Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 11, 2021 - Viva & Barnes

02:15:19

Ep. 69: Trump v. Twitter; Memesmith Wins; NSA; Joy Reid; CRT & MORE! Viva & Barnes LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	We are live, and this is going to be the first time where I'm going to need people not to mess around in the chat and let me know what the audio sounds like.
	There you go.
	You start with the Fs, people.
	Okay.
	Because I have the mic.
	It is the Blue Snowball, so it's not my shirt.
	And I have it on a table between my legs as I sit streaming from my mother-in-law's veranda?
	Studio?
	I don't know what this thing is called.
	What's this thing called?
	All right.
	Come here.
	Come here.
	All right.
	So we're clearly not in Montreal right now, just outside at my mother-in-law's place.
	We're going to hear dogs barking, children screaming, but we're going to do this stream, and it's going to be an amazing stream.
	Sound is fine.
	I can hear you.
	Perfect.
	Now, the camera is the other plug-in camera, so it looks a little fuzzy or like it looks like there's a...
	What's the word I'm looking for?
	A filter.
	To smooth out the wrinkles on my face.
	But it's in focus, I know, because I can see...
	Hold on one second before I get to that.
	I can see anti-media, which is a line of our merch.
	It's a joke.
	It's merch, but whatever.
	I can see this is in focus, so I know that the camera's in focus.
	Now, while everyone trickles in, I shall read some of the Super Chats.
	Nate Nygren says, I'm listening to my favorite show while shopping, and so is everyone around me at Aldis.
	I don't know what Aldis is, but that's...
	Very cool how small this world is.
	Or how, I should say, just how...
	You have to stop barking, sir.
	Thank you very much for the super chat.
	It's going to give me some time to give the standard preambles.
	I've already missed one super chat.
	And that is the warning.
	Let's just do the standard disclaimers.
	Standard warnings.
	We're running live on Rumble.
	All of these streams are always live on Rumble.
	So you can watch them there.
	Comment is enabled there.
	Or chat is enabled there.
	But you need to have an account.
	In order to chat, which some people don't like, because you need to, I think, include a cell number or a telephone number to open an account on Rumble.
	So you can watch there.
	Superchats.
	YouTube takes 30% of Superchats.
	If that angers you or you don't want to support that beast, but you want to support this beast, there's other ways to do it.
	The best way is vivabarneslaw.locals.com, which you're going to hear Robert say multiple times during the stream.
	And the dog just jumped on the couch.
	The dog just jumped on the couch.
	That's a first.
	What I was going to say, Super Chat.
	I might miss some Super Chats.
	If you're going to be miffed, if I do not read or bring up your Super Chat, don't give the Super Chat.
	I don't want people feeling bad.
	Super Chat is not a right of entry into the conversation, nor is it a right to abuse any one of our guests or even myself or anyone in the chat.
	With that said, let's see what we've got here in the chat.
	We've got...
	I support it on Locals and here, even though I don't like YouTube.
	Love the content.
	Thank you very much.
	The dog's gonna have to leave the room.
	The dog's gonna have to leave the room.
	How about some analysis on the Texas HB957 regarding firearm suppressors?
	That's new to me, but...
	Hold on.
	Dog's going out.
	Oi!
	Okay.
	You, sir, are out.
	Sorry.
	Okay.
	Dog's out.
	Can't have that.
	Can't have that.
	There is a level of noise that we can tolerate.
	And a level that we can't.
	Okay, my goodness.
	The chats are coming in and I'm missing them.
	I caught a...
	I'll get into...
	It's not a rant today.
	It's the most beautiful story of the day.
	Amazing.
	What's happening in Cuba?
	Are you going to talk about it?
	Oh, it was not on the menu for tonight.
	I'll go over the menu because the menu is awesome.
	I support it on Locals even though I don't like it.
	Love the content.
	Sorry, I got that one as well.
	And how about...
	Okay, so I got this.
	I got this.
	Okay.
	And then I see one more here.
	Viva handling business.
	The dog.
	Ah, the dog.
	Aldis is actually Aldis.
	The first syllable is pronounced all.
	It's a grocery store.
	In what district or what area, what country?
	F is for good audio.
	Good.
	Okay, what happened today, people?
	I finally found the green caterpillar.
	For anybody who has been following me for a while, I have been in search of that fat green caterpillar.
	I was actually in search of the one that had the little bulbs on it, like yellow, red bulbs on the back, which I think is the Luna Moth Caterpillar.
	But today I found the tomato horned caterpillar.
	I swear to you, I've been searching for this for six years.
	Whenever I go jogging out here, I'm like pathologically looking at the trees, at the bushes to see if I can spot it.
	I went for a jog with my wife today.
	I didn't even notice it and she noticed it.
	I almost stepped on it.
	Because it was crossing the road, and I found the beautiful, fat, green caterpillar.
	I don't know why I find it so magical.
	It's just magical.
	It's fat, like my fat, pudgy little fingers.
	It's juicy.
	It's got these amazing clawy legs that you can feel them pinching you.
	This one had a big spine sticking out of its butt, which I thought might have been venomous or dangerous, but it's not.
	It's strictly too fake.
	Dangerousness.
	I forget what that mechanism is called in nature.
	When you give the impression of being dangerous when you're actually not.
	I found it.
	Put a little video out.
	It's on my second channel, Viva Family, for anybody who wants to see a full-grown adult flipping out over a caterpillar.
	Hello, dude.
	Haven't been super chatting in a while.
	David Knox and Albright, don't worry about it.
	The super chat, I appreciate it, but don't ever expect it.
	But thank you very much and good to see you again.
	Loving the shirt.
	I'm not good at selling the merch, but we've got a Robert Barnes Hush Hush and this Anti-Media.
	What was the other one?
	Confession Through Protection.
	All the links to shirts if you want to get them.
	I go through a website called Represent.
	I'm trying to work something local out, but it's not as easy as it looks.
	They're always in the pinned comment on the YouTube videos.
	Great Green Caterpillar.
	So beautiful.
	So that's it.
	Oh, it's German.
	So apparently Aldus is German.
	Aldus, which means Freiheit.
	Lieber Freiheit at Aldus.
	Justice for Winston.
	Well, he's annoying.
	He's annoying and there's a dog in the neighborhood that he's barking at.
	Okay, so Aldus is German, but also in the U.S. we have one in Derry, New Hampshire.
	Very cool.
	Where is Barnes?
	Barnes always shows up as we call L.A. late, but it gives me a chance to vent.
	So I've talked about the beautiful green caterpillar.
	Before we get into the menu of the evening, I'm going to talk about it because I have family in Canada who are not aware of the church burnings, the rash of church burnings, and I think by some accounts we're up to 20 churches that have been arsoned.
	I don't know if that's the word.
	Burnt to the ground, vandalized, set on fire.
	Over a dozen.
	Between a dozen and 20. Nobody in Canadian mainstream media is talking about it.
	Except for Rebel News, True North, maybe post-millennial as well.
	It's funny.
	It's always the fringe right-wing...
	What's the word?
	Fake news outlets.
	And I'm saying fake news in quotes because I've been following them for long enough to know that their track record, if they've ever made mistakes, no worse than CNN.
	They're the only ones talking about it.
	And the politicians are not talking about it.
	And the politicians who love to talk about dog whistles, who love to talk about violence through silence...
	Are not talking about it.
	And they're not talking about it because I firmly and vehemently believe they have a hand in having influenced it and having created this trend.
	You spend a year jailing pastors and demonizing people who want to hold church services in the context of a pandemic and you turn them into literal existential threats to the rest of civilized society.
	I'm using the hyperbolic terms as...
	They would.
	I'm not saying that I believe this whatsoever.
	You do this for a year, what do you think happens?
	Robert and I have talked about it.
	The political permission slip.
	The proverbial political permission slip.
	When you give actors, bad actors, the moral justification, when you eliminate the social restriction, the social reluctance to carry out their desires, when you give them this political permission slip.
	It's inevitably, invariably what happens, and we're seeing a rash of it now.
	It's not just one or two.
	It's close to 20. And people want to either ignore it, they want to rationalize it, they want to relativize it.
	People need to know about it, because it is the result of demonizing a segment of society through unfair and overly strong application of laws, because...
	Gatherings have been restricted, but more restricted for some than for others.
	And when you spend a year demonizing, quite literally, demonizing through application of the law, demonizing through unfair and disproportionate application of the law...
	You create vigilantes everywhere.
	You create people who think they're morally justified in doing what they're doing, and they're doing what they're doing.
	Will you comment on official FBI tweet wanting individuals to keep an eye, family and peers, for signs of extremism and turn them in?
	I definitely think we're going to cover that at some point.
	What does anyone say about it?
	This is how you divide a society and turn neighbors on each other.
	Would Robert Barnes be willing to touch on John Pierce's appearance on Timcast IRL, and would it be possible for Tim to go get Barnes in to do some?
	More helpful coverage for Rittenhouse.
	My problem is, it's not confidential, but I was invited to go on Timcast, but it's in person, and I understand why.
	Maybe I'll be able to more freely travel in a bit, and maybe it's going to happen sooner than later, but I would love for Barnes to go on Timcast, even if it's without me.
	I'm not jealous in that respect.
	You should watch some of the Yuri Besmorov lectures from the 1980s.
	One of his lectures, he actually describes the rise of social media and how it's designed to tear apart societal bonds.
	It's nuts.
	So now I do know what people are talking about with Yuri Besmorov because there was a 15-minute video that I did see, which was clearly transposed VHS.
	Where he's talking about the 12 steps or 5 steps or whatever, and how it takes decades to infiltrate universities.
	I don't think it was prophetic, because I'm not sure that this is anything new than what we've been seeing.
	But it was definitely on point.
	So let's see what we've got here before we get into the menu of the evening.
	Let me just make sure that I actually sent Barnes the...
	I did.
	I sent him the StreamYard link.
	So we've got a lot to talk about, and it's going to be phenomenally interesting.
	Today, Cubans are rising up against the communist dictatorship for the first time in 62 years.
	This might be as big as the fall of the Berlin Wall.
	And maybe people in the West, up North, should take notice of what happens when you think that the state can do all and sustain all and maintain all and govern all and can make the decisions of the individual for the individual.
	Invariably, what happens, happens, and it's why it happens.
	All right, now with that said, let me get the...
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	We have got some stuff on the menu tonight.
	I read this Tim Kass lawsuit, and it's a doozy.
	We're going to get into it, but it perfectly illustrates the absolute difficulty in running a business.
	And trying to hire employees, find shareholder partners with which to do business.
	All right.
	Trump versus Big Tech.
	Twitter et al.
	Carpe Donctum wins.
	We're going to get into this for anybody who didn't see my video from yesterday.
	NSA spying on Tucker.
	I was doing some homework to get some sound bites so that I could have it fresh in my mind what a bunch of raging hypocrites the mainstream media are.
	From they're not spying on you, Tucker, to you deserve to be spied on, Tucker, in one night, one week, because that's...
	The moving target that comes along with being intellectually dishonest, fake news, mainstream media.
	All right.
	Vaccine stuff.
	Election lawsuit win.
	Avenatti sentencing.
	Not going to be a long thing, but man.
	Door-to-door vaccines.
