All Episodes
Previous Next
July 5, 2021 - Viva & Barnes
59:32
Ep. 68: Day After Independence Day Live Stream - Viva & Barnes LIVE!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I was one second late.
Oh my goodness, I was one second late.
Still wrong, Gokunaro.
I was not 28 seconds late, but I was one second late because I forgot to hit the go live button.
Good evening, people.
We are in fact 24 hours late, but the reason for which we are late is a good one.
American independence, people.
I hope everyone had an amazing 4th of July.
From what I understand, the fireworks were pretty good where they were being Celebrated.
But I believe also I understood that some fireworks were not necessarily as rampantly on display as they are in previous years.
Although I saw a video of Maine.
I don't know who it was.
It was on Twitter.
And it's just amazing to see random fireworks and good quality fireworks going off everywhere.
Because there's something about exploding fireworks in the sky that celebrates independence.
All right.
We're going to have a good one tonight because it's been another jam-packed week.
But before we get into that, before we get into everything, and before I get into my opening monologue, I'm going to take this super chat.
Are you looking into the recent dismissal from the Ontario Superior Court of the Addison's Barbecue lawsuit?
At first glance, it looks like another judge unwilling to rule on the constitutionality of the lockdowns.
I am going to look into that.
Haven't done it yet, but I'm definitely going to look into that.
And for anybody who doesn't know, the Addison's Barbecue.
Was opening up in defiance of lockdown orders and the guys got arrested, holed off in cuffs, fined, yada, yada, yada.
Okay, let me do the standard intro disclaimers.
First of all, share the link around if you're on social medias now because YouTube is sometimes slow on notifications.
Fireworks are illegal in my state, Mahoyo.
Yep, you gotta go.
They can even be legal in states, but then illegal in municipalities where they're being sold.
So you can buy them in municipalities, you just can't set them off there.
Viva.
Last night I dreamt that I was a muffler.
This morning I woke up exhausted.
Oh, sir, that is a good one.
That's like the guy who goes to a psychiatrist and he says to the psychiatrist, I'm a teepee, I'm a wigwam, I'm a teepee, I'm a wigwam.
And the psychiatrist says, you're too tense.
Okay.
Dad joke, 101.
Okay, standard disclaimers.
Share the link.
It helps, you know, whatever.
Standard intro disclaimer number two, we're live on Rumble simultaneously, so you can watch there.
I believe, not I believe, live chat is enabled there, although I believe you have to have an account, which requires an email address or a telephone number, which some people don't like, so whatever.
There's pros and cons of every system.
Three, super chats.
Thank you in advance for the super chats.
YouTube takes 30% of them, so if that miffs you out of principle, There are other ways to support us, like on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
Once again, you can support us there, but YouTube takes 30% just so everybody knows.
I do my best to get to the Super Chats, but I don't get to all of them.
If it's going to miff you, if I don't get to yours or bring it up or read it, don't give the Super Chat.
I don't like people feeling unhappy or feeling like they got, what's the word?
Grifted, I believe is the word.
The Super Chat is to show support, and I appreciate it.
It's not to create ill feelings.
If it's an abusive superchat, I reserve the right to not bring it up.
Superchats are not a right of entry, nor is it a right to abuse just because you paid money to do it.
Okay, with that said, let's get into the opening statement of tonight's stream.
And I was hesitant to say this.
I want to preface this by saying that I am not telling you this to pressure anybody, to try to convince people to do certain things, to influence anyone, any way, one way or the other.
The reason why I'm telling you all this is because I think it's relevant given some positions I've taken publicly on vaccine passports and on vaccination for underage kids, as I've tweeted coming out of Quebec.
I'll explain to you why I'm telling you this, but bottom line, this is not to shame anyone who hasn't done it.
This is not to pat people on the back for having done it.
I'm sharing this because given the positions I've taken, if I don't share this and people find out...
They'll think I was concealing it in order to legitimize my positions.
I got vaccinated.
There.
End of story.
I said it.
I made some personal decisions, calculations, and ultimately, I'm going to tell you why I did it, why I did it personally.
To minimize my own exposure with, and I don't mean like medical, I mean political, social media, and I like to play in the park where the kids are With the daycare, the kids know me there, and I don't want to be the guy who is social media, you know, criticizing the government for certain measures, and then people blame because he infected a bunch of children at the park.
So, that and, you know, the political ramifications potentially are serious, especially when we're dealing in Canada, where we had a judge out of British Columbia saying that, you know, anybody who throws an illegal party could be guilty of manslaughter if someone gets ill.
Transmits it to their grandparent and then the grandparent dies.
We have political prosecutions.
We have weaponizing of all sorts of things where I've said, okay, at the end of the day, I'm neurotic.
I'm going to be fearful one way or the other.
I am a public person to some extent and have made some public statements as to how I feel about vaccine passports and vaccinating children with this particular set of circumstances.
And so I made a decision and that's my decision and mine only.
I don't expect anyone to shame me for having done it any more than I would expect to shame someone for not having done it.
These are individual adult decisions that no one should be shamed for, made to feel proud of, for having done.
So that is it.
You'll never hear me talk about it again.
I'm not posting selfies, vaxxies, talking about anything about it.
Personal decisions.
Consult your doctors like Tim Pool says time and time again.
But I want to be fully transparent because I know that, you know, You might accuse me of being a sheep, of having caved into my own fears, yada yada.
One thing no one's going to accuse me of is not being transparent or being dishonest.
And with the positions that I have taken and will continue to take because I think that they are the legally justified positions, I've made my decision and I'm going to live with the consequences of it.
But that's as far as it goes.
Imagine the social media who does live streams with Alex Jones' attorney running for office.
You know darn well they would look to pit anything on that particular candidate.
He shook someone's hand or he went to a rally and this man literally did whatever X, Y, and Z. Now it's going to be a lot harder for anybody to say that and that's it.
It's not more complicated than that.
Okay, so with that said, Robert's in the house.
I see him in the background.
I'm just going to take a little sip from my...
What is this?
Peter Rabbit cup.
