will not certify us.
	But there are alternatives for us to get certified if we want to become adoptive parents, which is going to be the determinant thing in this case.
	Goes all the way up to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court unanimously, I mean, I had to watch Grueler on this.
	I watched Robert Grueler, everybody.
	Check him out, he's amazing.
	Hold on, I'm losing my nose here.
	That has nothing to do with gin.
	That is allergies.
	So my nose is running.
	Robert Guler did some great work on it.
	Nick Ricada also helped me understand it.
	9-0 decision where they basically say this is a contractual dispute or this is unique to the two entities to the extent that they can find other people or other institutions through which to get certified or adopt.
	It's not a discriminatory issue and we are not revisiting.
	I don't know what the first part of the decision was.
	The Smith decision.
	Which was apparently a bad decision in the history of SCOTUS.
	And instead of revisiting it, the principle of that decision was that a law of general application does not need to be subject to strict scrutiny if it affects religious people because it applies to everybody.
	And if it, you know, incidentally affects religious people specifically, it's not strict scrutiny that needs to apply.
	And, you know, apparently a bad decision and the SCOTUS avoided adjudicating or overturning that or reversing that.
	And they basically said...
	This is a unique case.
	Gay couples can get their kids from or get trained or get certified from another institution other than the church, so they're not being discriminated against.
	I guess now, Robert, what was Smith and why did the Supreme Court basically balk on this issue?
	So in 1990, the Supreme Court basically limited the protection for the right of religious expression in the First Amendment to solely and wholly a right against religious discrimination.
	So there was no longer any protection for religious expression.
	It was solely a right against religious-based discrimination.
	And it never made sense.
	It was a bad decision at the time.
	It's been made more apparent.
	They've created unmanageable doctrines that have allowed the states to come up with every possible conceivable means of discriminating.
	So that's what Philadelphia was using.
	And the way they got around it...
	In this case, was saying, well, really, this is a religious discrimination case, so we don't have to deal with it.
	That was their pretext.
	So it was a good decision, because the city of Philadelphia carved out exemptions and said you could exempt people from this rule, and then they refused to use it to the benefit of a religious group.
	So it ended up being a religious discrimination case that didn't have to get to the religious expression component.
	They should have used it as an opportunity to deal with religious expression.
	That was the question really before them that was certified.
	That's what was mostly briefed.
	And like they did in almost all of their cases, they ran around it and came up with their own solution that wasn't even the question before them because of the politics of the court.
	What has happened is there's effectively now a 3-3-3 court.
	You have Gorsuch.
	Alito and Thomas, who are on the conservative constitutionalist side of the equation and agree with each other about 90% of the time.
	You have the three Democrats, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, also agree with each other about 90% of the time on the secular liberal, mostly agree on the set ideology.
	But you now have a middle three, and two of those three are put on there by Trump.
	One of them I don't blame him for, one of them I do.
	As I forecast, To the consternation and criticism of a wide range of people on the right, it was always clear Kavanaugh was going to be part of the Roberts coalition because Kennedy only retired if Kavanaugh was his replacement.
	So I don't blame Trump for that one.
	Kavanaugh is still an improvement over Kennedy, even if he's just a little bit of an improvement over Kennedy because a Democrat would have otherwise replaced Kennedy.
	But all those people that went to bat for Kavanaugh when he was falsely accused, thinking he was this conservative icon, they should have known at the time, to be honest.
	But the egregious one was Barrett.
	And Barrett wrote one of the key concurrences with Kavanaugh, and then Breyer partially joined the concurrence.
	It's classic Breyer.
	He's like, I joined the third paragraph, but not the first.
	It's like, why even do?
	Don't sign on to it.
	But it's a bit of a shock how bad this is for the conservative.
	The Ben Shapiros, who championed Barrett, was very upset about this decision and the Obamacare decision.
	Well, maybe it's time to wake up, Benji.
	It's because Barrett was always going to be a Roberts type.
	She got onto the Supreme Court by the Roberts path.
	There were so many things in her life history that screamed she was going to be another Roberts.
	But it's a surprise because it's in religion.
	This is one of the few.
	Religion and guns was the two areas people thought she'd be good from a conservative or constitutional perspective.
	And the fact that she said, yeah, you know, this doctrine really doesn't make any sense, the Smith Doctrine, but it would be so difficult to come up with a new one.
	I'm not even really sure.
	So let's just avoid it.
	Very Robert-ish decision.
	And so it was sad, but predictable.
	I've never appreciated these things until now that I appreciate them.
	You're briefed on what is the question?