	Veritas has a good one versus Twitter.
	Capital police expansion.
	We've got a good subject for the evening.
	Then there was a church settlement for unjust COVID restrictions.
	We've got some good stuff.
	But...
	It's gonna be good.
	It's gonna be good.
	Good to see you, Viva.
	Hello from Saskatchewan.
	If anybody doesn't know the song, it's a classic Quebec song.
	Saskatchewan, t 'as volé ma femme.
	Great song by Les Trois Accords.
	Les Trois Accords.
	T-R-O-I-S-A-C-C-O-R-D-S.
	It's a great song.
	Bongino has featured his video.
	Okay, great.
	Good stuff.
	Okay, I see Robert's in the house.
	Let's do this.
	You can't spell demonetized without demonize.
	Oh, let's bring Robert in here.
	Robert, how you doing?
	It would be better if England could make a penalty kick, but c 'est la vie.
	I don't know if you had bet on this game.
	I had England at 7-1 before the tournament started.
	Did you get to cash out in advance or was it a bet to the end?
	I bet that they would win the tournament at 7-1.
	So, I mean, they managed to miss three penalty kicks.
	It's like, hey, no matter how bad your life is, at least you're not an English football fan.
	So, hold on just one second, Robert.
	I'm going to switch to my...
	I believe he was in the process of switching.
	Otherwise, good, good.
	All right.
	Referring to them as mainstream media.
	Call them corporate.
	Yeah, they are corporate media.
	That's a good phrase.
	Thank you.
	We'll see if Viva comes back here in a little bit.
	Oh, yeah, the Italians are proud.
	They're always stealing something, the Italians, when it comes to soccer.
	Okay, I believe I brought myself back in.
	I'm going to remove my old self.
	This is smoother, people.
	Sorry about that.
	See, a real F now.
	Okay, I'm tethering off my phone, so I'll go through data, but it seems to be more reliable than internet.
	I didn't hear what you just said, though.
	So you had an option to cash out because it was a future, and you didn't.
	Yeah, it was 7-1 because England can't make penalty kicks in Wembley.
	Brutal, brutal.
	It missed three of them.
	Three of them.
	Three out of five.
	I was telling my daughter this because that was as much soccer as we've ever watched, and it was only the penalty kicks.
	The last guy who missed the penalty kick...
	Does he ever lead a normal life again?
	Or is he going to be forever traumatized by having missed that shot?
	He's going to be famous, but not in a good way.
	Oh, boy.
	Okay.
	I mean, it's an amount of stress that I could never possibly stomach.
	And someone had to lose.
	Someone has to lose.
	It's just that you want it to happen in the best way possible, not...
	Yeah, what's the best way possible for the Italians to lose?
	Because they like to steal soccer championships.
	I still haven't forgiven them for 2006 when they stole it from Zizou Zidane.
	Well, that's another story for another day.
	Robert, so look, we got a lot to talk about.
	It's going to be good because they're going to be shorter.
	They're not going to be in-depth stuff for the most part, but some great, great subject matter.
	Let's see.
	I'll get this one.
	I'll get this one chat while I see it.
	It pops up here.
	Just bought my Hush Hush shirt and politics ruins everything.
	Thanks for being my favorite part of Sundays.
	Anton Gies, our absolute pleasure.
	What do we start with?
	Can we start with the Tim Pool lawsuit?
	Sure.
	Because it's very interesting.
	For anybody who's thinking of going into business, hiring employees, starting a company and you're all gung-ho and you get some shareholders, poop always hits the fan.
	In my business side of the practice of law, I say there's nothing more important than knowing your shareholders.
	Above and beyond anything else on earth, the thickest shareholder agreement on earth, you need to know and trust your shareholders.
	And hiring employees is equally difficult.
	So for anybody who doesn't know the basis of the lawsuit, all public information, the company's called Subverse, I think, Robert.
	It's Timcast's or Tim Pool's company.
	He's a majority shareholder, 85%, with another shareholder who's 10%, and the defendant who's a 5% shareholder, and a co-defendant.
	Who's not a shareholder, but apparently the minority shareholder at 5% tried to make him a director in a shareholder meeting.
	We'll get into it.
	So bottom line, Tim Poole tries to start this new company, or does, Subverse.
	They raise a million dollars on GoFundMe.
	And what happens when things go sour?
	Sure as sugar, things go sour.
	They have a minority 5% shareholder who's also an employee.
	They hire some guy to do some work, and they create content for about a year, and then things start going south.
	Apparently, some of the content they were creating was either divulging private information, which I'm not sure what it is, and we don't really need to get into it, even if somebody knows.
	I don't think it was alleged in the lawsuit.
	I think there's probably a reason.
	Private information, potentially defamatory information, potentially inaccurate information.
	They start producing this as content.
	I think it's as relates to the January 6th.
	Riots gone wild.
	And they are reprimanded.
	They're ultimately dismissed.
	But what they try to do in the interim, apparently, the 5% minority shareholder tries to call a shareholder meeting or a director's meeting wherein they remove Tim Pool and appoint this other co-defendant as directors.
	They have access to confidential information, which they refuse to submit.
	Access to camera gear, editing software.
	And they basically go rogue and try to appropriate this company, which now is sitting on a poop ton of money.
	How much did I miss?
	And go on because, I mean, all allegations, nothing has been proven true.
	So they are innocent until proven guilty.
	These allegations need to be proven.
	But one of the exhibits is the shareholder resolution or the minutes from the meeting that this 5% shareholder held with a non-shareholder to remove Tim Pool and appoint this other dude.
	What's your take on this?
	The other thing they've continued to do, because they're in the journalistic field, is plant negative stories about Tim Pool in various aspects of the press.
	One of them seemed to be the source, apparently, for claiming that Tim Pool had kidnapped her cat and other crazy stuff like this.
	You follow up with either one of these two people that are being sued by Tim Pool, or being sued by Subverse, which is Tim Pool's company.
	Uh, and you know, these people, at least one of them appears to be completely crazy.
	Uh, you know, and the, and the other one's not, doesn't appear to be all there.
	And so they, uh, basically, yeah, he hired two people to be journalists.
	One of them gave him a small share too, and they started doing something that was, uh, that was problematic, uh, led to their termination.
	And their response was to run off with the equipment, uh, run off with material and information and then try to protect.
	Clearly they, they went and did some like, uh, Dummies version of how to run a company and decided, okay, well, we'll just pretend we're the owners of the company.
	How are you going to take that?
	That kind of thing.
	So it became an utter, utter debacle disaster that now Tim Pool is trying to resolve and dig himself out of.
	But yeah, it shows the risk of who you do business with and in the media space and cases that end up in the court of public opinion one way or another.
	He has avoided commentary or discussion about it.
	It's the smart thing to do.
	You let the proceedings speak for themselves.
	Anybody reading that lawsuit is going to have some serious suspicions as to who seems to have gone off the deep end.
	Because I'm reading the lawsuit.
	Okay, fine.
	The allegations are one thing.
	But one of the exhibits are the actual minutes that this 5% shareholder purports to have held with somebody who's not even a shareholder where they remove...
	It's either a shareholder or director.
	Tim Pool himself.
	And apparently, you know, the allegations of the lawsuit is Tim Pool convened a meeting of all the shareholders, which this third shareholder defendant, 5% defendant, 5% shareholder, refused to attend.
	And so he took note and said that she abstained from the meeting.
	In her minutes of the meeting that she called, she says, I didn't abstain.
	It was protest.
	I didn't attend a protest.
	In her own minutes where she's meeting with some other person who's not even a director or shareholder, it's...
	People think you want to give people 5% shares in the company to be nice.
	You want to thank them.
	Once someone is a shareholder, they can be a tremendous thorn in the side, to put it mildly.
	My guess is Tim Pool is not going to be handing out shares anytime soon.
	But the suit reads like a bad comedy.
	And a millennial comedy in particular.
	That's the other aspect I found intriguing about it.
	Tim Poole himself is very, very young.
	So what happens when you have these young people trying to go through the corporate structure?
	Poole was trying to make sure he did everything legally correct.
	So when they did subverse to make sure they were SEC registered before they raised the funds, make sure everything was transparent.
	He's received some unfair criticism related to this.
	He tried to do everything correctly.
	He just got unlucky with a couple of people, one of whom he made a small shareholder.
	But only a millennial would say, no, no, I didn't participate in that board meeting.
	I protested from that board meeting.
	That was a corporate impact.
	No, she's not like, I didn't abstain.
	I protested.
	So she knew darn well the meeting had been convened, where she's a 5% child.
	Then she goes out and calls her own meeting and then puts that admission into her own minutes.
	Bad comedy, but it's going to be a big pain in the neck for someone who has to deal with this lawsuit and the potential damage it can cause.
	Tim, by the lawsuit, seems to be a trusting individual, gave this person a lot of authority and a lot of freedom and access to company information and assets.
	And it seems that this person just thought they were going to hijack, pirate.
	This company, which now is sitting on a boatload of money.
	The three charges or the three counts were fraud.
	The third charge was bad faith.
	So how does that work in the law?
	Because he's asking as a conclusion that they'd be declared a bad faith.
	Is that...
	It's because, I mean, it depends.
	I mean, it's Connecticut in this state.
	Each state has its own corporate rules.
	But, you know, sometimes shareholders think that rules only go one way.
	And apparently these millennials seem to think that way.
	I mean, the idea that you would even think a protest somehow made your participation, non-participation, okay.
	That's not how, the corporate rules haven't been adjusted to meet millennial safe space standards or political protest standards or anything like that.
	But is that she has a good faith obligation as a shareholder to the company just as much as any other shareholder has to the company.
	And their allegation is that she's breached that and that there's a lot of good faith litigation that takes place.
	And usually it's often, sometimes because the majority shareholder is doing bad stuff, but more often than not, in my experience, it's been minority shareholders who think that the shareholder obligation only goes one way.
	We have the same principles under Canadian corporate law, fiduciary duties to the company.
	Every shareholder has rights and obligations, even if they are 5%.
	The minority shareholders tend to think that the company operates for them and not all shareholders for the company.
	I'm curious to see where this goes, because just based on the exhibits, which themselves are...
	Are difficult to misinterpret, especially when they come from the defendant.
	I'm curious to see how far this goes.
	This smells like something that should just be rolled over, apologize, sign a settlement, and move on.
	I think they saw this as their goldmine.
	They've convinced themselves that somehow they can do all this stuff.
	The last I saw on the court docket, they're appearing pro se.
	So it doesn't bode well for the outcome of the legal matter for their side.
	It does bode well for Tim Pool, but it'll be probably a year of a nightmare that's unfortunate just because he hired some people who went local.
	And I'm not judging pro se because there are good pro se litigants and there are bad.
	And when they're bad...
	The court doesn't like it and it doesn't end up well.
	And if their corporate directorship history is any indicator, it's going to get interesting.
	To be continued, I might do a standalone breakdown vlog of this just because the exhibits in support of this motion are interesting.
	And Tim Pool's affidavit is also interesting.
	But it highlights the risk.
	You know, it's corporate law meets millennial culture is the way I see it.
	To me, it's just, it's everything I say to every client ever is more important than a shareholder agreement that's 100 pages long.
	Know the people you're doing business with because if you trust them, you don't even need an agreement.