The menu tonight is a good one.
We have...
What do we have?
Jeez.
We have America's dad.
Because I'm calling him America's dad from now on.
Because apparently it seems that if you mention BC's name on the internet, he is the new Voldemort.
America's dad and the amazingly interesting situation that resulted in him being released from prison.
Much to the dismay of a lot of people, but my goodness, due process and...
This procedure exists for a reason.
And when you don't follow that, you don't get to frame a guilty man.
That's not how functioning legal systems work.
Britney Spears.
Everyone's been talking about that, and that's a shocking one which we're going to get into.
Facebook antitrust dismissal.
We're going to get into this because I'm interested in hearing what Robert has to say about this because I think I know what I think of the situation.
Google privacy case.
Sheriffs are suing Biden.
Clinton Foundation whistleblower, which I don't know anything about, but Robert's going to enlighten me.
A bunch of Supreme Court decisions, transfer a venue for some of the, what do they call it?
The riot gone wild detainees.
Jelaine Maxwell, Robin Hood, and the story that I just did yesterday, Rolf Castell, which is, you know, when you think the headline is itself absurd, and then you realize that the actual truth of the story, it makes it even more absurd.
We're going to get into all of this.
Okay, now let me just see if I missed some chats of people calling me names.
I think there might be something different in my sippy cup, but that is all.
Okay, let's do this.
I see Robert's in the house.
Bring him in.
Robert, how you doing?
Good, good.
All right, and now I know someone was in the chat saying, one thing I can predict, Robert's first two words are going to be good, good, and right on.
I saw you on Barris today.
I was getting interrupted with, but that was some good discussion, which I think we're going to dabble on today.
Before we get into anything, actually, are there any updates on any of the audits that are impactful or that people should know?
Just that in Georgia, the absentee ballots for Fulton County are now publicly available through the Atlanta Journal-Constitution website.
And some people on our locals board were already spotting some irregularities with those election result outcomes.
Okay.
Okay, well, that's it.
That's good enough.
Now, Robert, where do we start?
I think we should start...
But first of all, I screwed up the layout tonight, or the timing, because I wanted to publish the video on the change of venue with enough time for people to watch it before the stream so that they could, you know, get updated.
But I screwed it up.
Let's start with that, and we're going to work into case still, because I think those two stories are...
When we talk about, you know, criminal justice reform or prison reform, and this is what we see in the world, we can get cynical, and we can get a little depressed.
What's his name?
Thomas Caldwell is one of the...
First, or apparently the first individual of the January 6th riot gone wild to have been arrested on felony charges, conspiracy, and very serious charges that carry serious jail time.
He filed a motion for change of venue.
I don't know, a couple days ago, whatever.
It's a lengthy motion and it's very well drafted.
But like I said in my video, the whole irony of these motions for change of venue, like we've seen in Chauvin's case, is you're asking the judge, In the venue to change the venue on the basis that the venue is going to be incapable of being impartial.
We saw what happened in Chauvin.
I expect the same thing to happen here.
But you're basically telling a judge that the venue is so tainted, we need another one.
And you're asking that judge to say yes to it when that judge might take that as a challenge to say, no, the venue is going to be just fine.
You sit tight and deal with it.
Bottom line, the motion alleges that...
People in D.C. have been traumatized by this event, by the response, by the government measures, by the curfew, that they hated Trump before this, and now they're going to look for any excuse to punish Trump supporters, that this is Middle America versus East and West Coast America, and that there is no chance for this individual under these circumstances of getting a fair trial in D.C. if it were ever possible in the first place.
When have you seen a case where a motion for a change of venue has been granted in recent memory?
They actually cite two of them.
One of them included someone that was alleged to have 9-11 connections, and the New York City federal court recognized that he could not get a fair trial with an impartial jury in New York City, given how traumatic that event was.
And I forget what the second case was that they also cited, but it was another case where...
Due to the nature of the event's impact in the pretrial publicity concerning the potential defendants, that they couldn't get a fair trial.
So, I mean, this goes back to the show that The Fugitive was based on, the seminal case, I think it's Dr. Shepard, that the U.S. Supreme Court did recognize venue needing to be transferred where pretrial publicity had had a disparate prejudicial effect.
As a general rule...
What happened was the U.S. Supreme Court in the Enron cases allowed Houston to be a jury pool in that case, and that basically undermined the right to transfer venue because of it.
So I think they're absolutely right on the law and right on the facts.
The key question is, as you note, one of the core problems with both recusal motions and venue transfer motions in America...
Is that you're asking the abusive venue to declare itself abusive.
Just like you're asking the conflicted judge to declare themselves impartial.
And that's a very hard thing.
They really should assign it to a different court.
They should have a different court handle the venue transfer issues than the venue itself that's being subject to it.
How could you do that, though?
How could you ask a different court to adjudicate on that issue?
That has to be a rule change.
That has to be the courts doing it themselves or Congress or the respective state legislature changing those rules.
Now, a lot of states do have a right of disqualification that's automatic of judges.
I think that should be applicable in the federal court system as well.
Almost every recusal motion is denied.
Almost every motion to transfer venue is denied.
And that's a problem.
Now, he has unusually strong facts here.
I think there's one limitation, which is he should have done polling.
It's a common problem of these lawyers everywhere.
They don't understand the value of public opinion polling by somebody that's good at what they do, someone like Richard Barris, and to compare and contrast the communities, to take a look at the District of Columbia and what its jury pool would say, what prejudices it may have, what pretrial biases it may have versus the Western District of Virginia.
Because he has unusual strong facts here in that many of the charges actually originate from conduct that exclusively took place.
Two of the four charges which allege that he used his computer to communicate with the Oath Keepers allege that this occurred in Western Virginia.
First thing, as a matter of fact, do we know if this individual in fact has any ties to the Oath Keepers to begin with?
Well, one of the things he does very well, and here I think in parties slightly arguing in the court of public opinion, though the media is not going to cover it extensively, he uses the motion as a good opportunity to document in detail both how the prosecutors and members of law enforcement and the press have conspired to spread a wide range of false facts about him in particular and about these defendants in general.