	What is the question we're adjudicating on in this case?
	It goes to the Supreme Court, not so the Supreme Court can merely vet, overturn, or confirm a lower court decision.
	Lower court being two lower courts.
	It's so that they can set the guiding precedent for other similar issues on national issues.
	What do they do?
	They basically say, yeah, this is not a religious question as to whether or not we have to get into this thorny issue.
	It's basically, I think we set up the facts for someone who wanted us to do the facts, but basically, a gay couple who wants to adopt, are their civil rights being violated?
	And does the institution have the religious right to say no because you have two conflicting rights?
	And they basically say, yeah, no, they can do it elsewhere, so not a big deal, and we don't have to adjudicate on the thorny issue.
	I mean, When do people keep faith in SCOTUS?
	They think that when Solomon said to split the baby in half that he meant it.
	That he wasn't just faking that to find out who really cared about the baby.
	They're just figuring out where do we split the baby?
	Because they're crafting political solutions that will be satisfactory in the Hamptons for their summer cocktail parties more than they are looking at philosophical, principled...
	And actually, you reminded me of something amazing there, just to break it back to Canadian law, and we'll get back to some more SCOTUS.
	But a federal court here, for the second time, confirmed the legitimacy of these quarantine hotels.
	And this was a lawsuit that Rebel News Network brought Ezra Levant.
	And it's the second time, not much of a surprise, because the federal court already said, you know, yeah, it's a logical connection to make...
	International travelers quarantined at a government hotel for $2,000 for three days before they go to the truth.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	But Ezra Levant, when he did a live stream on this, and if anybody who's following me does not also follow Ezra, go check out Ezra and Rebel News.
	They're doing the God's work in Canada.
	As far as news, you won't get elsewhere.
	He basically said, like, these judges, to some extent, seem more intent on preserving their relationship with the powers that be, with the club, with the old boys club, than preserving...
	The Constitution and the rights.
	Because in Canada, it was even more egregious.
	The quarantine hotel, I think, that edict expires or is not going to be renewed as of the 21st tomorrow.
	So the judge could have come down with the right decision and said these things were unjustified, no logical connection, yada, yada, yada.
	Didn't.
	And the feeling is that, you know, they don't because they want to maintain their relationships with their colleagues, with the political class of their infrastructure, with the government.
	And it smells like that's what's going on here, is that you have the SCOTUS saying, We don't want to tackle the tough questions, and we certainly don't want to make enemies within our political, cultural, social milieu.
	So let's find a way of making people happy without actually doing our jobs.
	And it's a common pattern, because it also happened in the Supreme Court's child labor and slave labor case.
	It also happened in the Obamacare case.
	So, you know, Ben Shapiro was a big fan of standing back in the election cases.
	Now, of course, he's whining, justifiably whining, but maybe should have realized that standing is a bad doctrine.
	It's not a constitutionally rooted doctrine.
	It hasn't existed until the last century or so.
	And it's nothing more than a Pontius Pilate pretextual doctrine so they can wipe their hands and say, oh, we wish we could get involved, but we can't somehow.
	Somebody finds standing for me in the Constitution.
	It says cases or controversies.
	How is there no case here?
	How is there no controversy here?
	They're merely seeking declaratory relief.
	And this is the third time in an Obamacare context they have found a way to weasel out of determining the constitutionality of the law.
	Because it's a confession that the law is not constitutional.
	They just don't want to say it.
	Let's get into this for anybody who was not politically, legally aware back when Obamacare was passed.
	What was the constitutional issue with Obamacare as it was passed?
	The individual mandate was not constitutional.
	That's not interstate commerce.
	That's demanding every American buy a private company product.
	That authority is nowhere in the Constitution.
	So their first solution was, well, we'll pretend it's a tax.
	So they changed the law to make it clear it can't be a tax.
	So I forget what the second challenge was, but this was the third challenge saying, look, now it's clear.
	It's got to be ruled unconstitutional.
	And they're like, yeah, but now we're going to just say nobody has standing to bring the case.
	And so it's just sad.
	And it's because this...
	Standing is designed for them to play Pontius Pilate and get out of politically tough cases.
	They don't want to rule that Obamacare is unconstitutional.
	And so that was the net effect.
	I mean, the left got a lot of hay out of Barrett being anti-Obamacare.
	As soon as she gets on the Supreme Court, she's one of the justices that saves it again.
	Well, so this is Beth Collington says, Viva and Robert, any chance?
	This is the SCOTA saying, no need to pack the cord.
	Look, we'll play ball.
	Just don't dilute us.