	And if you don't trust them or you don't know them, it doesn't matter what agreements you have, it's going to get ugly.
	Speaking of which, for doing due diligence, one thing, you know, while whatever happened with his employees happened with his employees.
	Tim Pool did not exercise very good due diligence this past week in promoting John Pierce on his show on Friday.
	So people have been asking.
	I didn't watch it.
	I don't know if you watched it, but people have been asking for comment on that.
	So what do you think?
	Because I didn't see it yet.
	Let us know.
	I think the problem was it was upsetting to the Rittenhouse family and to other members and friends of the Rittenhouses and other members of the defense team because of the headline.
	Now, it may have been kind of a clickbait-ish headline, but it was very misleading because the headline of the live chat was all about Rittenhouse and then with John Pierce.
	And it's like, this guy's been fired.
	This guy was a disaster.
	He was a debacle.
	He stole money from the family.
	He refuses to make an accounting to the family.
	I've requested an accounting now, I think, over a month ago.
	He's refused to give anything, refused to respond at all.
	And so I entered the...
	They actually entered the live stream, made a super chat.
	A bunch of other people did.
	Was your super chat like Nick Ricada's super chat with Tiger Lady during Eric Hundley's stream?
	Or was it an on-point super chat?
	It was an on-point super chat.
	I just said, hey, John, when are you going to give back the money you stole and sign the bail documents you're doing?
	And a bunch of other people in the chat jumped on the same thing.
	I knew Poole would not be happy about that and wasn't going to probably read my super chat, but he did bring up the question in more polite form at the very end.
	It would have been one thing if he was just interviewing Pierce about Pierce's experiences.
	The problem was the misleading nature of the label of the Rittenhouse as if this guy was connected to Rittenhouse.
	The second thing is it's a mistake to promote this guy.
	I mean, I think that anybody that's associated with him is going to look like Brian Stelter now looks when he was promoting Michael Avenatti.
	And to give you an idea of how bad a lawyer John Pierce is, he makes Michael Avenatti look both smart and ethical.
	That's how bad a lawyer John Pierce is.
	I mean, he's already doing severe damage in the January 6th cases.
	He's showing up in a bunch of cases.
	Sometimes he appears to be filing fraudulent documents.
	He's claiming he's admitted in the district or appears to be claiming that when he's not.
	All of them he needs to appear pro hoc for because he's not a licensed attorney in the District of Columbia.
	It's not clear he's even following that for some clients.
	He'll appear for clients.
	He'll replace good...
	People think that everybody's got bad lawyers.
	That's not the case.
	You have so many defendants and D.C. is the only jurisdiction you can be licensed in or you otherwise have to be allowed to appear pro hoc to appear for a defendant.
	That's the restriction in the legal profession in general.
	It leans to the left.
	That's the restriction on the quality of lawyers.
	In some of the cases he's appearing in, they actually had very good lawyers.
	So they had some very aggressive public defenders in some of these cases that he's appearing in.
	He wasn't needed, frankly.
	In fact, he's not needed for any of them.
	Going back to the pro se thing, every one of these defendants would be better off pro se than having John Pierce as their counsel.
	This is a guy that doesn't have any background in this level of criminal defense representation.
	He was an utter, utter disaster, as we talked about.
	Predicted even before it happened in the Rittenhouse case.
	And that's why the Rittenhouse family, you know, some of these people that continue to promote them should, you know, talk to people like Wendy Rittenhouse eye to eye and see if, you know, there's, you know, some people that have been former clients of mine that are good people, but they continue to promote fraudsters and grifters.
	And they did so too.
	And people like Wendy Rittenhouse relied upon them in part.
	And they owe her an apology.
	Because he came in, he did severe damage to the case by keeping him locked up when he didn't need to be locked up for that whole time period, just to put more money in his own pocket as a pretext for ridiculous fees.
	He was telling everybody that he was working for free.
	He wasn't.
	He had required that the Rittenhouse has signed a $12.50 an hour, $12.50 an hour contract for a guy who's never tried a case of this nature in his life.
	He even billed them for the time he spent shopping for a shirt to appear on Tucker Carlson's show.
	I mean, that's the kind of nonsense.
	Over $300,000 he took.
	Then he took another $30,000, $40,000 that are supposed to be in trust, never returned it, and is now demanding a whole bunch more money.
	I mean, it's just preposterous who this guy is.
	As a lawyer, I even felt guilty billing for lunch, even if I had lunch with the client and we talked about the file.
	And $12.50 an hour!
	I felt guilty billing $2.50 an hour Canadian after 10 years of practice.
	This is a guy who's never won a case like this ever.
	Never even handled an extradition case.
	Never handled a case in Wisconsin.
	Never handled a case in Illinois.
	Never handled a state murder case.
	Never handled a self-defense case.
	Just like he's never handled high-end white-collar or other federal criminal defense cases.
	And what he's doing in the...
	So what he did...
	So he stole a bunch of money.
	Remember, people independently, not fight back, independently raised nearly a million dollars for Wendy Rittenhouse.
	He and Lynn Wood convinced her to give that money over to...
	Fightback.
	And then Fightback ended up giving a bunch of money to John Pierce he didn't earn and deserve.
	And he is trying to steal the bail money.
	I mean, that's what he's currently doing.
	He's trying to steal the $2 million bail money.
	All he's got to do is sign some documents.
	I have a way to deal with that anyway.
	But this is just nonsense, what he's doing.
	And then he jumped over to a new grift.
	I mean, he saw the success Michael Avenatti had and said, I'll just do the same thing, but on the right.
	And this is a guy, again, that has, I don't know, six, seven, people said, hey, just go ahead and sue him.
	I'm in a long line.
	There's six or seven creditors in front of me for tens of millions of dollars that he owes already.
	There's no chance of recovering that money.
	That's why he keeps creating new entity after new entity after new entity.
	He's staying right ahead of the fraud judgments he has against him.
	He has domestic violence restraining orders against him.
	He's got issues with the ex-wife.
	He's got IRS tax liens on him.
	There's a long litany of creditors who have priority from a judgment perspective.
	He knows that I can't do anything about that.
	Instead, he's been threatening Kyle.
	That if I or other people raise these issues, that he'll say negative things about Kyle and lie about Kyle in the court of public opinion.
	And this is who Tim Pool decided to promote as a Rittenhouse expert on his show.
	Having not seen it, I don't know if Tim Poole gave him a hard time or grilled him on these issues.
	He only asked him one question at the very end because everybody in the chat was saying, why aren't you asking him Barnes' question?
	It was just poor due diligence on his part.
	Normally, he does pretty good due diligence.
	I've followed him for more than five years, known him for quite a while, knew him before any of this show took place.
	He's a good-hearted guy who puts on a lot of platforms, a lot of populist voices.
	Don't always agree with him, obviously, but is a sincere, well-intended guy that the lawsuit sort of reveals.
	He's a trusting individual, not a mistrusting individual.
	But just as the lawsuit should have been a wake-up call to be careful with due diligence, not just with employees, but especially given the sphere he's now entering.
	He's entering kind of mini Joe Rogan sphere with the guest he puts on.
	He has good producers that are well-intended people.
	I have a hunch as to which person to help promote this.
	This is someone who knew not to promote John Pierce to the Rittenhouse family and did so anyway.
	They're also very good-hearted people, but they need to stop doing so.
	They think they're helping January 6th defendants.
	This is already hurting January 6th defendants just like he did with Rittenhouse.
	He's repeating it.
	He started comparing the January 6th defendants to revolutionaries.
	He's compared them.
	He said, maybe we should unite with the Russians and the Chinese.
	All the things that will trigger fear buttons in D.C. amongst the judiciary.
	And as soon as he gets into a case, he's often taking issues off the docket because he's using this as a new grift.
	He has a new charity that can't be a legally recognized charity at this stage that he admits is going to be self-dealing out of the gate.
	That, by the way, the people running the charity are going to be giving money to him, and that's him and him.
	So, which you can't do.
	I mean, the state of California can close it down anytime they want.
	And so he's...
	But in order to raise as much money, he'll need to drag out these clients' cases.
	So he appeared in a case.
	There were some bail issues pending.
	He didn't raise the bail issues.
	And he didn't even object to waivers of speedy trial objections.
	He has no clue what he's doing in these cases.
	He's often replacing good CGA or public defender lawyers.
	So these people's representations, his quality is going down, not up consistently.
	And that was my problem with Tim Pool promoting.
	So, I mean, that's the thing, is people are saying Tim Pool's good-natured, good-spirited, maybe didn't grill him as much.
	I left up the Super Chat for a while as to whether or not you're going to go on TimCast.
	I know there's been some discussion.
	This might be the way to rectify, at the very least, have this discussion be made more public so that people can know.
	Because, you know, inviting someone on, not grilling them on the hardest things of their life or things that you may not know.
	I got the same critique when we had Cernovich on the first time, when I had him on like way back when, you know, and I got emails like, ask me about this, look into this, did you hear about these awful videos?
	So I did it and I don't mind grilling them.
	Cernovich is the type of guy who doesn't mind being grilled and he was more polite with me than others might have been.
	So I don't know if Pierce would have gone on had he known that it would have been confrontational or at the very least adversarial on these issues.
	But there's a way to get the other side of the story out, and that might be you going on TimCast and saying what you just said here.
	And I'm happy to do that.
	And like I said, I like Tim Pool, and I'm not trying to be too critical of him.
	It's that I want to make sure everybody else is aware before anybody else starts promoting him in the conservative space, this guy is worse than Michael Avenatti.
	And do you want to be associated with that?
	Do you want to be affiliated with that?
	So a lot of people didn't...
	I won't mention them because a lot of these people I've done free legal representation for, so I have actual ethical obligations to them of a certain kind.
	You know, they should know better.
	They should know better.
	And they're leaning.
	You know, again, just talk to Wendy Rittenhouse.
	You know, Wendy relied upon some of these people in the conservative space as sincere and well-intended, saying, don't worry, everything's great with John Pierce.
	And that hurt her and hurt her son, legal position, because he made misrepresentations about militias, which are totally false.
	Kyle Rittenhouse has no ties to militias, never did.
	They did a massive background dive on his entire social media.
	Nothing.
	Zero zilch.
	Zunka connected to that.
	The same with the Proud Boys.
	That was solely because John Pierce liked hanging out with some Proud Boys, and he brought them around.
	Kyle Rittenhouse had no clue who those people were.
	And again, this is information that's now being used against him in the court of public opinion, and they're even trying to use it against him in the case.
	So some people were confused and thought Pierce is still representing him.
	Pierce has been fired all the way back in January.
	So, I mean, Pierce was also, I mean, he was just doing bad stuff.
	I mean, this guy is a cokehead.
	He abuses alcohol.
	He insulted the family around other family members and other members of the public.
	I mean, this guy is bottom of the barrel.
	When I say he's worse than Michael Avenatti, and I was one of the first people to go after and out Michael Avenatti, then I'm not kidding.
	And I knew about John Pierce's, I was talking about this long before I was representing Kyle.
	I was saying this from the very get-go.
	I knew who he was.
	I knew his reputation in LA.
	I knew what the records held.
	I remember you mentioning it.
	This was before I knew anything of anything.