He was one of those people that was accused of wanting to gas congressmen, kill congressmen, kidnap congressmen.
All of that is false.
It was always false.
You could guess that from the get-go.
But now even the government concedes it was, and yet that was the allegations made about him in the first weeks and months of the indictments.
And there's many people who still believe it, that believe those lies.
Not only did none of the rioters kill anyone, The only person who was killed was killed directly by a police officer.
Other people had health emergencies, but they still haven't shown any connection to the riots to that.
And then no causal connection.
And there was no pre-existing plan.
They figured that out.
He had a nice phrase.
I think he called it a colonoscopic review of all of the technology, of all the data.
And after they looked at it, what the government found, This guy doesn't appear to have the connections or the role in Oath Keepers that they alleged.
Basically, this guy has been lied about, destroyed, and defamed throughout D.C., especially in the press, but throughout the country, but particularly impactful in D.C. The other point is he's using Biden's Arming the, you know, having the National Guard there for almost six months, having, you know, the mayor issuing curfews in states of emergency, and he's wisely using those facts.
He's saying, you know, if you're in D.C., you've been traumatized and terrorized by this event.
Even more impactful, frankly, than 9-11 was on New York City.
Because of the scope and scale of the action that took place in the months afterwards.
They didn't shut down New York City.
They didn't station the army there.
That's the interesting thing about 9-11 is that people made a concerted effort to get back to normal life, to go on and to prove that they're resilient and they can get back to normal life without letting the incident define and cripple the nation.
Whereas now that we see this playing out and we can go back and sort of assess it with fresh eyes, it really looks like...
The exact opposite was being done on January with this incident is that they were deliberately trying to post facto, almost retroactively traumatize everyone based on an event which we live the day of.
We know what happened the day of.
And then they spent months after the event trying to retroactively traumatize people with this and turn it into something that some people are going to say it was never and was not in their response, which itself is enough to traumatize people after the fact.
And so, it is interesting.
They try to equate it to 9-11, but even in 9-11, people were trying to get back to normal, whereas in this, it seems like everyone from the media to the government's response was trying to traumatize people on a going-forward basis.
Precisely.
And he does a very good job documenting and detailing that to a great degree, that basically many of that it is likely the case that many of the D.C. jurors feel traumatized, feel terrified, believe that he was part of a broad conspiracy to assault the Capitol, to kidnap, kill and gas congressmen.
And none of which is true.
And consequently, there's no way he can get a fair trial in a jury pool that was already contaminated, as the lawyer notes, because of the extensive political prejudice concerning Trump supporters in the District of Columbia.
And so in that dynamic, his point is there's just not a possible fair, partial, impartial jury pool that can be produced in the District of Columbia.
Two things.
I would have used this rhetorical analogy.
I would have said trying the January 6th defendants in the District of Columbia would be like trying Martin Luther King and his supporters in Bull Connors, Birmingham.
And it has about as good a chance as a fair trial as the defendant got in To Kill a Mockingbird.
And to make those historical analogies.
In the Snipes case, when I moved to transfer venue for a range of reasons in order to try to get fair jury selection.
I compared it to the peculiar institution, which the lawyer helped draft it.
He kind of went nuts after I made that comparison.
I was like, you got to ratchet this up.
You can't ratchet it down.
And so I think it's a good motion.
The one limitation, the one complaint I would have is the failure to use data because I can almost guarantee you they would show substantial differences, obviously not only between the partisan demographics of the Western District of Virginia and the District of Columbia.
But also just an overt prejudice.
People who believe things about the January 6th defendants in D.C. that is not nearly as commonly believed in the Western District of Virginia.
You need to give data to really force these judges to take account for it.
The other thing is I would add a motion to disqualify every judge in the District of Columbia.
I don't believe a judge...
It's the same logic.
The same reason why the jury pool can't be impartial is the same reason why no federal judge in D.C. can be impartial.
You mentioned this on Barris, and it's a great point, is that...
That every judge in D.C. will view this as an attack on their institution, on themselves, on them as individuals, and how can they possibly be partial in adjudicating on an attack which targeted them as individuals?
And I want to just bring this one up while we're on the subject.
BlackRockBeacon says, I was in D.C. on the 6th covering events as someone who spent over a decade in the military, combat arms, fighting actual insurgents, calling what happened an insurrection is like calling a soapbox derby an F1 Grand Prix.
So it's an interesting point, Robert, that you mentioned on Richard Barris.
It's like, yeah, there should be no judge who can be capable of doing this because this was an attack on them if it is what everyone says it was.
But how do you...
I mean, has anything like that ever been done?
A blanket disqualification of all judges in a jurisdiction?
It's usually been done when the judges have some sort of conflict with the personality involved.
So you'll see judges...
I had a case where...
All the judges in the entire county disqualified themselves because they knew the lawyers on the other side.
So things like that.
Well, actually, they knew both sides of lawyers, but that's another story.
And so legally, there's good basis for it.
My reasoning is this.
Even if it's a complete uphill battle to get the judges to disqualify themselves, it highlights the partiality and prejudice that everybody else outside the proceedings can see.
And it forces, in my view, there's almost never a downside to moving to disqualify a judge if you have any fair, reasonable grounds to do so, because it puts pressure on the judge to actually follow the law.
That even if the judge denies your motion, the judge now realizes, okay, that this is how I'm perceived.
I'm not perceived as some noble advocate.
I'm perceived by at least some part of the community as a partisan advocate.
And the judiciary, it's what I said about the Chauvin trial, the legal system was on trial there.
Well, the federal judicial process and legal process is on trial in the January 6th cases.
Can they afford, I mean, what we saw in the Chicago 7 cases was no Chicago judge could give a fair trial.
And their denial of those motions ultimately hurt them on appeal because people got to witness the absurdity of the proceedings and the prejudice and partiality that inflamed those proceedings.
And so I think that's a very good motion brought for good grounds.
He's fighting a very uphill battle to get any relief or remedy directly.