	So we go to Obamacare.
	The mandate, which now I know what the term mandate means in a much more meaningful sense because we've seen mask mandates, lockdown mandates, yada.
	Mandates are the government compelling the citizens to do something.
	Obamacare, they were compelling citizens to purchase private health insurance, setting aside the practicality, all of the economics of it.
	The mandate was compelling under penalty of law.
	What was the penalty at the time?
	Back in, what was it, 2008?
	The penalty was disguised as a tax.
	Now, the real reason the IRS was involved, in my view, was by having the IRS be the enforcement wing for Obamacare, it allowed the IRS, under the guise of tax enforcement, to gather up everybody's medical records.
	That's what nobody had put together.
	The IRS was going to have all your financial records.
	And all your medical records.
	And then they were going to be using AI new technology to be able to search it, devour it, find it out.
	I mean, I called it J. Edgar Hoover's wet dream of a blackmail file.
	I never even thought of that until now.
	I can't write that off as being...
	Conspiratorial, Robert.
	I mean, that's why I had to bring the Bivens action.
	And the government came after my client because he stood up for the rights of 10 million Americans.
	I mean, there were some interesting records in that file.
	I mean, you could just randomly search him and be like, wow, this would be incredible extortionate information for the government to have its hands on.
	That was an eight-year war with the government in that case.
	The prosecutor involved was also involved in Fast and Furious, but that's another story.
	So that gives some context for it, and that's why they've always known the core of Obamacare, which was this private mandate, this individual mandate to purchase private medical care, had no constitutional justification or explanation.
	And this is classic.
	Barrett made a big deal because she knew it would be popular within the right to say how she thought this was clearly unconstitutional.
	And some of us...
	Well, a few of us, frankly, only a few of us, were saying, no, she's going to follow Robert's path once she gets on there, and that's exactly what she did.
	And you're going to have to explain the rationale of how they got out of this, because first challenge was that it was unconstitutional because it mandated people to do something under penalty of law.
	Supreme Court back in the day says, this is where now I understand the activism accusations at the time.
	They basically said, out of whole cloth, We're going to interpret this as being a tax and not a mandate, which was subsequently argued about maybe overturned, whatever.
	This time around, third time around, the Supreme Court basically says there's no issue here because there's no penalty for not respecting the mandate.
	Therefore, nobody has standing.
	In essence, I mean, it's a long opinion that...
	Does a lot of gibberish to explain, because all of standing is bogus.
	I mean, it's like a long Pontius Pilate speech.
	I have to wash my hands this way for this long, extended, expanded, philosophical reason.
	That's all they're doing.
	It's nonsense.
	And to their credit, you know, Gorsuch calls it out.
	Alito calls it out.
	But, you know, it's classic.
	It means Obamacare is never going to get struck down.
	Is the short answer.
	If it's never going to get struck down, but there's no penalty for not respecting it, what's the actual practical consequence of all of this?
	Well, I mean, it already ran into trouble.
	So mostly the consequence is that they will revisit something like it again because they were able to get away with it without meaningful judicial remedy.
	That's the biggest risk.
	And the next time it may not be in a healthcare context, maybe in a totally different context.
	Okay.
	I mean, it's interesting and somewhat depressing.
	Now, the Nestle one, I have no knowledge about.
	Explain to the world, and I'll try to ask some moderately insightful questions if I can.
	Yes.
	So, I mean, there's some famous so-called liberal lawyers who are advocating for these corrupt corporations.
	Once again, the issue that was bending before the Supreme Court is not the one they ruled on.
	The issue before the Supreme Court is, are corporations exempt?
	From being held liable under various laws that hold an individual responsible for committing torts in foreign locations when it has a U.S. connection under certain circumstances.
	Alien tort statute is loosely what it's called.
	It's been on the book since the 1790s in some form.
	Instead, they decided to say, we're not addressing that question.
	Instead, we're going to say that...
	You can't bring the claim, period, because you're trying to apply it in a way that the law doesn't authorize.
	They basically shrunk the number of causes of action that you could possibly bring.
	The net effect of which was to expand immunity for committing bad acts overseas if you're in a politically preferred class, effectively.
	So Nestle is neck deep.
	And extraordinary levels of basically slave labor, human trafficking, child labor.
	They get a lot of their products made by them.
	And so the people that were victimized by it sued.
	Now, all the victimization, by definition, happened outside the United States.
	But Nestle is a U.S. company that's profiting from it and in part ordering it from the United States.
	So most people thought that wasn't even in doubt.
	And yet the Supreme Court comes in and says, nope.