	You were mentioning it as they were raising money.
	Be careful.
	Almost everybody in the chat was saying, get this out to the Rittenhouse family because you were issuing these warnings before the problem arose.
	And I'm not saying that.
	I remember.
	I knew these warnings and I told them directly and they ignored them and continued to promote.
	He appears to the family.
	And that's why some of those people owe an apology to Wendy Rittenhouse, and they're going to be owing an apology to the January 6th defendants, because they're setting those people up to fail.
	This guy's just a grifter.
	He's doing this just to pocket as much money as he can.
	He does not have the competence or capability to defend any of these people, and he's going to hurt their cases like he already is, both in the courts of law and in the courts of public opinion.
	And I'm bringing up some chat that is critical of Tim, that is supportive of Tim.
	I watched him because you get some information.
	You just have to know how to digest that information.
	He's a young kid.
	What people forget about him is he's in his young 30s.
	I mean, he's a skateboarder, ex-hacker.
	I mean, I think he's trying to do the best he can.
	And I don't want to put too many obligations on him.
	I'm using him as an example so that other people...
	Not to continue him.
	Because what can happen is someone like Pierce can appear on Tim Poole.
	It can appear as if Poole is vouching for him.
	Because Poole has talked about how he does due diligence before he has guests on.
	And then they're going to promote him.
	And all of them need to stop.
	All of them really need to stop.
	And they're making a big mistake.
	They're hurting the people that they believe they're helping.
	Just like they hurt Wendy Rittenhouse and the Rittenhouse family.
	All right.
	Well, someone said as a joke, tell us what you really think, Robert.
	I mean, it's out there, so everyone knows.
	And this is not news if you've been watching our streams for long enough, because we were talking about this, you were talking about this.
	And I'm saying that not to place blame, just to give you the credit, because you had been issuing these warnings from before there was a problem.
	Now there's a problem.
	And I understand what you're saying is that when you see John Pierce, his name is John Pierce, on Timcast.
	And you don't get into the nitty-gritty, or you don't have him on to grill him the way he might deserve to be grilled, it can lend credibility to him as a lawyer, and other people can make the same mistake not knowing what happened with Rittenhouse.
	And when you have a headline that says, Rittenhouse motion may get case dismissed with Team John Pierce, something to that effect, that's what triggered a lot of people's concerns.
	They're like, no, this guy's already done enough damage.
	He has nothing to do with the defense.
	Total disassociation.
	He contaminated the defense.
	He stole money.
	We'll be dealing with that.
	Tim Pool did ask him that question at the end, and he denied it.
	He did one of the tells.
	He said 1,000% false, which always usually means 100% true, folks.
	Don't use the 1,000%.
	If you get caught in something, don't use it because almost any investigator is like, hmm, why the exaggeration?
	And it's because he's lying, and it's because he thinks he can't get caught.
	And he's wrong about that.
	He's requiring me to take more assertive action, but that's on him.
	But again, it's not to put any shade on Tim Pool, but a reminder to all the people in independent press out there, don't be promoting this guy.
	He's a fraudster.
	He's a grifter.
	He'll make you look bad in time.
	Or, you know, I don't think he would ever come on, but it would be to grill him properly and confront him on these issues.
	I'll debate him anywhere, anyplace, anytime.
	But he's got to quit also illicitly trying to threaten to tell lies about Rittenhouse if people like me raise questions about him.
	He's not entitled to that whatsoever.
	As an attorney, if you're sued, you can only even discuss the things related to the suit and you're supposed to seek to seal information that could be attorney-client privilege.
	But it gives you an idea of what a bottom gutter guy he is.
	To say, oh, I'll try to humiliate and hurt this kid in his case trial if you guys say anything about me.
	Do you expose what a fraud I am?
	I mean, I don't respond well to that, and he'll figure that out in good tone.
	Okay, well, let's, I mean, let's, if we move on to another case.
	Well, an example, good transition, yeah, would be, speaking of lawyers and lawsuits we warned about.
	The good transition, because this will be actually a later transition to the Trump cases, but is that on Monday there will be a sanctions hearing concerning Sidney Powell and Lin Wood and a bunch of lawyers who got caught up.
	And that was another case where we warned they were going AWOL.
	They were relying on unreliable, untrustworthy sources.
	They were going to hurt Trump's cases and election integrity cases in general by pursuing theories that weren't well-grounded in fact or law.
	And now tomorrow they face sanctions hearing, and there probably will be.
	I have problems with the sanctions hearing still because it strikes me as very selective and highly political, but they put themselves in that position by the foolish decisions that they made, including submitting affidavits that were just patently false.
	And again, anybody who's been around with us for long enough, from the get-go, I remember saying, okay, I watch Sidney Powell.
	She comes out and says, I have the Kraken.
	I'm going to release the Kraken.
	Incontrovertible, irrefutable evidence of a number of things.
	And I remember I had the discussion with my dad.
	I said, like, okay, nobody says this unless they have incontrovertible, and I mean incontrovertible in the meaningful sense, not in the New York versus Giuliani sense.
	Incontrovertible, black-on-white documentation.
	I said, it sounds like she has it.
	She's speaking with confidence.
	She better have it.
	And then as it went along, I was like, when is it being released?
	When's it being released?
	And then I see people tweeting me on Twitter, it's already been released.
	You didn't notice it.
	And I said, if it's been released and I haven't noticed it, there's going to be a big problem because I've been looking for it.
	I've been watching for this.
	And if that's it, there's a problem because she's made statements that cannot be substantiated and she's written checks that cannot be cashed.
	And you were saying it from the beginning.
	This is not where the elections integrity lawsuits should be going.
	This is not where the attention should be.
	But this is where the attention is because it has been brought here and it's going to undermine all of the other lawsuits which ultimately ran into their own hurdles.
	So all that to say, now they're facing sanctions.
	What district are they facing these disciplinary sanctions in?
	So this first round of it, but it's the primary one, is the District of Michigan and Detroit.
	I believe it's a liberal Democratic appointee that they have.
	This was one where they were really careless.
	I believe this is the one where they filed an affidavit by one of these so-called election experts that I kept warning everybody about, was full of it.
	He introduced data that said there were more votes than voters in a whole bunch of precincts.
	The problem was, as Nick Ricada noted at the time, because he recognized one of the precincts, and he's like, I know that precinct.
	That's here in Minnesota.
	Not Michigan.
	So yeah, of course there might be a disparity between votes and voters if you've got the votes from Michigan but registered voter list from Minnesota and it's a Minnesota precinct.
	So it was basically false information.
	Easily, provably false information.
	And there was a good amount of that throughout the affidavits they submitted.
	Now, Lin Wood's defense is kind of funny.
	He's like, hey, I had no idea what was going on anyway, apparently.
	Which is, honestly, that's true.
	He should just use the meme.
	Of me and you walking him into the nut house with the straitjacket and say, look, all the lawyers agree.
	I don't know where I'm at.
	I don't know what I'm doing.
	I couldn't have intentionally lied.
	It would be an honest defense because that boy is seriously nuts.
	But for Sidney Powell and the rest of them, and it appears there's internal conflicts because some of the lawyers that were working with Sidney Powell are no longer working with her.
	She's under investigation in Florida related to potential allegations of charity fraud.
	The Flynn family appears to be disassociating from her, etc.
	Somewhere along the way, she fell off the res, fell off the road.
	I'm not sure where that was, but a lot of the people who were accusing her of grifting now have more and more evidence for it, given what's mounting in some of these other cases.
	She comes in with difficult facts against her.
	Same with Lynn Wood.
	Same with the other lawyers, because they signed on to the submission of this.
	They weren't careful in the affidavit.
	Now, some of the allegations of what's frivolous, I disagree with.
	I mean, some of the allegations against them are mixed.
	Some are just disagreements about opinions about interpretation of law or interpretation of facts.
	Where they have strong ones, the ones seeking sanctions, is where there were facts that were just easily, provably false with a Google search within about 10 minutes.
	And again, they set themselves up for this because if anybody came in with any theory, no matter how cockamamie the theory, no matter how easily proven false the theory was from a factual perspective, they put it in because it fit the narrative they wanted to believe in.
	These are people who had never done election disputes before ever.
	Linwood had no election law experience of any kind.
	Sidney Powell had no election law experience of any kind.
	And so this was a miscue and a mistake on their part.
	And the problem for them is this could trigger the same thing that the Rudy Giuliani case did.
	If Giuliani got sanctioned, this is a foregone conclusion because Sidney Powell, we don't need to repeat the statements they made.
	They made statements which were over-the-top, more not exaggerated or outlandish, but they were much higher level.
	Well, they were higher level than Giuliani.
	Oh, yes, yes, yes.
	No question.
	I mean, Giuliani might have gotten wrong whether Joe Frazier was still registered to vote in Philly.
	What they got wrong was who owned what company.
	I mean, things like that.
	Votes going overseas.
	I mean, a number of things which...
	Not only were never proven, you know, inconclusively to be true, they never even got back to them.
	And so they made statements which make Giuliani's statements look totally forgivable, and Giuliani's got the full wrath of the politicized, weaponized.
	And look what happened.
	As soon as New York did its interim suspension, D.C. suspended him.
	What people don't know is that in the licensure world, you get hit anywhere.
	You get hit by any court, anywhere, for any reason.
	It triggers a cascading domino effect on all of your licensure and all your appearance rights everywhere.
	So all of a sudden, they're going to start revoking your pro-hawks wherever you've appeared.
	Pro-hawk, they start triggering investigations or automatic suspensions in some cases.
	It shouldn't.
	I disagree with this on due process grounds, but this is the reality.
	As people could have witnessed, Rudy Giuliani, after what New York did, D.C. stepped in and immediately, just because of what New York did, not saying what New York, the underlying facts were true.
	Or the law was correct.
	Just said New York suspended you, so under our rules, we can immediately suspend you just because New York suspended you, even if what New York did was a violation of your rights.
	And so you can imagine what's going to trigger here.
	They lose any aspect of this hearing.
	The media will only focus on, see, a court prove that Trump's lawyers deliberately lied.
	This is why I was against this.
	Pat, they were pursuing.
	It damages every other claim.
	You know, the very good election evidence that's coming out of Arizona, very good election evidence coming out of Georgia.
	An audit that's just about to occur in Pennsylvania by the Pennsylvania State Senate that's going to get to a lot of the issues that we raised, that I talked about aggressively.
	More and more evidence is saying that we were right, that I was right.
	But all of it, the media is going to overshadow this by this sanctions hearing because of these stupid statements that they chose to make and idiots that they chose to call experts that weren't.
	I mean, I still wonder whether some of it was an op, which I'll get to involving the Trump cases in a little bit, the Trump Twitter, YouTube, Google cases, Facebook cases.
	But they set themselves up.
	So I think they will likely be sanctioned at some level.
	We'll see if the judge goes too far because she's the politically minded judge who might.
	But they put themselves in a bad factual posture that's going to trigger a wide range of cascading negative effects.
	I will be surprised if within two years, Sidney Powell or Lin Wood have a bar license.
	They say courage is contagious, so is cowardice.
	I'm not referring to this as cowardice, but once the political tides start turning, everybody feels empowered to follow on the last wave.
	It'll be a wave, you're right.