But what it can do, not only does it defend his clients in the court of public opinion, But it puts pressure on the court system to do a much more thorough, diligent jury selection process that can give him whatever thin chance he has at a fair trial and sets up an appeal.
And I mean, the other advantage, he didn't say it, but going to the Fourth Circuit, Western District of Virginia, you get a different court of appeals to preside over the case.
In the Fourth Circuit...
With all its problems, it's still better than the D.C. Circuit, particularly on these cases.
Because these judges have made it clear, and I would have cited and quoted a lot of the judges' own statements, some of the other judges' statements.
They've made statements in these cases when they denied bail on completely unconstitutional grounds, in my view, where they made clear they thought this was an attack on them.
And I would just highlight that.
Say, you know, judges feel that this Capitol Hill attack...
Based on how the press covered it, based on how Biden administration responded to it, based on how the mayor in D.C. reacted to it, was that this was an assault on them personally.
And how in the world, if you think this was a group of people who was out to harm you personally at some level, how can you possibly be an impartial judge?
And most importantly, the legal standard doesn't require impartiality.
It requires the perception of impartiality, that there be no doubt.
As to your impartiality.
And I don't think any D.C. judge can really say that they have no doubt that they'll be impartial in these proceedings.
They raised one of the arguments that they should be tried by a jury of their peers and it would be more appropriate in West Virginia than D.C. The Western District of Virginia.
Western District of Virginia, I'm sorry.
But what strength is there to that argument where you say, okay, well, that's basically saying try me in a place where I think I have more friends than a place where I think I don't.
And what is the limit?
What's the legal scope of a jury of your peers?
Does it mean people who are like you politically, religiously, ethnically, or does it just mean the citizens of the district in which this is being tried?
Well, a federal judge in New York dismissed a case recently because it was transferred from one part of New York to a suburban part of New York on the grounds that the new demographics of the new district did not comport with where the crime was committed and thus violated his right to an impartial grand jury.
So the same logic would apply here.
Now, people often think, because of the Magna Carta, that our jury trial right is a right to a trial of your peers.
It's not.
Our constitutional provision doesn't say peers.
It says a right to an impartial, the way it's been interpreted, impartial jury, free of prejudice, that represents a fair section of the community where the crime occurred.
Here, there's two different...
Two different communities where they claim the crime occurred.
They claim it took place in the Western District of Virginia in part and took place in the District of Columbia in part.
And my view is that he could have fleshed that argument out a little better.
I got the idea that the Western District of Virginia doesn't have the same...
Political prejudices that the District of Columbia does, doesn't feel like they were the direct target of the assault, like what the District of Columbia does.
And the Western District of Virginia still has a lot of demographic diversity of what would reflect sort of an American jury pool.
But that argument could have been fleshed out a lot better.
There isn't really an argument in favor of peerage jury trials in America.
That just isn't part of our constitutional provision.
It's commonly believed, but mythical.
All right, and before we move on, predictions.
What are you thinking is going to happen with this motion?
Unless he's got a rare D.C. judge, it'll be denied.
But it will set up grounds by which not only they have an appeal, but will put more pressure on the judge to be more impartial in these proceedings.
It also is a great opportunity to educate the judge at how...
If the judge has any of these same prejudices that the jury pool has about this defendant or what took place on January 6th, this was an excellent opportunity to expose that.
So it can't hurt his client.
It can only help his client.
But I don't think he'll get the legal relief or remedy because it's a high hurdle and because the D.C. courts so far have shown no ability to be impartial in these proceedings.
I think they want it and they're not going to let go of it.
And I don't know who would pry it from their hands.
What was I going to say about that, on the other hand?
Oh, you know, I think, you know, this motion was drafted quite clearly for public consumption, if not entirely, at least in large part.
And my only, you know, fear, concern, knowing the way the media works, that no one's going to cover this and go into the details of this story in order for people like my, well, not necessarily like myself, but others who may not be familiar with all of the details, who might still be stuck up on the headlines of Jan 6, will not know the follow-up.
Or the fallout.
And so I think it's great to get the story out there, but you're not going to see Brian Stetler or Rachel Maddow getting into the thick of this motion to illustrate all of the headlines that panned out to not only not be true, but to be outright false in some respects.
And we don't need to go over them.
People are still being detained, Robert, from Jan 6 without parole or bond?
Yeah.
And some may be at this point, and not only that, they're being detained under rather horrific conditions.
Not only have they apparently been repeatedly subject to assaults, but many of them apparently are in isolation.
So, I mean, it's basically, it's what we internationally define as torture, is what's happening to many of these defendants.
Okay, well, I mean, that's the segue into the next story, because where we talk about cruel and unusual punishment, a punishment that has to remotely fit the crime.
For anyone who doesn't know, the story is of Rolf Kastel, who headlines were abound last week, headlines with no substance in the articles, where even after reading the substance of the bodies of these mainstream media articles, I still said that nothing makes sense in what they're reporting on.
Rolf Kastel has now been behind bars for 40 years for having robbed a taco stand in Fort Smith, Arkansas in 1981 with a water pistol.
I didn't get into the incident in my vlog.
It was a non-violent robbery, if there's ever been one.
He lifted his shirt, apparently showed a 17-year-old cashier the handle of the water pistol, said, you know what this is?
The guy said, yeah.
He says, you know what to do?
He says, yeah, and he gave him all the money in the register.
It was not even as though it was used in a way that would be aggressive or threatening.
That may or may not change anything for other people.
He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole in 81. That already made no sense to me.
So some articles were not mentioning whether or not he had priors.
Some articles said he didn't.
Others said he did.
If it changes anything for anybody, he had spent time in a New Mexico prison for robbery.
He had had his run-ins with the law.
He was a drifter and, you know, petty crime.
Sentence to life in prison still made no sense.
And so I dug down this little rabbit hole and found out that apparently he was being prosecuted at a time when Fort Smith, Arkansas, had seen a string of murders.