	Nope, no right.
	You can't bring a claim.
	And this is where the liberals and conservatives gladly get together, because down deep, they're corporatists at heart, many of them, and say, you know what, we don't want to be expanding this statute to hold these people responsible for this kind of activity.
	I mean, morally, the consequences of the decision, whatever you think of the legal basis of it, the consequences are morally horrendous and the worst decision the court made this year.
	Okay, now, the underlying issue was whether or not Nestle as an international corporation could be held responsible for exploitation of children in other countries, given that they operate in the United States.
	Correct.
	And instead, they changed the question to whether anybody can sue anyone in the United States unless it fits a very limited set of categories of foreign violations.
	Basically, it's got to be piracy or something like that, or now you can't sue.
	It's amazing because in Canada, I guess it's not so recently, but we recently criminalized knowingly going abroad to do that which is illegal in Canada for certain types of offenses.
	I presume you have similar laws like that in the States.
	Not really.
	They're very, very limited.
	Like torture is one example, but they apply that in a limited context.
	Certain forms of terrorism, but they also try to limit that whenever they can.
	Certain kinds of sex crimes.
	But that they don't limit too much.
	But everything else, they really do.
	So the bottom line of this decision now is that Nestle, or any other company for that matter, can knowingly operate under conditions which would otherwise violate U.S. law and continue to operate and sell the products, the fruits of those exploitive illegal conduct in the U.S., but carried out elsewhere where they don't have the same rights, to their own corporate profit in the United States with impunity.
	And the only place you can sue is that corrupt jurisdiction that allowed it in the first place.
	That's what they're forcing you to do.
	Well, anyone out there looking for an excuse to not purchase Nestle, I think you just found it.
	But, you know, I've seen these boycotts.
	I don't promote boycotts, although I make my own decisions.
	Nestle, I know, has their hands in a lot of companies and a lot of products that most people do not ever have any full appreciation of.
	It's massive tentacles.
	Let's see, Nestle is a Swiss company.
	Well, that might explain a couple of things.
	Well, a Swiss company, but if you're operating in the United States and you're selling the fruits of illegal, what would otherwise be illegal conduct in the United States, it's a legit question.
	To me, they should be held responsible.
	I disagree with their...
	The original alien tort authorization, they've decided to call a jurisdictional statute.
	That's not what it was about.
	It was about you could sue in the United States if someone violated the law of nations.
	And that was pretty broad.
	It was to capture events like this.
	Somebody involved in something internationally renowned as morally horrific.
	And they just decided to gut the statute effectively.
	And it's not a shock that they all got together and did it.
	Because it's poor corporations.
	That's what unites all of them.
	There's nobody up there, frankly, that will consistently fight against corporate power.
	There's not a single justice who will do that, sadly.
	Alright, what's a good segue now, Robert?
	The last decision they made was actually quite a good one, which was about...
	Led by the liberals on the court, but it was making sure that reckless criminal acts wasn't defined as a deliberately violent act that has impacts for gun rights.
	And there's been an attempt to expand the criminal scope of what criminal laws could be used to the point that maybe a DUI or other things could be used to take away a wide range of rights, including gun rights and increased sentencing exposure.
	They made a good decision there to limit the scope of that ability.
	So that was a good thing to witness.
	But yeah, that's basically the quartet of decisions.
	Two, one decent decision, one good decision.
	One weak decision and one morally horrendous decision.
	But what the big sign is, is we really have a 3-3-3 court, which means that's more politically minded than philosophically directed and more establishment deferential than it is constitutionally driven.
	And so we'll get some occasional good decisions.
	On a select subset of issues, but we will not get consistently good decisions.
	But, you know, it doesn't mean that you never know when fighting back won't work.
	And in that capacity, great win this week for the state of Florida that was as much predicted.
	Go ahead.
	Oh, no, I was going to say, massive decision, 120-some-odd pages, thorough, remorseless, I guess is the one word.
	And on point in all respects.
	So everybody knows this was Florida versus the CDC about banning the cruise line industry, arguing that the rules they were imposing, arbitrary at best, ill-founded, and totally unscientific at worst, bypassed the notice and comment period that would otherwise be required when you issue a rule.
	CDC says we didn't issue a rule, we're just issuing guidelines that are, you know, basically shutting down an entire industry.
	They were referred to mediation.
	I forget now how they got back to the courts.
	Remember what we said at the time, was that the mediation, it was a sign from the judge that he was going to rule against the CDC.
	And if the CDC was smart, they would settle the mediation.
	They refused.
	They stuck their back up, refused to compromise really at all.