	In my mind, having seen what happened to Giuliani, given the evidence in the Giuliani case, this is a foregone conclusion.
	And again, it's not to say that it's justified or proper.
	I think holding lawyers ethically responsible if they make mistakes is one thing.
	And I'm not saying they did this, but when it comes to possibly not falsifying affidavits, but drafting them and not having the proper witnesses vet them, drafting them for clients, there's a lot of things that...
	Just contrast it to Mark Elias, who's the Democratic election lawyers who got sanctioned, and that sanction was affirmed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, but there's been almost no media coverage, total blackout, and all he's going to do is pay a small fine.
	He'll suffer no collateral consequences compared to look at what happened for Rudy for statements that weren't even made in court, 95% of them, and now it's likely happened to Powell and Wood.
	This is clearly politically selective.
	And nobody's going to convince me that whatever mistakes Sidney Powell, Linwood, and others made in that case, that the only unethical lawyers in the city of Detroit are Linwood and Sidney Powell?
	Yeah, but they happen to be definitely the most high-profile on the most high-profile issue of our time, making some of the most outlandish statements of our time that we've seen.
	And people like me, I specifically warned them.
	This is the chickens coming home to roost, but I'm not happy about that because I don't like the consequences it has for how it tars and feathers election integrity claims, how it tars and feathers some of Trump's legitimate concerns, and how it is being selectively used for dissident lawyers.
	It reflects a broader pattern.
	Now, Trump didn't sign on to this case, but his cases against Twitter, YouTube, Google, and Facebook have a similar flaw in the lawyers being employed.
	He has the right idea.
	Credit to him for pursuing it in the court of public opinion.
	Pursue it in the court of law to elevate the attention to the issue.
	Credit to him for wanting to do so on a class-action basis.
	He has the right purpose, right idea.
	Very poor execution because of who the lawyers are.
	And I have serious doubts about what their motivation really is.
	Now, I did a video breaking down the Twitter one.
	I didn't see the Facebook, Google, but I assume it's effectively the same sort of allegations where we're invoking the state actor argument that they were heeding to pressure from Democrat politicians and therefore basically acting under their instruction and therefore can be deemed to be state actors who are therefore subject to the constitutional requirements.
	So, unless I'm mistaken on that, I'll just do the summary of the Twitter case, which is basically going after Twitter and Dorsey personally, arguing that they are constitutionally bound because they have become state actors, because a bunch of Democrat politicians said, we don't think Trump should have a Twitter account.
	He shouldn't be tweeting like this.
	We're going to revoke Section 230 immunity if you keep allowing this type of speech on your platform.
	Twitter bans Trump.
	And a bunch of other class members, proposed class members, at the direction of Jack Dorsey.
	Therefore, they become state actors.
	Jack Dorsey has become personally responsible, despite the corporate veil.
	And that's the essence of the lawsuit.
	One thing that I noticed is that they seem to be sucking and blowing in that they were saying, basically, they become state actors.
	But the law was unconstitutional because it immunized them from...
	Censorship, which they would have otherwise been entitled to if they were private actors.
	So, I mean, I guess, look, ultimately, assessment of the lawsuit itself, and then we're going to get into the discussion about the lawyers, because that's totally foreign to me.
	What's your take on the lawsuit, chances of success, and any strengths or all the weaknesses?
	They've managed to bring the weakest possible claim and forego the strongest possible claims.
	That's why I wonder, once I dug into who the lawyers were, Whether this was a deliberate poison pill to kill the cases.
	For example, Trump's clear right idea to go after big tech.
	He's the President of the United States, or he was the President of the United States, and he's the most egregious example of censorship that's ever occurred and its most problematic consequences.
	What he could have brought was a combination of claims.
	If he was going to bring the claim, the best claim on the state actor's side is not a class action claim.
	He doesn't even meet the standards for class action.
	It's that, hey, I was the president of the United States, and I was still removed.
	And in order to meet that, given that Bobby Kennedy's suit, which was much stronger factually, was dismissed by the district court.
	Because essentially what the courts are saying right now is that in order, and if they had even consulted any of the lawyers involved in this space, Harvey Dillon, Ron Coleman, Harvey Dillon has by far the strongest.
	State actor suit against social media pending in California because she waited to get the receipts first and made direct proof.
	This is something they could have done too.
	Trump's people could have done FOIA requests, got the intel first before they brought the suit.
	But the only way you're going to be able to get the state actor, given what happened in the Bobby Kennedy suit, now he's appealing that and we'll see what the law is, but is to say specifically, and in my view, Trump easily could have.
	They have inferential evidence.
	They don't have direct evidence, but that's what discovery is for.
	I don't know how it works, but could they have alleged the type of conduct that was already included in the California lawsuit, which was exponentially stronger as far as state compulsion of a private actor, than anything they alleged in the Twitter suit?
	Can you incorporate by reference other lawsuits wherein that evidence has yet to be made in a court of law?
	All you have to do for a direct allegation is most cases, when you make an accusation against somebody, you don't have the proof of it yet.
	You have reasons to believe that discovery will show it.
	So you say, upon information and belief, and you lay out the...
	And here they had strong inferential evidence from the FOIA information that had already been disclosed, from the suit that came from the Harmeet Dillon suit, from the Bobby Kennedy suits.
	All of that had enough background information that what you need to allege right now, to allege state actor, Trump had the best state actor claim out there.
	This is why I'm concerned about why they deliberately chose to sabotage it.
	What Trump needed to say was simply, Vice President Kamala Harris, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, CDC Director Fauci, instructed Zach Dorsey, Mark Zuckerberg, I won't even try to pronounce it, the Google's name, YouTube, instructed each of them to remove the President of the United States accounts from being available to communicate to the people.
	And that's it.
	Then you have a clear, clean state actor, both to them as individuals, because that's no longer a corporate veil issue.
	You're not saying they're responsible because of what their company did.
	You're saying they individually chose to impose that upon their company because a state actor told them to do so.
	Now, does he have direct proof of that yet?
	No.
	But does he have plenty of indirect proof?
	Absolutely.
	And that would get him to discovery, which I guarantee would be very revelatory.
	Instead, they went out of their way.
	Not to allege that.
	Instead, they allege the claim that their own court cases they talk about make it clear.
	Where this suit is going right now, it's likely to get transferred to California, number one.
	Number two, it will likely be dismissed on anti-slap grounds because that's enforceable in federal court.
	And Trump is going to end up paying Twitter, Facebook, Google, YouTube, and Zuckerberg and Dorsey and the other dudes attorney's fees.
	That's where this is going.
	And it almost seems deliberate because, like I said, there was what he could have claimed that would have been very strong, and there's what he did claim, which their own court cases say you can't bring.
	To give folks an idea out there, the one thing that does not constitute a state actor is a private actor being motivated by the idea that a state actor will be happy with their actions and give them some form of relief or remedy.
	Their own court cases make that clear.
	And yet that's their entire theory.
	They chose to abandon the direct allegation that's necessary to get there and bring the theory they know is going to get dismissed.
	And again, not only that, and again, I don't know, look, I know what I don't know about American law, but I know the questions I ask.
	When they say some federal entities benefited from Twitter's conduct, and I'm thinking that's, correct if I'm wrong, totally irrelevant that they may have...
	And there's existing case law on this.
	And they even cite some of those cases.
	That's what I was like.
	They're telling the judge.
	They're giving the clerk a roadmap.
	So, by the way, here's how frivolous our case is.
	That made me wonder.
	I was like, who in the world?
	First, I was stunned because I was like, there's nobody that's in this field that is on this lawsuit.
	No First Amendment lawyers.
	No big constitutional lawyers.
	No big anti-big tech lawyers.
	And then I started asking around.
	None of them had even been consulted.
	And I was like, well, what's going on here?
	And then I read the suit, see how it's poison-pilled, because there are a bunch of other claims he could have brought.
	The class action claim to have brought was to bring a claim saying, challenging the Pruniar doctrines in federal law.
	Because in California, this also would have discouraged them from trying to move it to California and reduce the attorney's fees risk for Trump.
	Because in California, the Pruniar doctrine still applies.
	And what that says is when a private company is exercising a traditional public duty, Such as owning and operating the public square.
	This goes back to Marsh v.
	Alabama that the Supreme Court then pulled back on.
	But you could on good faith grounds say, you know what, we should go back to Marsh, adopt California's Pruneyard Doctrine, which says a private mall can be obligated.
	Because the private Pruneyard's argument was, hey, this violates our First Amendment rights because we're being forced to allow people whose opinions we disagree with.
	Distribute material in our mall.
	It's exactly what Big Tech argued in getting the Florida Big Tech law struck down.
	And the U.S. Supreme Court said, no, that doesn't violate your rights.
	That's within the state of California's constitutional prerogative to choose to protect the public square part of a private mall as a superior First Amendment right to the mall's expression, which is very not really impacted.
	So my argument was, hey, we now have a digital, just because the public square is now digital rather than physical, now in the online world, rather than a specific geographic space, doesn't mean we should change our First Amendment standards.
	And there's a bunch of case law where the Supreme Court calls the digital public square that.
	And so come back in and say, that's your class action claim.
	And you know you're maybe challenging existing law, but then you set it up for the best argument for the court of public opinion, for your future policy argument.
	You scare off the defendants from trying to even take it to California because their prunyard doctrine applies.
	If they do take it there, you bring a California state claim and make California state part of the class action.
	That's your second claim.
	And then you bring other common law claims.
	I thought for sure Trump would bring a claim that says, all these people got rich off of me.
	The reality is monetizing me over the last four years made them millions, likely maybe even billions of dollars.
	I'm not mistaken.
	It would be a claim for unjust enrichment where they did undoubtedly gain millions of followers.
	Hundreds of millions in ad revenue from Trump's presence being on these platforms.
	And then once they no longer need the golden goose, I don't want to say the analogy because people think it's a threat, but once they no longer need him, dispatch of him.
	And I don't know why people have not made this argument yet.
	Knowing that Glenn Greenwald's YouTube channel has been fully demonetized, from what I understand.
	I want people to look out...
	Allison Morrow was suspended for simply pointing out what NBC was doing.
	She just repeated what NBC was doing and they said, oh, you can't talk about what NBC is doing.
	I mean, because they don't like what NBC...
	Well, supposedly.
	I mean, that gives an idea.
	She was suspended for a week.
	By the way, her wine promo is good.
	That's legitimate wine, folks.
	That's top-notch wine.
	So for everybody who doesn't know, this will be a small parenthesis.
	Alison Morrow was suspended for a week for a video talking about mainstream media where she was penalized for repeating what was reported on these mainstream media sites, much like Gadsad getting kicked off of Facebook for sharing someone else's comment because of hateful content.
	She was restored.
	Her suspension was...
	Oh, it wasn't?
	I thought it was still enforced.
	Apparently, she posted a video today.
	I was listening to her live on Locals.
	That would be the Court of Public, because they originally denied her appeal with that Orwellian language that says that we did this for your own benefit, and we might have done it for this reason, and if not, it was this other reason.
	If not, it might have been this other reason.
	You realize you're getting a pure AI screw-over.
	Oh, yeah, that's great she got reinstated.
	That's only because the Court of Public Opinion putting pressure on YouTube on social media.