Prosecutor who was notorious for getting maximum sentences, wanted to make an example of a criminal who was a passerby, as were the majority of these incidents, and sought and obtained a maximum sentence.
Rolf Castell, in the context of the trial, represented himself because the lawyer representing him and the four other witnesses who turned witnesses, the people involved in the robbery, they turned against Rolf and they were being represented by the same lawyer.
So another interesting turn.
But the bottom line, sentenced to life in jail for this crime with his priors.
Even the prosecutor said it would be normal that he gets out after a little bit, like clemency or, I don't know, if there was no parole, I don't know how else he gets out.
But he was still shocked that this guy was in jail 40 years later.
And it turns out that this might have been a factor.
Rolf Castell, while he was in jail, becoming a model citizen, getting degrees and studying, blew the whistle on this plasma blood scandal that was going on.
In Arkansas prisons, not only were these prisons, they'd been declared unconstitutional by the courts, they had a racket where they were selling prisoner blood and plasma to pharmaceutical companies that resulted in tainted blood being shipped off to Canada, the UK, Europe, and people getting infected and dying of various diseases in Canada and the UK.
So that might have had something to do with him not getting clemency for 40 years for this particular crime.
Robert, I mean, had you ever heard about this story before it hit the headlines last week?
Not his particular story, but the prison story I was aware of.
Okay, and now, if you could get into, I suspect this might be a hush-hush for another day.
I was entirely unaware of the corruption of the Arkansas prisons, the scandal that was affecting the prisons in the, what is it, the late 60s, 70s.
Whose Arkansas was this at the time when this was going on?
He is incarcerated and exposes this system and the prison system.
They basically treated a lot of southern prison systems.
I forget the movie.
It's Cool Hand Luke with Paul Newman.
They basically treated the prison system as an extended forced labor system in large southern states from about the 1870s through the 19...
Well, in Arkansas's case, up to 1994.
And the other thing they were doing was monetizing the prisoners by selling their plasma and blood to unsuspecting companies and foreign governments that caused billions of dollars of damages and thousands of deaths.
What's amazing is that story itself has been mostly kept under the radar.
And then, as you noted, this guy not only has his crazy, he's never given a commutation of his sentence, which would be, as the prosecutor noted, normal.
He's also moved somehow from an Arkansas jail to a Utah jail, which I have almost never heard of.
A state prisoner serving time in a different state for nothing that related to that state.
But the key facts that you would need to know is who is the governor presiding over the Arkansas prison system, who is the governor who could have decided his clemency, and then who is the same person who would become president.
While the time this guy gets transferred to Utah and shut up for good, and it's the same man.
It's a dear William Jefferson Clinton.
And that's the main access point to this story.
The reason why this guy gets constantly prosecuted and punished for a very minor crime, particularly compared to, say, His own crimes, in the case of Mr. Clinton, is that one man was governor, one man was presiding over that part of the political machine in Arkansas, and then he was president when this guy was part of blowing the whistle of all this and could get him moved and shut up for good.
Because, I mean, imagine the scandal of that.
I mean, these were all scandals that took place and got exposed while Bill Clinton was governor, and it's getting exposed while he's president, and yet it manages to never see much of the light of day.
Most people still don't even know it.
And I'll tell you, my thought process when I read the articles was that this had to be another case of, you know, a potential felony murder type provision where in robbing with a water pistol, somebody got killed.
But then I read that that was not the case.
I was like, okay, well, does it make sense then?
Let's just see what...
Even the kid victim was like the guy who should have been out a long time ago.
He wasn't that traumatized or terrified by the event.
It was just a pretty minor crime, as crimes go, to serve life in prison and then to be shipped off to Utah.
And the only thing the poor guy made a mistake of was he was the guy who figured out, while he was in prison, this horrific scandal that exposed the state of Arkansas system potentially to the whole world.
But somebody wanted to make sure he wasn't going to be appearing on 60 Minutes anytime soon.
So they shipped him off to the equivalent of Gitmo by a black hole in a whole completely different state.
It took special efforts to try to track him down.
They disappeared him.
And the guy who was responsible for it at all key junctures is just one man.
Well, the story is amazing.
There was a documentary by Kelly Duda called Factor 8. Which, I guess, exposed it at the time.
And it has since, I guess, been resurfaced as a result of him getting clemency now.
Just a shocking story.
But what really shocked me in all of this, and I say I'm continually shocked by either the laziness or the dishonesty of mainstream media, they're running headlines without getting into the thick of the actual scandal here, which is not only that he went into life in prison for water pistol robbery.
Why that occurred.
And nobody's asking the why.
They just run the stupid headline, run the same Associated Press article, and then move on.
And one man's name managed to be completely avoided from that.
They're describing all these scandals that took place in Arkansas while one guy was governor, and the same scandals of how he gets transferred to Utah, and all of that while one guy was president, that who could accomplish and achieve that.
And it's like no mention of him whatsoever.
Model citizen in his 40 years in prison, no grievances, studied, became a paralegal of sorts.
What I find inspiring about the story, it's 40 years stolen from a man's life, and he still managed to do something of meaning with it, which, it's inspirational, but it's also...
He probably saved thousands of lives by outing what was going on.
Because, I mean, had he not outed it, they were going to keep going.
Mike Riendo says, you can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus.
Mark Twain, I now see the use of hypotheticals all the time.
Thanks, guys.
Sorry I missed Styx.
Styx is up there.
Thank you very much, Mike.
The real controversy is being whitewashed from the story.
I just knew something smelled fishy when I read this and it didn't add up and then I had a fun Sunday delving into this and putting it together.
Speaking of something that smelled fishy and was not what it was, Robert, I said we're going to call him America's dad so that we don't trigger any flags here.
I was not paying attention during America's dad's arrest and trial, so much so that I remember thinking what I thought I knew at the time up until recently.
And this is the story that was the shocker of the week.
Is that America's dad sentenced, I don't know how long, 10 years, 3 to 10 years in jail.
After 2 years in jail, what was it?
The Supreme Court of what state were we in?
Robert, what state was it?
Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania.