	And so it went right back to the judge because the CDC refused to settle.
	And what did the judge do?
	Exactly what we predicted.
	Whack them.
	I say, Robert, for everyone out there, he's not just smart, he's got a good memory too.
	Yes, effectively, a smackdown was not the word.
	The judge addressed every single...
	Tore him apart.
	120 pages of dissecting every single bad premise of their argument.
	And did not cop out on standing.
	Because apparently Texas and Alaska also filed motions to intervene and the CDC contested on standing as well.
	And one of the issues before the court was...
	The standing argument in the first place.
	Judge basically said, they're suffering clear and direct harm as a result of this.
	They have standing.
	And then on the substance basically said, there was no science to any of this.
	There was no logic.
	It was not circumscribed.
	It was not even revisited.
	It was issued months prior to before the situations changed.
	It was arbitrary, capricious.
	And the bypassing of the notice and comment period.
	Oh, sorry.
	Step before.
	This was, in fact, a rule being issued despite what the CDC said, and they bypassed all procedural requirements before enacting this rule.
	Smackdown from beginning to end.
	If I missed anything, let me know your ultimate takeaway.
	That it's another example that when these lockdown-related rules are tested in court, the governments cannot justify them at any standard of review by a competent, informed...
	Independent judge.
	Because the third time this has happened, third time the government's lost.
	I was going to say, unless you're in Canada where the judge says, yeah, being forced to stay in a quarantine hotel for three days at $2,000, there were other things you could do, but this is rationally connected enough to an actual risk to warrant it.
	And, you know, too bad.
	So now what happens?
	Because this is lower level.
	Well, first of all, what's going to be the...
	Oh, sorry, that's it.
	There was a stay.
	So this is where it got a little complicated.
	The judge issued a stay of his order until July 21st.
	Why?
	Is that so the CDC can basically save face and issue some rules that make sense?
	It was kind of a partial stay because he's like, as long as the CDC does this and this and this, then I will grant a stay until this time to give you an opportunity to come up with a different solution than the one I recommended.
	My view is that CDC will now capitulate and go away.
	I don't think they'll try to fight this on appeal.
	This decision was designed to be as bulletproof as any decision could be on appeal.
	It's already done them damage in other courts.
	It's just like, I mean, the Biden administration now has an extraordinarily losing record at almost every judicial level amongst almost every kind of jurist, regardless of their political appointment.
	So, I mean, they lost on the race-driven...
	COVID benefits for farmers, for bars, for restaurants.
	They lost on certain immigration provisions.
	They lost on this case.
	They lost on another related case.
	So they just keep losing.
	I don't think they want to contest this any further, given how detailed this ruling was.
	So I think they'll come up now.
	They'll get the first message the judge sent, which was settle and capitulate.
	Now they will go back and settle and capitulate, is my guess.
	All right, now, someone did mention that it appears our thumbs up are disproportionate to the views, so everyone hit the thumbs up.
	It doesn't really matter, but it's nice to see and drop a comment just to make the chat go crazy.
	Yeah, so, I mean, the appeal, the idea of appealing this decision, the rules in the states are, from what I understand now, the same here, that if it's a matter of law, the appellate court has more discretion or total discretion if it's a question of appreciation of the evidence.
	The lower court has to have manifestly erred its appreciation.
	That's similar to the states?
	Yes, it is.
	And here, what it is, is he anticipated every possible argument and took it apart legally and factually.
	So this would be the hardest kind of appeal to overturn.
	And I just don't see the 11th Circuit stepping in to do so.
	Not in this case.
	And I don't see the CDC trying to fight it.
	The CDC is, I mean, the Biden administration is now folded across the board.
	On those other cases, those race-driven COVID funding cases and capitulated on all of it.
	So congratulations to Stephen Miller and his group for winning that very quickly and very effectively.
	They win them, but the social fabric damage is done, where they've pitted Americans against Americans based on race, religion, gender, ideology.
	The damage is done, and good, the courts can undo it, and then the diehards on either side are going to say, oh, it's a political decision, and meanwhile, civil cohesion has been eroded by virtue of these activist policies that a woke government wants to implement.
	There was the issue.
	It made the news, and then it quickly dropped out of the news of a boat that everyone was required to be vaccinated.
	Everyone over 16, I believe.
	And they had two cases, and they were in quarantine.
	Robert, do you know what happened with that situation?
	Because I presume by virtue of the fact, fell off the map, nothing happened.
	That's the last I heard of it.
	If anybody in the chat knows, let us know.
	My sneaking suspicion is...