	Well, that's one explanation, whether or not it's just someone looked at it a second time.
	But I think, yes, they get enough pressure, they get enough tweets, team YouTube, and as much as they're bots, there are still humans there, and they go back and look it over.
	But no, someone like Glenn Greenwald, or someone who gets their channel entirely demonetized, if I ever see an ad on that, given YouTube's new terms of service, there's a claim for unjust enrichment, if not outright deceitful business practices.
	Trump had the ultimate unjust enrichment claim.
	No individual in the world had an unjust enrichment claim as Trump.
	And it would highlight the issue.
	It would play in great politically.
	It would be like, these guys made billions of dollars off of me, and then they tried to silence me because they wanted to go a different political route.
	But I want my billions of dollars back.
	And he also could have alleged consumer fraud as well under the Florida statutes.
	And that makes it harder to remove to California.
	So he's filed the suit, but he's not precluded from filing a suit alleging these claims.
	He can still bring all those claims.
	It's just, as long as these lawyers are involved, it's obvious those claims won't be brought.
	This claim is made to look.
	It was when it happens that he ends up having to pay the other side's legal fees, loses.
	It's made to make state actor claims look bad, make Trump's claims look bad.
	And it's not a surprise if you dig in.
	It's one of these fake America First groups.
	It's called America First Policy Initiative or something like that.
	You dig in, it's all big oil money.
	They're all corporate lobbyists.
	A lot of them are Wall Street connected.
	They're a lot of Jared Kushner's pals.
	So these are people that...
	He's probably going to block me now on Twitter.
	But that's who a lot of these people...
	We probably got uninvited from Joe Rogan, uninvited from Tim Pool, and now I got Jared Kushner on me.
	But hey, say love.
	We say nothing here.
	I say nothing in the hopes of appealing to someone bigger for what I...
	That's not how I've ever been brought up.
	It's not how I've ever conducted myself.
	And I'm not shy about these things.
	And I like that Robert speaks the truth as he sees it.
	But Robert, one thing.
	Again, I'm not a U.S. lawyer.
	I know what is required for class action law here.
	I didn't realize it was a class action until the...
	I saw it in the header.
	But until the end where they defined the group.
	As far as I understand, they didn't allege...
	All of the other things that need to be alleged, the practicality of the group, the ability of the law firm to handle a class action, the appropriateness of the selected representative.
	Typically, you have not pages, but you have four or five criteria that need to be alleged in order to justify the class action.
	Here, they just threw in the definition of the class and then ended the lawsuit, and I thought that was not right.
	Oh yeah, no, there's no chance of the class ever being certified.
	So for people that think this is a current class action, it's not.
	It's not a class action until the federal judge certifies it as a class action.
	That will never occur.
	It'll get dismissed before that ever happens.
	So that's why it's just, you know, it's not helpful.
	It's hurtful to Trump's causes and claims.
	And the part they brought that's a class action makes no sense because what they're really saying is Trump is specifically targeted by state actors using big tech.
	That's not a class.
	That's only Trump.
	There aren't a million other Trumps.
	The class action part would have been unjust enrichment, some part of that, of consumer fraud, some part of that.
	But the big one would have been treating this as a public square, a digital public square under the Marsh Doctrine and under the Pruneyard Doctrine and arguing for a change in existing law to extend that to the modern space.
	And by the way, I thought they would follow Thomas's guide.
	They ignored.
	Every point that Thomas raised.
	They don't bring a single point up that Thomas talked about.
	Not the public utility argument.
	Thomas doesn't like this precise state actor argument.
	That's not his thing.
	He likes other claims.
	They ignored all of them.
	And it's because three or four of the lawyers work in a Virginia real estate law firm where what they do is help you get your title transferred.
	What are they doing being the main drafters of such a case?
	Then another lawyer is a local insurance lawyer, probably just the local pro-op counsel for Florida.
	And the only guy with the name...
	Who appeared as Greta Van Susteren's husband, who the last time he did something interesting, it was the 1980s.
	So, I mean, it's like, this is a disaster of a list of lawyers.
	The reason why Dershowitz is out there talking about how important it is, is I assume Dershowitz, this is Dershowitz, he understands policy-wise how important it is, this whole issue of big tech censorship, but it's because Dershowitz is trying to get a hold of Trump, because this is how you get a hold of Trump.
	You go on Fox News, unfortunately.
	Because Dershowitz knows it needs to be improved.
	Yeah, and I saw Dershowitz's comments.
	It's a big question.
	It's just not the right way to go about it by lawsuit.
	It's the wrong suit.
	Trump has the best claims of anybody.
	And I think his motivations are completely correct in this.
	He just has these corrupt corporate lawyers.
	This was always his problem.
	Either corrupt insiders or crazy outsiders.
	And it was back and forth, back and forth.
	And there's a third option.
	of strategically smart outsiders.
	There's a bunch of us out there.
	Not only me, obviously, but there's Harmeet Dillon, there's Ron Coleman, there's Alan Dershowitz, there's the people who are helping out Bobby Kennedy.
	There's a bunch of other people that are trying to be on the front lines on these cases that really understand this.
	A lot of us have been talking about this, how to go at big tech for five years.
	I brought one of the first shoots against Twitter in California for Charles Johnson and got a decent settlement out of it because they recognize their risk on appeal.
	Now, the problem is you have to sue in California, and if you lose, you have to pay the other side's legal fees.
	People ask me why I haven't brought more suits.
	That's why.
	The client's like, I'm not willing to take that risk given the politics of the court right now.
	But Trump is in the best possible position, and he brought the weakest possible claim.
	You dig in, these are Rick Perry's people.
	These are big corporate lobbyists their whole lives.
	These are people who are good on issues like school choice and regulation and taxation, things like that.
	They have no business in this space.
	And like I said, once I saw they cited the very cases in the lawsuit that make it clear to the clerk and the judge the case is basically frivolous, that made me wonder what was the real motivation of some of these people involved.
	And look, arguing motivation can never be proven or disproven, but there's a question of judgment here.
	It's either extreme legal malpractice or overt corruption.
	We saw what Clarence Thomas laid out in his dissenting refusal of certiorari, and I forget the case.
	He laid out the groundwork, the idea, the public utilities argument, the...
	He gave an unconstitutionality argument to say that state laws can't be limited because that makes it unconstitutional under state prerogatives.
	He laid out how you could go at Big Tech under other grounds, whether Section 230 really means what they claim it means.
	So he laid out a roadmap of where it could be challenged constitutionally and statutorily.
	And they don't bring any of those claims.
	Instead, they bring a claim that their own suit admits, if you understand what it's saying.
	It's a suit that Trump, who doesn't understand law, would think is a good suit because they include all those tweets and comments.
	But what it doesn't, and it praises Trump a lot.
	And it alleges that he has a masterful use of social media, which everyone loves.
	It was designed to make Trump think it's a good suit when it's actually not.
	That's why I have serious doubts about their motivation.
	Then when I saw who this was, I was like, these are the same corrupt actors that misdirected the White House for four years.
	People are asking, how do you get this message to Trump?
	I mean, look.
	There's as many people that reach out to him as possible.
	That's about it.
	Trump is Trump.
	God bless his soul.
	But, you know, he had to scream a lot, and maybe he hears you.
	Maybe he doesn't.
	did you want to segue into an issue on this or do I want to, on the issue of paying your other parties legal fees, um, in the, uh, so if, This is the question I have for you.
	I think I know the answer because I think it's obvious.
	But in the Carpe Donctum lawsuit, for anybody who does not remember this event, the video that went viral of a young black child and a young white child running at each other in open arms in New York Street, and they hug, and the parents put the video online.
	It goes viral.
	It gets licensed by a video licensing agency.
	I'm fairly certain it was Jukin because I think it was the same licensing agency that had the incident with MXR Plays.
	Who vigorously protect the copyright of their clients.
	The video went viral, being fully licensed.
	And then Carpe Donctum, for anybody who doesn't know who he is, he's a meme master, a meme smith, who was making some of the best, most catchy memes in support of Donald Trump.
	And he's vocal about it.
	He memed this video where instead of it being a white and a black kid hugging and being beautiful...
	He played a portion of the video where the white kid was chasing the black kid and then said, racist baby, probably Trump supporter chasing a kid, yada, yada, yada.
	But here's what actually happened.
	Played the original video and says, don't trust fake news.
	Only you can prevent fake news dumpster fires.
	As if to show that fake news can literally reverse the meaning of a video with the same content of that video itself.
	Trump, Trump for president, retweeted.
	The parents of these two toddlers...
	Sue Carpe Donctum and Trump, and Trump for president, for civil rights violations.
	I think they ancillary threw in a copyright allegation, but not a copyright claim.
	And what were the other bases of the lawsuits?
	Oh, intentional infliction of emotional distress.
	Anyways, we covered it at the time.
	I said that I didn't think it was going to go anywhere.
	I thought it actually took audacity.
	To sue, because someone made a variation of a video involving your kids that you willingly posted online, and then claimed privacy rights violations under the Civil Rights Law of New York.
	Anyways, it got tossed, and it got tossed proper, except the judge, to throw one, I guess, one, not to punish the plaintiffs too hard, did not order them to pay the legal, sorry, did not grant the cause of action that would have otherwise been given to the prevailing defendants on an anti-slap dismissal.
	To go after the plaintiff for legal fees.
	And I just said, you know, this was dismissed partly on civil rights law and partly on anti-slap legislation where the judge said this is clearly a slap suit invoking the anti-slap legislation.
	It's dismissed on that basis and it can create a reverse cause of action where the defendants can go after the plaintiff for their failed lawsuit to recover legal fees.
	And the judge, I guess, just because he liked them, created some confusion as to whether or not this was a novel issue.
	That could warrant that claim and did not grant the defendants that claim.
	Completely.
	I mean, that was very rare.
	I mean, now this is the new New York anti-slap statute.
	So probably part of his motivation was there's probably going to be pushback by a lot of New York judges on the aggressiveness of the anti-slap law that now exists in New York.
	Because it imposes these really tough penalties and fee-shifting provisions that they don't like to enforce.
	So I think that was probably also in play.
	He didn't like doing it in this particular case, and he probably doesn't like it in general.
	He's probably going to be one of those judges.
	But he's probably going to get overturned if they appeal it.
	Because generally, the whole point of their amendment of the law was to make it almost a matter of right.
	There's some dispute about that, about whether that was the intention.
	But in most states, the anti-slap law makes it almost a matter of right that you get your legal fees when you win.
	And this was, everybody knew this was contrary to what the judge said, saying there was some good faith basis of extension of law because it had a campaign connection.
	That was nonsense.
	They alleged, the plaintiffs alleged, that this was for commercial or advertising purposes.
	And the judge says, no, it's clearly not.
	This was, it wasn't.
	But then says, you know, the reversal of this presumption where the defendant can claim legal fees from the plaintiff is unless.
	There was some novel question of law that the plaintiffs raised in the lawsuit such that there's an exception to the otherwise, like you say, basic codified automatic rule that if a plaintiff sues and it gets dismissed on anti-slap, they pay the legal fees.
	That's the way it works because you basically try to suppress someone's First Amendment rights through a strategic lawsuit against public participation.