Comes down and says, we are vacating this condemnation.
It's the harshest thing we have to do, but it's the only thing that we can do under the circumstances.
I'll explain the scandal in case anybody has not yet looked into it.
America's dad was convicted criminally for assaulting a woman, and the evidence largely consisted of admissions he made in a civil lawsuit filed by the same alleged victim, wherein he made four prejudicial admissions that were then used against him in the criminal prosecution in the court of law.
The only hiccup here is that 10 years prior, as part of the strategy for the victim to see potentially some Not the least of which is the alleged victim's continued correspondence and interaction with her alleged aggressor,
which didn't look good, according to the prosecutors.
Apparently, some of her alleged interactions consisted of trying to You know, eek a settlement under failing which, a civil settlement, failing which she would pursue criminal charges.
The prosecutor said, look, we don't think this case is going to go anywhere.
So we're not going to prosecute criminally so as to allow you to pursue civilly so that he cannot invoke the fifth during the depositions of the civil lawsuit, which is exactly what happens.
They make a press release, which was a signed press release for whatever that means, but DC caster.
And this is how it goes down.
They make a public announcement they're not going to prosecute.
The alleged victim sues civilly, settles for millions of dollars after certain prejudicial admissions are made.
And then 10 years later, in comes a new district attorney and says, we're going to prosecute and we're going to use the depositions and the admissions made in those civil depositions against you criminally, and they do it.
But Robert, that is not where the dirtiness of this prosecution ends, and I want you to take it from here so I don't ramble for another five minutes.
Oh, sure.
So a key to the whole set of proceedings was who's the judge that's presiding, because there are a lot of unusual rulings by the judge.
The judge refused to suppress any of the evidence that was obtained in clear violation of Fifth Amendment rights, refused, of course, to enforce the prosecutorial declination that had been previously issued publicly by the former prosecutor in Philadelphia.
He also originally allowed one additional testimony of a prior victim to testify, alleged victim, and that resulted in a mistrial.
So the second time around, he said, let's bring in as many prior victims as we can.
I think it ended up being at least five.
So what is the rule?
Because you have alleged prior victims, but they're being brought in to show evidence of prior bad acts.
What is the law on that in the United States?
I mean, I know my limited understanding of it under Canadian criminal law, but what is the law on that or the rule under United States criminal law?
It varies entirely by state and jurisdiction.
And it was very problematic under Pennsylvania's interpretation of the rules.
So, like, in some places, it depends on whether the case is civil or whether it's criminal.
That's one part.
The second part is whether it's showing prior modus operandi.
So, for example, I'm pursuing, in the Don Lemon case, Prior examples of Don Lemon sexually harassing and assaulting other men.
Under federal rules of evidence, that can be admissible.
It depends on whether it fits a certain common pattern of behavior, common modus operandi, etc.
Under Pennsylvania rules, it's a little bit more limited, and the court just ignored those limitations.
Then the court did some other things in the jury selection process that were highly questionable.
One of the lawyers involved in the defense for Bill Cosby, America's dad, was the...
Don't worry about it.
It was tongue-in-cheek like My Sharona Cyrus, but I took for granted everybody knew who we were talking about.
We can call him My Sharona Cyrus.
It'll be equally as idiotic to illustrate how YouTube censorship, soft censorship, seeks to control the discussion and the narrative, but it was tongue-in-cheek.
Go ahead.
Yeah, absolutely.
It was Thomas Mesereau, and Mesereau called this one of the biggest travesties of justice he'd ever seen.
And so that's how I was familiar with the case was Mesereau.
I think I commented back at the time during some of the witness rulings and jury rulings that there were serious, serious problems with what this judge was doing.
What I did not know at the time is that the judge had been a prior opponent of that prosecutor who publicly said we weren't going to prosecute.
And so you had a prosecutor who basically ran, a guy who tried to become prosecutor, running, campaigning on prosecuting Bill Cosby, later becoming the judge.
He lost that campaign.
Later becoming the judge presiding over the Cosby trial while his wife is fundraising for seeing Cosby's prosecution.
I mean, this judge should have been nowhere.
This is why the Pennsylvania Supreme Court...
Likely understood that this was deeply problematic at so many levels.
That you had a judge, a rogue judge, who should have disqualified himself.
They brought motions to disqualify, of course.
As usual, he refused to disqualify himself.
Obvious conflicts based on his own personal political history.
Continuous conflicts based on his wife's activities.
And it manifested itself to the point that one of the key evidentiary aspects was, well, what did the former prosecutor do?
Well, he hated this former prosecutor, so he disparaged his testimony and called it incredulous because, I mean, this was his former political adversary.
So this was really a show trial in which throughout, during different key points of the trial, running around throughout the trial was Gloria Allred looking to get rich again on accusations and allegations as long as they selectively fit her political cause at the time because she'll betray other people.
I'm still in a...
A case that's pending before the California Court of Appeals about her betrayal of someone that she was supposed to represent that she, you know, in exchange for political favors from a major media network, she, you know, basically sandbagged the case.
So, you know, this was a worse kind of show trial.
And, you know, it makes the Chauvin trial look like a beacon of justice.
And so in that sense, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court took the right action.
But the media had suppressed the story so much that most people were shocked when they found out these underlying facts.
Well, this is the thing now.
So people are saying in the chat that Razor Fist was right again.
And I guess in a way he was.
The bottom line is that Cosby nonetheless made prejudicial admissions in those depositions.
Ones that could lead people to conclude he was guilty of something, although may never be able to be prosecuted because of what had happened.
So, you have these two conflicting moral and legal principles.
Like, one is, he made prejudicial admissions, which lead people to conclude as to guilt, but this entire prosecution itself is tainted because, but for the fact that they duped him into making those admissions, apparently Castor had said at the time, the only way to prosecute him is to get him to admit to the crime.
Because of the issues with the prosecution, the stories, the timeline, the behavior of the alleged victim.
So, you have the DA or the...
You have the DA saying the only way to prosecute him is to get him to admit to the crime, which is never going to happen under the normal circumstances.