	Nothing happened.
	Much like when we had the protest in Montreal of 100,000 people and five people tested positive who came in on a bus from the Llanodière region.
	Nothing happened.
	And the left was upset and looking for reasons, blaming it on the wind, literally.
	A doctor said, I don't know, if there wasn't an outbreak, maybe the wind was blowing in the right direction and we got lucky.
	Literally, a doctor said that.
	Okay, segue.
	What do we get into next?
	We're almost low on time.
	Great.
	I think this was number two on the priority list on our Locals board, febabarnslaw.locals.com, which was the, I mean, number one was overwhelmingly about the January 6th cases, but number two was this great suit brought by Harmeet Dillon and Ron Coleman in California.
	You talk about having the receipts.
	They really have the receipts.
	Twitter, the state of California, conspired with the Democratic Party to conspire with Twitter.
	To censor the people they don't like politically.
	And they have document after document after document showing it.
	Who's the plaintiff in this case?
	Because for a second I thought it was Dr. Shiva, but it's not Dr. Shiva.
	No, no.
	It's a guy that was in California that had a pretty big social media standing.
	A lawyer, as I recall.
	And he was completely barred simply for raising basic questions about what happened in the election.
	And some of the points he made were just basic questions.
	I mean, they weren't even...
	Violations of Twitter's supposed rules at the time.
	But what happened was, it was someone who no complaints had ever been made about, or at least Twitter taking no action against, adversely.
	But the state of California created a special committee.
	This special committee gave private contracts to big Democratic consultants to flag Twitter items they didn't like in the name of election integrity.
	And they would go to Twitter, set up a special relationship with Twitter, where Twitter would do whatever these Democratic consultants demanded who were working at the behest and the behalf of the state of California.
	So you have clear, and they're also bringing back, I liked it, because it's the state of California, they're bringing back the Pruneyard Doctrine, trying to enforce it.
	This is a great case to test the Pruneyard Doctrine.
	The Pruneyard Doctrine is the one that says even private companies are subject to the First Amendment.
	If they have a de facto monopoly on the public square.
	And clearly Twitter does in this space.
	But here they have even better, they also have additional evidence that Twitter was acting as an agent of the state of California because they have the email path, they have the text records, they use variations of the Sunshine Laws in California, the same equivalent of the Freedom of Information Act.
	And they got incriminating information and admissions that showed the degree to which Twitter was just doing whatever the state of California threw their Democratic political consultant, who was retained, by the way, effectively in a no-bid contract by the Attorney General, who gave him a sweetheart deal, who is now a United States Senator from California.
	So it's extraordinary corruption and collusion between big tech and the state and a now United States Senator to censor speaks they didn't like concerning the election to protect.
	Check and hide whatever bad acts they did during the election.
	And not that, you know, this relates to Shiva because this was what Shiva had been saying, but maybe, I don't know if it was better substantiated in the California...
	Much better.
	I mean, nothing against Shiva.
	This is much...
	One, very good skilled lawyers in terms of Harmeet Dillon and Ron Coleman, and I think the Center for Liberty, I think is what it's called, which also did a lot of good work for churches.
	And on top of that...
	Great receipts.
	And on top of that, to be honest with you, a less controversial plaintiff.
	A plaintiff who has no history of issues, no questions, his statements really aren't that controversial, and they can just show a direct correlation and causation in cleaner and easier and neater ways than any other case I've seen, other than Bobby Kennedy's case that's pending against Facebook.
	So this is extraordinary evidence that I think this case has as strong a possibility of moving forward as any case to put an end to this big tech government collusion to censor dissident speech.
	For a practical purpose, how does any evidence or allegation or document adduced in that case, how can it be exploited or used by Dr. Shiva in his case?
	Can it or is there no practical way of doing it?
	Absolutely it can be.
	And it can be in Bobby Kennedy's case.
	So because, again, these evidence just keeps mounting and mounting and mounting and mounting of big tech who has basically been acting as an agent of the government.
	And that brings them within the First Amendment, even if nothing else purportedly does.
	Now, the Pruneyard Doctrine might also.
	This is a great case to test that in California and its vibrancy.
	But it's great at both of those.
	It's as clean a case as you could possibly have, as strong an evidence as you could possibly have.
	So credit to Harmeet Dillon and Ron Coleman for really putting together a great case.
	And can we just allow everyone out there in the interwebs and Ethernet to appreciate that all the time everyone's saying there's no collusion between big tech and the government.
	They're private companies.
	You lose that argument.
	You forfeit your right to that argument.