	And the judge just, I think it's out of whole cloth, fabricates a novel question because I didn't see it.
	I was sitting there saying, okay, well, can the defendants appeal?
	But what are the chances that the defendants appeal the dismissal of the plaintiff's lawsuit?
	Because in theory, even if they appeal, could not a court of appeals say, we're reinstating the lawsuit?
	We don't think it should have been dismissed in the first place?
	I mean, that's always possible, and presumably the other side.
	But they could just appeal the attorney's fees order.
	They could appeal just to denial of the attorney's fees.
	And then it would be on the other side whether they want to...
	Challenge that by also appealing the judge's order.
	But they're not going to win that.
	I mean, that was open and shut.
	To claim a meme is somebody stealing your image for corporate advertising purposes was a preposterous claim.
	Especially, look, I presume the law is relatively the same, but stealing your images for corporate profit typically is when you didn't sign up for any publicity in the first place.
	You still cannot commercialize someone's image.
	Even if they put the video online intentionally.
	So a classic example is that, you know, we've talked about it, but the German guy, oh God, the techno-viking.
	Someone else commercialized this guy's face on mugs and made money on it.
	And he was ordered to give it back.
	It was under German law, but I suspect it's roughly the same as even if you put a video out there, you can't take that kid's picture, put it on mugs and market it and sell it.
	But this is a case where they put the video out there.
	It went viral.
	They were doing the rounds of interviews.
	These people were not selling shirts with the kids hugging on it.
	It was a meme for Twitter.
	And so this was cut and dry.
	But, Robert, I know I take flack for this sometimes, but I come from the perspective...
	I would say they probably made more money at the end of the day, too.
	Like, if this was a damages case, if Carpe Donctum had never done what he did, probably fewer people would have seen his licensed image, because it led them to the licensed image.
	It popularized that image in general.
	So they made more money off of this, not less.
	Well, the argument that I thought should have been made, which they didn't, is just go for a straight copyright claim.
	Because we all know the rules, fair use, transformation, parity, etc.
	But when Carpe Donctum's meme...
	Use the entire original video to show what actually happened.
	And in my mind, if you want to make a claim, that would have been the strongest claim.
	It's pure copyright infringement because the modified version of the meme, or the modified version of the video through the meme, if it doesn't replay the original video in its entirety, people are still going to have to go see the original video.
	Whereas what Carpe Donctum did was he made his modified version and then showed the original in its entirety.
	So that's where I would have gone, but they didn't go there.
	I don't know that they can go there now, but...
	It got dismissed as it should have, cut and dry, clear cut.
	I mean, the judge was unforgiving in the reasons for which it was dismissed, but then he was very forgiving just to let them off of the legal fees claim, which I think is problematic because that's what the anti-slap legislation was there for in the first place.
	Yep.
	I don't know if Carpe wants to really fight it up on the legal fees aspect, because that's still in the process of being developed in New York under New York law.
	But if he does, I think he has an above average chance, but still a great win in court to protect his right to, even in a New York state court, where usually the odds are stacked against you if you're on the political right side of the aisle.
	The court recognized that the law...
	Completely protected him and dismissed the entire nonsense.
	So still a great win for him.
	A great win for Ron Coleman, who was his lawyer in the matter.
	He's now partners with Armie Dillon, the kind of people Trump should have consulted before he filed a suit.
	But great win for him, and congratulations to him and Carpe.
	And now, speaking of New York courts getting something right, let me just see this.
	Isn't it premature to be seeking sanctions, et cetera, of Sidney Powell while issues are still ongoing in Michigan?
	One, that suit they lost.
	That's the federal suit that they lost.
	There's no pending litigation that Sidney Powell's a part of in Michigan that's subject to that sanctions motion.
	The issues in Michigan, I'll be honest, you know, I get Mike Lindell still doing his thing.
	I haven't seen, you know, Patrick Burns still doing his thing.
	Usually when I investigate, their facts come out wrong repeatedly.
	So, I mean, I still think the better focus...
	Is where Arizona's doing it, where some people in Georgia are doing it, where people in Pennsylvania are doing it, look at signatures, look at whether the ballots were properly counted and so forth, rather than...
	I mean, again, Richard Barris and I looked at this.
	The computers and the machines had nothing to do with this election outcome.
	It just didn't.
	The evidence proved that from day one.
	I got to bring this up because I did forget.
	Yeah, 63 Rambler.
	Wasn't the case about subtext?
	We are traumatized by our children being used for the wrong political message.
	Boo-hoo.
	Literally.
	They alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress, which has a four-pronged test, which is excessively difficult to make.
	This wasn't...
	I can imagine someone making a video using those kids' images in a way that would be intentional infliction of emotional distress.
	To allege that this was is much akin to that reporter talking about January 6th and saying that that was the trauma that led him to have life-altering issues.
	But no, speaking of New York courts, getting it right again.
	Project Veritas.
	This was sort of complicated, but not really.
	They're suing, this was in the Twitter lawsuit, Twitter defamation.
	Twitter, I didn't cover this motion to change jurisdiction or change venue.
	Twitter moved to move this from the New York State Court to the federal court, and I think it was California, if I'm not mistaken, Robert?
	Initially.
	It always has to be in New York.
	But the likely objective was, once it was removed, to then make a motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of California.
	So the motion itself was to move from state court to federal court.
	And Twitter's argument, which is, I mean, it's so preposterous because there's the $75,000 threshold on a claim, from what I understand.
	So under $75,000, you can stay in state court.
	Over $75,000, you've got to go to federal court.
	Well, you don't have to, but it gives federal court authority.
	Okay, so Veritas is not claiming over $75,000.
	And Twitter said, Twitter's argument was that basically, we're not convinced that if Project Veritas succeeds on its claim, then the damages, given the fact that we make $390,000, I don't know how much they make, hundreds of millions of dollars a year, well, the damages will likely be more than $75,000.
	So therefore, we should be transferred venue from state to federal.
	Or transfer jurisdiction from state to federal, and then maybe venue after that.
	And that was basically Twitter's argument, is that ultimately, if Veritas succeeds, we'll suffer more than $75,000 in damages, even though Veritas is not claiming that amount, because this might be a question of principle and not a question of monetary damages, or a retraction.
	I don't know how you quantify that monetarily.
	It might be worth more than a million dollars.
	They get shut down.
	It's going to stay in New York State, and New York State thus far has been relatively favorable to Project Veritas' claims.
	I'm not saying to Veritas itself, but they seem to be upholding the law.
	What do you think of the decision, and what is the state of the law, actually, on this type of claim?
	Because it's like a far-fetched motion to transfer in the first place.
	Yeah, so basically, Project Veritas' lawyers did the exact same thing I did in the Covington cases.
	So when I sued, I sued in state court.
	And I sued for $50,000, the cost of a University of Kentucky four-year tuition, as our claim for damages for each plaintiff against each defendant.
	And what that meant was, even though these defendants were out of state, there was no jurisdiction for the federal court to remove the action.
	They still tried and lost.
	And it's the same.
	Basically, you as a plaintiff have control over how much money you sue for.
	And so sometimes under federal law, this is how Senator Warren and Deb Haaland, now Interior Secretary Deb Haaland, got the case removed.
	They argued that the issue arose under federal congressional immunity, but the other defendants were unsuccessful because the only grounds for them to remove it is they had to say there was a dispute between parties of different states, that the plaintiffs and defendants were from totally different states, and that the amount of money involved was at least $75,000 in dispute.
	Because the amount that I alleged was under $75,000, the way some defendants try to get around that is they claim, well, you're really wanting $75,000.
	And typically, as a plaintiff, if you limit yourself to that amount, to less than $75,000, you're bound by that later on throughout the proceedings.
	They can't try to impose upon you an obligation to sue for an amount you don't want.
	What it is, Twitter is seeing the good reactions Project Veritas is getting in that particular county.
	And didn't like it, and they ran to federal court.
	Now, the interesting thing about federal court removal is the federal judge gets to decide whether the removal applies.
	I mean, really, I think some of these times it should be a state judge decision, but that ship has sailed.
	But the federal judge was like, no, this is just an obvious effort by Twitter to drag it out of here.
	And secondly, there's another example where Twitter wanted to pretend that anything involving them has to be sued in Northern District of California.
	This argument was being made about Trump's suit.
	It's only because of how Trump brought it that that is likely to be successful for Twitter and YouTube and Facebook in that context.
	But here, again, when you're being sued for defamation, Section 230 is no immunity, and those terms of service deals don't apply.
	So it was another important precedent-setting win by Project Veritas and continuous fantastic work by James O 'Keefe.
	And now, I forget where it was, but someone, I think it might have been in the comment section of his video, says, we don't care about these small W's, we want the big W. These small W's matter as much as, you never get to a big W unless you get these small W's.
	And people should appreciate, one of the biggest W's that anyone can get and hope for right now is discovery, is unfettered discovery.
	And because if you get there...
	You're going to either find out that there is no cause of action or how bad and how deep it actually runs.
	So $10 million is nice.
	Money is a tool.
	It's not an end.
	The discovery here itself might be something of an end in and of itself because it might be the beginning of a new beginning depending on what it reveals.
	And he's made clear.
	He's bringing these suits for the right reasons.
	He's not looking for money.
	He's entirely looking, and he's not even just looking for retractions, corrections, and apologies.
	He's looking to find out the truth and to expose that truth to the rest of the world while setting legal precedents that other people can follow, sort of like Lewis and Clark, sort of blaze the legal path that other people can follow in his footsteps to also achieve justice and some balance in the court of public opinion from these institutional sources of big tech and big media power.
	I brought this set up.
	Please don't get up.
	I take for granted this is comedy because...
	Dude, okay.
	So the next step in this is it's going to continue in the state court of New York, which is thus far...
	It's been very productive for Veritas, and it's amazing.
	It's great to see.
	It is high time.
	Look, Veritas filed the suit the way it should be filed against Twitter.
	And you compare that, and I'm not criticizing for the sake of criticizing.
	I'm criticizing because I want positive results.
	You compare that to other suits that we just discussed.
	It's a lightened day in terms of how they're being waged, the allegations that are being included, and the strategy being adopted.
	So we'll see where it goes.
	And we'll do a follow-up with James O 'Keefe one of these days because that was a phenomenal stream that we had with him last time.
	And when there's news, we'll do it.
	Speaking of New York.
	Speaking of New York, there were a couple of sentences over the last week or two that were, you know, there were some good comeuppances, but what was most striking was how light the sentences were, both in the case of Allison Mack, who was basically the co-leader of the Nixxiom cult that abused the rights of a wide range of women.
	And, you know, discussing the sort of broader context of human trafficking.
	She was an example of that.
	People can go back and watch our sidebar from last week with Eliza Blue, who's one of the leading advocates and helps really explain human trafficking from the myths the media tries to create.
	The media wants to limit human trafficking to people, you know, with chains on and in the back of trucks.
	Human trafficking is much broader and much wider and much more pernicious than that.
	It's usually by coercive methods of manipulation that it occurs, that your kid is at risk, that your grandkid or your niece or nephew is at risk.
	That's why it's important to know it as a personal matter.
	And she did a very good job of explaining how that works.
	Actually, just to pause it there for one second, because during that stream, a lot of people were taking issue with the term human trafficking in terms of how it was being used and defined.