And then you basically dupe him, trick him into admitting to it to prosecute him.
But you're going to have a lot of people who are going to say he admitted to it anyhow.
He's scum of the earth, so prosecute him.
It doesn't matter if the process is totally tainted.
To which you will respond, what?
Two things.
One is he didn't admit to assaulting this individual.
And what he admitted to was basically...
Using certain drugs.
And it was not clear that he believed what he was doing was illegal.
So you can argue about that.
The second reason people came to believe he was guilty was the large number of his accusers.
But all of those accusations were outside the statute of limitations.
And so it was one of those.
And it's hard to say.
I mean, the numbers don't always add up because a lot of people fabricated allegations against Donald Trump, in my view.
I have no doubt about that.
But I have doubts about Bill Cosby's moral innocence, but I have no doubts about his legal innocence, given that his constitutional rights were clearly eviscerated in this process.
And speaking of eviscerate, I'm just going to read this.
Keep up the good work, guys.
I always find your content interesting, regardless of how I might agree or disagree with some of the topics you touch upon.
Thank you very much, Peter.
And I guess I'll hit send anyhow, and thank you in writing.
And we got, let me see this.
Is this on subject or not?
This may not be on subject, but thank you very much, Raymond Shamos.
I'll leave it up while people can read it.
So yes, some people might think Cosby is morally culpable and maybe even legally culpable of something, but this is not how any properly functioning criminal system works where you say, we can't get him in the absence of an admission.
How can we get an admission?
Tell him we're not going to prosecute him so that civilly he no longer needs to invoke the fifth.
And then when he makes admission civilly...
In comes a changing of the guard.
We're going to prosecute him and use that against him.
That's exactly what these constitutional rights were intended to protect against.
He protects everybody else.
He was not constitutionally culpable.
You also do have to ask yourself, how strong was the evidence in this case that they had to violate his constitutional rights to try to secure a conviction?
So I'm always skeptical of how much the evidence in this particular case of this particular accusation are true.
When you've got to break the rules to try to win.
Oh, and there was something else that I learned only in looking into it, is that the first trial was a hung jury, and then the second trial was about to be a hung jury when the judge allows certain evidence that apparently swayed the jury in one direction.
Can you elaborate on that for the crowd?
In essence, there was a bunch of rulings that were in question, but the bottom line was the judge kept forcing and forcing and forcing the jury to come back with a guilty verdict and would make selective rulings on evidence, selective rulings on instructions, selective rulings on even all the way back to the jury selection process.
That was designed to secure a conviction.
So you had a corrupt judge presiding over the case who had a clear prejudice in the proceedings that had been documented and detailed and demonstrated from a decade before and that were ongoing and concurrent with his wife's conduct that made him completely inappropriate to preside over these proceedings.
What the Pennsylvania Supreme Court really did is they avoided calling out the judge by saying, we'll just deny this on the obvious Fifth Amendment violation and just call out the prosecutor.
But if you read the underlying record, this was really about the judge's egregious misconduct that probably persuaded the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to take the action that they took.
Yeah, because I did notice they did not use the word prosecutorial misconduct, although they seem to have strongly alluded to it, and they were being as favorable as humanly possible on the judge's assessment of the facts.
At one point they said, look, we are bound by the lower court's finding on fact.
But not bound by the interpretation of law.
So whether or not the judge came to the conclusion rightly that there was no signed agreement between the parties, the higher court did not have to agree that a statement, a unilateral declaration from a prosecutor that they would not prosecute, is nonetheless binding on all future prosecutors.
So it did, in judicial speak, really read like they were coming down on the prosecutors and the judge, but in a polite manner so that everybody saves face, because that's what you do behind the blue line of law.
And it's a reminder in dealing with prosecutors, it's opposite of my typical recommendation, which is never in writing and always in cash.
When dealing with the government, always in writing, never in cash.
Because you're totally untrustworthy and unreliable.
They'll lie anytime, anyplace, anywhere.
Julie Kelly for American Greatness has a good piece on how a bunch of grannies and other people in the January 6th cases were tricked by feds into making incriminatory admissions against themselves.
That they thought they were helping and everything was being used against them.
Never, ever talked to a cop.
Never talked to a Fed.
Never talked to any of them.
Never talked to a prosecutor, for sure.
Nobody lies more in America than prosecutors and police.
That's reality.
And I have no knowledge to either confirm or deny this, but we're seeing the way it plays out in real life.
Ryu Kiroda says, I was listening to YouTube channel RT.
They were saying Kamala's unpopularity in Biden blunders could give room for Hillary running in 2024.
Trump v.
Hillary round two thoughts.
Not for today.
I mean, I guess you'll talk about that maybe with Barrett.
It's never going to happen, so that's an easy answer.
That was my thought as well.
And we got Cleopatra is in the house, just here to support you.
David and Robert, happy Independence Day.
Cleopatra, happy Independence Day from freer states than what we have in Canada.
And now let's just speak of America's dad, which is segwaying into or setting the precedent for a similar request by Jelaine Maxwell in her situation.
I presume this is the aspect we want to talk about this tonight.
Jelaine Maxwell, her lawyer sent a letter to court basically saying that this situation, as with Bill, is similar to with Jelaine, is that she was promised non-prosecution in exchange for her testimony against The man who didn't take himself his own life, Epstein.
And, I mean, I don't know, we haven't gotten any further into it, but thoughts on that, Robert?
So yeah, two basic big developments in the Maxwell case.
One was a federal court is going to unseal a bunch of records, and apparently some of those records will implicate the Clintons.
So I'll be curious to see what that looks like.
So Technofog, who has a substack and is on Twitter, is following it and detailing it.
So that will be fun to watch and to see what some of those records are.
And the other with Maxwell is she does have some of those arguments.
Now, it's not nearly as persuasive as Cosby's.
So this was the sweetheart deal cut with Epstein that had third-party beneficiaries intended with it.
And part of her argument is the reason why she didn't assert the fifth in some of her depositions was because her understanding was that she was protected from these precise charges based on the Fed's deal with Epstein.