	And if you try to cling to it, it is as a result of either ignorance as to the newly disclosed facts or willful blindness as to those very same facts.
	It's undeniable and it's indisputable now.
	And so the only question is, will there be a legal loophole that would allow the defendants to weasel out on standing, on, you know, whatever, immunity, whatever.
	We know, as a matter of fact, that there is active coordination.
	We've seen it now between Zuckerberg and Fauci with the news that could not be spoken.
	And you don't need to be a rocket scientist.
	In a year's time, we're going to see the same pattern with the election fortification discussion.
	We are now seeing it in real time.
	And anybody...
	Clinging to this with desperation to say that, no, there's no collusion between big tech and government.
	It's willful blindness or dishonesty, whichever one.
	But it's glorious.
	So you anticipate, we're going to see the standard motions to dismiss 230 immunity, I don't know, standing, I don't know if you can get that argument, but 230 immunity motions to dismiss?
	Oh yeah, it'll be the same arguments they're making against Bobby Kennedy.
	They'll try to pretend they're not really acting as an agent of the state, that it's not that degree of collusion for First Amendment culpability, that Pruniar Doctrine doesn't apply, that Section 230 immunizes it.
	You'll see all those arguments, but they have the best factual and legal arguments to overcome that.
	And so we'll see.
	We'll see at the district court level.
	This is an appeal-type case.
	It's a very good fact pattern for the Supreme Court, potentially.
	So this case will be a precedent-setting case in the same respect that Bobby Kennedy's case is against Facebook.
	I'm going to have to probably go do a dedicated vlog to this, but there was not enough time in the weekend.
	I got a fishing video out and a stand-up paddleboard video out, but other than that, allergies or a cold.
	People still get colds these days, people.
	I got a kid in daycare and two other kids in school, and I'm not living in a bubble, so things could happen.
	Okay, what did we miss?
	What did we miss?
	Did we miss anything?
	Oh yeah, I was just going to go through some of the locals' questions.
	One is about...
	I won't list this particular person's name, but can anything be done to the state of Colorado about them harassing the Colorado baker?
	If the Supreme Court would have stepped up to the plate this week and said religious expression is protected, not just protection against religious discrimination, that would have helped him substantially.
	Unfortunately, they didn't, but he has good lawyers.
	He's going to keep fighting it.
	He's clearly subject to extraordinary harassment by the local ideologues there.
	He'll have to keep litigating each time, unfortunately, because of the degree and scale of harassment that's happening to him.
	For anybody who doesn't know, the Colorado baker got calls from people to do a Satan smoking something.
	He got calls to do a cake which was blue on the outside and pink on the inside or vice versa when he was explained what the meaning of that cake was.
	He refused to do it.
	Same thing.
	Same Baker.
	Just activist lawyers calling him up, and then he gets sued because he finally refused the wrong one that they took him to court on, and because of the ambiguity of the Supreme Court decision previously, or whichever court it was, being sued again, and the lower-level court effectively said it was discrimination.
	It's as simple as a cake.
	It just happens to be blue on the outside, pink on the inside, or vice versa, and for him to refuse is discrimination.
	Agree or disagree with the judge?
	That's where it is now because of the lack of clarity on the issue.
	So he's back before the court and will appeal the lower court's decision.
	And, hey, I guess SCOTUS will find another way to duck out of it in due course.
	Okay.
	Sorry.
	Carry on.
	Yeah.
	No, I mean, and most of the other questions, the topics of which we addressed, there's some that are very specific that relate to particular matters we'll address in a future one because it...
	Too detailed, too expansive.
	Still a good week, in my view, for the most part.
	The same corruption still exists as the January 6th cases reveal, and the corporate deference of the Supreme Court and the political mind, the approach of the Supreme Court reveals.
	But in the same respects, good wins for religious orphanages, good wins for certain rights against the attempt to expand the administrative state for regulatory purposes, misapplying criminal laws, and a great win for Florida and against the CDC.
	A strategic win in the sense of the great suit brought by against Twitter.
	So, you know, it's a classic week in the law in America these days.
	The fight continues.
	It's amazing.
	And on so many fronts where there's so many decisions that people just don't know about.
	And Robert, you send me the links and I read these.
	Some of them are more interesting than others to me.
	The vault case of the feds seizing the vaults and opening them and then civil forfeit.
	That blew my freaking mind because it's just like...
	We're going to do whatever we want.
	And if we get caught, tough noogies, sovereign immunity, or the state or the city, you know, someone else pays the bill for the damages.
	That blew my mind.
	Let me just take this off.