From a legal perspective, there are strong arguments on that side.
The chance a judge granted are next to nil, unfortunately, for her.
Well, okay.
And we'll see.
And someone had asked why Jelaine was not granted bail.
I mean, we talked about this in a previous stream, but short answer?
Because of who she is politically, it's a violation of her rights.
I mean, if she was going to flee, why didn't she flee?
She was in the United States when they arrested her.
If she was going to have the means to flee again, why didn't she flee?
So she knew this was a potential risk and she didn't flee.
So the idea that there's no conditions of release by which they can preclude her fleeing just doesn't make sense.
And we know that her life is at serious jeopardy between Epstein and...
I mean, if I was her defense lawyer, which I'm not going to be, but one of them that were, they might want to use the McAfee case to add to it.
Say that, look, her continuing to be in custody...
I also think the length of time of her pretrial custody violates due process rights.
They recognize that at some point it becomes unreasonable bail or violation of due process to detain someone without trial for longer than a year.
And that's now happening with her.
And she may be in there for years.
And there's obvious risk of her being suicided, McAfee style, Epstein style.
As long as that's the case.
And I still have doubts about why exactly...
I get politically, nobody wants her to have bail.
But that's not what the Constitution requires.
I think she met the constitutional standard to be released under restrictive conditions.
That's it.
And we'll see.
I heard the same story about a bunch of documents to be unsealed.
Nothing has yet been unsealed.
And I don't want to pull up some of the comments in the chat because every fear hides a wish.
And people are making the jokes already, and they're not funny jokes because they keep happening.
She better not end up dead in prison.
That's all I'm saying.
Our justice system will be a complete joke.
I mean, Epstein was bad enough.
McAfee compounded it.
If she ends up dead inside, ain't nobody going to believe she killed herself.
Nobody's going to believe in the judicial system anymore.
And while you have reporters lecturing Putin on what's going on in Russia, it's going to add more fodder to the Putin.
Rightly saying, you are still detaining Jelaine Maxwell despite all alternatives.
You're detaining the people from January 6th, insurrection, party gone wild, riot gone wild.
And we're January, February, March, April, May, June, July.
Six months people have been detained for what occurred there when the only thing that occurred of actual material violence, other than the five medical emergencies, was Ashley Babbitt.
And I heard you discussing that today with Richard Barris as well as some of the rumors as to why they're not disclosing the identity of the alleged police officer.
Robert, do you want to field that one or should I mention it?
No, I mean, it'll be interesting.
Trump brought it up.
So that's good that they're starting to bring up the January 6th cases, starting to bring that up because there needs to be more public attention drawn to them.
And because this is egregious.
In my view, egregious unconstitutional actions.
Whatever you think about the January 6th defendants, just like whatever you think of Ghislaine Maxwell, they're people who are protected, or Bill Cosby, they're all protected under the Constitution.
And if we allow the Constitution to be violated for any of them, then it's no longer safe for any of us.
It's no longer the Constitution anymore.
So if you care about constitutional liberty, you have to be bothered by how all of these defendants are being treated in the judicial system.
Okay, what do we move on to now?
I'm curious.
Let's do the Facebook antitrust lawsuit, which was recently dismissed.
And the Facebook, the essence of the antitrust lawsuit, which was followed by the state of New York, seemingly, I think, not at the behest, but maybe inspired by the SEC, was that they're violating antitrust laws in terms of their privacy data collection, in terms of their stifling competition, or at the very least...
Competition for competing apps that they want to control access to.
Dismissed by the judge who basically said, look, you didn't identify the market in which you were alleged to have a monopoly.
You didn't really allege any sort of material antitrust violations.
And so this is not going anywhere.
I mean, I read the...
I read the lawsuit very briefly, and I read the judgment, and I'm sort of inclined to agree with the judgment, but I want to hear what your position is on this, because it seems that the lawsuit might have been poorly drafted or at the very least deficient in some respects, which is why it may have been dismissed without prejudice so they can redraft and refile.
But what were your initial thoughts on the actual lawsuit itself, the strengths, the weaknesses, and whether or not there's any justification to this dismissal of the suit?
I think the case was filed in the District of Columbia, and that was the great mistake.
So, if I recall correctly.
And so, the court system was the problem.
And there's a lot of judges who don't take antitrust seriously.
And I thought some of his statements, I mean, I get they could be more specific and clear in their accusations and allegations.
But he seemed to be, like, sincerely pretending that Facebook's not a monopoly in their relevant space.
And so, it's like, hmm, okay.
So, I think that part is problematic.
But I think that it's a remedy they can correct.
We'll see if he was sincerely meaning that or he was just strictly reading the complaint as to whether he has a bias in the issue or not.
You have people who are wanting to defend big tech, and it reminds me of the federal court in Florida that was eager to strike down the big tech limitation law passed by the state of Florida.
And this is the same judge who had tried to allow felons to vote without serving their sentence in Florida.
Same judge who said Florida had no right to control who could get married in Florida.
He's a Bill Clinton appointee, flaming lefty, basically, but with an interesting interpretation of the First Amendment.
He interpreted the First Amendment to basically mean, just as the judge in the Facebook Monopoly case had an interesting interpretation of what Monopoly was.
Even more egregious was the decision by the federal judge in Florida, who said the state has no interest whatsoever in protecting the public marketplace of ideas.
Basically, it sounded like the three dissenting justices in the voting rights case and in the anonymous donors case, where they're like, all this old law protecting the First Amendment is only supposed to protect liberals, in essence.
And so his statement on that was, there's areas of that law that are going to be challenged.
But the grounds by which he sided, I found deeply problematic.
So as to the Facebook antitrust claim, that's coming back and there's a bunch of others pending.
So I don't see it as long-term consequential.
It just shows there's some judicial hostility to actually enforcing antitrust law in America.
And that's true.
And then the additional components.
And then in Florida, I think that that case will go up.
It should go up.
They got an unlucky draw of the judge and getting probably one of the most activist judges on the court.
▲
Export Selection