	One locals, it'll probably be in my locals AMA, asked me if I were going to move to the States.
	First of all, am I serious?
	And if I'm serious, where would I go?
	Quasi-serious.
	And if I go, it's going to be Florida or Texas.
	I think.
	Because there's fishing in both places and there's freedom in both places.
	And I'm a simple man.
	I just need fishing and freedom to be happy.
	Robert, okay.
	Do we check?
	There was one other thing I think we could get.
	We have three minutes or five.
	We have a few more minutes.
	The Six Flags Biometric Privacy Lawsuit.
	I didn't get to it.
	Can we do it in a few minutes?
	Yeah, I mean, basically, Illinois passed a very good law that a lot of other states hopefully will someday replicate because we're seeing an effort around the world for digital certification, digital identification, biometric identification, vaccine quantum tattoos.
	You know, people can watch one of last week's Hush Hush episode about the COVID cabal at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	That this has been an agenda on certain people's item list for quite some time.
	And so biometric identification is deeply problematic in my view.
	And they're using the excuse of issues related to currency, issues related to health, issues related to travel, issues related to crime to try to push it through.
	But it's bad when it's the six flags demanding biometric identification to get in of some kind.
	But Illinois passed a very good law basically banning that and limiting its scope and limiting how it can be used for privacy purposes.
	A great class action filed against Six Flags.
	I think they finally settled it, and they're going to step back from the brink of biometric identification policy.
	That law has been very effectively used.
	More people should use it.
	More states should borrow it.
	And a very good win to limit this.
	A creeping surveillance state approach that many private companies have been the lead on.
	So I was going to say, I hope the biometric stuff doesn't pass at six flights because I might get automatically blocked for my undercover POV rollercoastering.
	Robert, I know a lot of people were asking Kenosha, and it might have been one of the things we were supposed to discuss.
	Updates on Kyle and what's the situation?
	Well, yeah, the update this week was just on a separate matter.
	Kenosha District Attorneys caught in corruption investigation.
	So it gives you a sense of what's going on really on behind the scenes that led to Kyle Rittenhouse even being prosecuted for things that almost everyone left and right that's looked at it says, this is nuts that he's being prosecuted for this.
	It's because of the corruption that runs deep in the district attorney's office of Kenosha.
	And I hope that the existence of the Kyle Rittenhouse case continues to highlight people's attention to what's really going on in the Kenosha courthouse in terms of this, not the judges that are corrupt, it's the district attorney's office.
	But Robert, if we learn anything from Missouri Kim Gardner, nothing happens.
	What might happen, if we follow the analogy, Kyle is convicted of a lesser crime, pleads guilty to a lesser crime, and the corrupt prosecution just goes on to corrupt prosecute another day.
	Yeah, that's not going to happen in Kyle's case.
	Part one.
	Part two, because it's not an option, because these are politicized prosecutions who want to put them away for life.
	Part one.
	But what you see in the Gardner case is she's suffering consequences prosecutors aren't used to suffering.
	So the only way you get pressure on these people to be honest is you hold them up to the public limelight.
	That's the only option there is.
	So it might not always work the way it should work, but it works better than if nothing is done.
	And so it's good that people and people can look it up themselves on the corruption in Kenosha and people's continued grassroots research on that is very helpful.
	Just like what Julie Kelly is doing at American Greatness, what Darren Beatty is doing at Revolver is critical to exposing corruption in the January 6th cases.
	The same thing is necessary here.
	All right.
	And if you have 30 seconds to lead us out of the weekend into a new week, ending this Father's Day, Robert, what do you have to say?
	Well, happy Father's Day for everybody out there.
	I shared an essay I wrote as a teenager that I used for college admissions and law school admissions and a lot of other things that was a tribute to my father that you can find at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	And I will also be there for the after party after this show is over for a live chat for about a half an hour or so there.
	You'll just look for the live chat pin.
	But what we saw this week was a lot of reasons for promise.
	People continue to fight back, and as long as people fight back...
	There's always a chance for freedom and for fishing.
	All right.
	And with that said, everybody, enjoy the rest of the weekend.
	Thanks for the support.
	Thanks for tuning in.
	Share these.
	Wednesday, sidebar, Jack Posobiec.
	All right.
	Wednesday, sidebar, Jack Posobiec.
	And we're going to figure this out when we close off here.
	Friday, additional sidebar.
	Might be sticks, hex and hammer, 666, depending on availabilities.
	But stay tuned.
	It's going to be a big week for the sidebars.
	So with that said, everyone, enjoy what's left of the weekend.
	Thanks for tuning in.

▲