	People need to be sensitive to the fact that it might be a broader term than what we've been led to believe based on Hollywood movies, but set the term aside.
	The information, the issues, the issues that social media pose in particular are pressing, and every parent should be focusing on it and aware of it.
	Sorry, just to close parentheses.
	Exactly.
	There's much greater risk from social media, like the kidnapping scare of the 90s that led to the safe space culture presented nowhere near the risk that you have Facebook entering your kid's home every day does.
	That's the reality of it.
	It's like, you know, kids don't need to run away now.
	They can run into their phones and they can access parts of the world that they would have otherwise never been able to run away to in the first place.
	And Facebook basically is, as I said, an ad for human traffickers.
	It's designed itself to make it easy and profitable for itself for human traffickers to find vulnerable victims.
	So what ended up happening with Nixie or NX, whatever it is, what ended up happening in terms of the sentences?
	Here she was, the worst co-offender.
	Almost as bad as him.
	In some respects, arguably worse than him.
	He gets 100 plus years.
	She gets three years.
	An incredibly light sentence.
	Remember everybody, they wanted to put Roger Stone in prison for nine years.
	Just keep that in mind.
	Because politicians didn't like one answer he gave that had nothing to do with the hearing anyway.
	Roger Stone was supposed to go to prison for nine years, according to the media and the legal experts.
	She got three, leading one of the biggest cults in human trafficking, convicted of human trafficking in other aspects than anybody.
	And then the second one, Corollary, Michael Avenatti, who got caught extorting Nike.
	And again, basically, Michael Avenatti is a smarter version of John Pierce.
	Just as crooked, just a little bit brighter, but not too bright because he was busy Googling.
	Extortion right when he was getting on the phone with Nike.
	So just word of the wise, maybe don't do that next time.
	But he was supposed to get about a 10-year sentence.
	And there's been people like this shipwrecked crew who Will Chamberlain at Human Events is now promoting.
	Man, I'm getting myself struck from a lot of invite lists tonight.
	But I like Will.
	Very nice guy.
	But, you know, comes from the corporate legal arena.
	He's promoting Shipwreck Crew now.
	Shipwreck Crew, his latest mythology that he'd been promoting is that, oh, sentencing prosecutors don't have any control over that.
	Judges have very little control over that.
	That's all what the probation officer and the sentencing guidelines say.
	Well, according to the sentencing guidelines, Allison Mack should have got a lot more than three years.
	And according to the sentencing guidelines, Michael Avenatti should have got close to 10 years.
	Remember, he didn't plead.
	He went to trial and lost.
	This wasn't a plea deal, guy.
	And he only gets two and a half.
	He gets the lightest slap on the wrist possible.
	How does that happen?
	It happens because people like Shipwreck Crew are lying to everybody when they say the sentencing guidelines are the sole barometers by which people get sentenced.
	No, politicians decide you're sentencing.
	Number one, prosecutors.
	Number two, judges.
	And we saw an example of that in the extraordinarily deferential favorable treatment to Michael Avenatti by the federal court.
	Actually, you know what?
	I'll have to do it now.
	In case anybody forgets what Avenatti did, he extorted as a conclusion of law that we can actually use now because he was found guilty of it.
	He basically said to Nike, you're going to pay my client a civil settlement of $10 million, whatever.
	You're going to hire me as a consultant for Nike for...
	X amount of time at X amount of millions of dollars a year.
	Otherwise, we're going to release this damning information about your alleged involvement in paying, I think, college athletes or college coaches, what you're not supposed to, on the eve of your earnings, which is going to wipe a billion dollars off your market cap.
	This is what Avenatti did.
	And this is not saying, look, I'm on a bleeding heart to some extent.
	You know, this is bad conduct.
	Should he go to jail for life?
	Whatever.
	This is what he did.
	It's egregious, over-the-top stuff.
	Gets two and a half years.
	Roger Stone lied about his connections or knowing Julian Assange, and they wanted to put a 73-year-old guy away for nine years.
	Just so everybody appreciates what Avenatti did.
	So his two and a half years in jail, it's two and a half years of his life in jail.
	To some extent, his future for the rest of his life is compromised, although he might be back on CNN in three years as a featured content.
	Commentator, whatever.
	But going back to the Nixxiom thing.
	So people are being found guilty now.
	And the thing that I'm trying to reconcile in my own head, I follow Nikki Klein on Twitter.
	And she's one of the, from what I understand, one of the individuals who participated in this, who's defending her involvement in this and claiming not to be a victim of this.
	And I have trouble reconciling these two narratives, which are very much conflicting at this point.
	Robert, do you have any...
	You know, knowledge, opinion, understanding, or can you shed some light on this for someone like myself who's confused about the two competing narratives going on with Nixxiom?
	She claims the Eastern District of New York committed various forms of prosecutorial misconduct and fabricated evidence.
	So, you know, it definitely would not be beyond the Eastern District of New York to do that.
	So, you know, they're the cousin to the Southern District of New York and they're...
	Two of the worst criminal prosecutorial units in the country, though the District of Columbia is working very hard to be number one in the worst conduct.
	I mean, this past week, they made a big deal about somebody having a Lego copy of the Capitol and even lied about it.
	They said, oh, he put together the Lego Capitol.
	It turned out they were lying about that, for which there'll be no consequence.
	The judges in D.C. won't do anything about prosecutors lying to them.
	They'll reward them, usually.
	That's the sad reality.
	That's why you don't want some nitwit like Don Pierce trying to defend them, who's just busy trying to line his own pockets.
	In my view, she got a sweetheart deal to begin with that basically capped, I think, her sentencing risk at six years.
	But she even got half of that.
	And it just showed these shipwreck crew types that promote these fake narratives.
	And the reason why they promote these fake narratives, he was out trying to tell everybody it was no big deal about the NSA spying on Tucker Carlson.
	So maybe that's a good transition into that.
	It's good.
	And you know what?
	Someone had said, you know, I brought up a super chat which talked about Nicky Cline and the...
	Here we go.
	You should watch Scott Adams' interview with Nixxiom member Nicky Cline with your interrogator friends.
	So the body language panel, I think they covered this, but I know we talked about it on Eric Hundley and I knew nothing of anything and, you know, we played a minute and a half and tried to assess what we thought was going on with Nicky's body language.
	I did it for...
	It was the informal body language reading, but there's a lot going on there, and Nikki is entitled to her own experience, and very much so to take the position that she's taking, which is interesting because it conflicts very much with the outcome in this trial.
	She was agitated about some of the statements that I made, and some of her criticism was fair.
	Some of her criticism was, you know, she was like, you don't know me, and I was like, yeah, you're right, I don't.
	That was the part and parcel of the assessment, is if you know the person, you know much more of the context than you should, it becomes more difficult to do a spot, random body language reading.
	I'll speak publicly about this.
	One, I've got a lot of cases I'm looking at.
	But if she goes on with Eric Hundley, I'll take a second look at it at that point.
	I'll have more confidence in her belief.
	In the case, if she goes on with someone like Eric Conley, who she knows is skeptical about this, because if you really believe this and want to advocate your position, that's the way to go.
	I don't have the time to come in and bail people out.
	I seriously still have doubts about his innocence, period.
	Randy Chase says, cheers from Alberta.
	Wish I could send more, but I'm saving up for my Hunter Biden original.
	Oh, yeah.
	I like the way his art looked.
	Everything about it is terrible.
	It's not half a million art.
	Even if it is half a million art, let's see who's buying it.
	Can you believe that the transparency comes in hiding the name of the purchaser?
	It's a backwards world.
	Freedom is slavery.
	Ignorance is knowledge.
	I forget what it was, but you know what I mean.
	1984.
	War is peace.
	Freedom is slavery.
	Geez, I forgot the third.
	But we just had perfectly segued this into the next subject, and I totally forgot what the segue was.
	Yeah, so did I. Oh, NSA.
	NSA spying.
	These shipwreck crew types try to mislead people about how prosecutorial decisions work, how indictments work, how discovery works, how sentencing works, because they want to make this process look like it's based on objective rules, people just following the facts, that it's not ever, not even capable of being corrupted by politics or anything else.
	And they're just flat out lying most of the time.
	And I'm not surprised Will Chamberlain at Human Events puts him on.
	Chamberlain supported lockdowns.
	Chamberlain supports vaccines.
	Chamberlain supported Barr.
	Chamberlain supported Barrett.
	Thought she was one of the greatest ever.
	Was very dismissive of a lot of election challenges.
	I like Will, but we don't often agree on law.
	And Shipwreck Crew is just...
	What it was is it was funny watching these guys trying to defend.
	The Allison Mack and Michael Avenatti sentences.
	And they had to go to all these great ridiculous lengths because the cognitive dissonance they were experiencing was fun to witness in person.
	But it's just not the way the legal world works.
	The mythical civics third grade version.
	Another example of that is NSA with Tucker.
	Because the first response from people like Jonah Goldberg or whatever his last name is.
	This is the thing.
	I feel bad sometimes because I pick a fight with someone who I don't know from a hole in the wall.
	I just see a tweet.
	Some blue checkmark.
	I go to their profile.
	Reporter, journalist, whatever.
	Defending the NSA.
	No, Tucker, you're not being spied on by the NSA.
	And I go, I don't know who they are.
	And I say, and I tweet a response.
	I say, you have to be...
	I didn't say anything about it.
	It's like, holy cows, you are unaware that the NSA was involved in the largest unlawful domestic surveillance program ever.
	Why are you defending them?
	I don't know who Jonah Goldberg is, but I don't think he's going to correct his initial tweet because it went from...
	Cernovich said it as well.
	It went from, no, they're not spying on you, Tucker, to, yes, they're spying on you, and you deserved it.
	And this is the level of intellectual dishonesty that we are dealing with, with the blue checkmark MSM types, who, I don't know if this is called gaslighting, but it's called a moving target where you make an affirmation, when it is proven to be false, you just shift the goalposts and say, well, you deserved it.
	Explain what Tucker Carlson was alleging and what we know now based on the facts as they currently stand.
	Sure.
	So Shipwreck Crew, this is another example where he was trying to minimize what took place.
	So the NSA does gather everybody's data.
	They get every communication that exists that are shared over lines.
	So, for example, the NSA does not get most communications where you use Signal as an app.
	I found that out because the head of security for the National Security Council for the president, when the president was Trump, told me he would only communicate with me about some key...
	Clients that needed representation in the Mueller case if I got signal.
	And he communicated through a third party to even tell me that.
	It was an impressive little thing he did.
	Outside of a few apps like that, but don't use ones the government promotes.
	Don't use closed source ones because then the government may be the owner of your encrypted app, as happened around the world recently.
	But other than that, NSA gets everybody's communications.
	Echelon was the program.
	Dan Brown talked about it in one of his books, Deception Point, some years ago.
	I would have pulled that out, but I forgot that aspect.
	They do, but what's different is they're not looking at who that communication is from.
	This is a process called unmasking.
	In my view, all of the grabbing of communication is illegal, but the courts have refused to enforce it.
	NSA basically cut a deal with the telecom companies so that theoretically, these are private companies gathering this for you, and they're just given immunity by giving it to the state.
	And even though, in fact, you should be able to sue, the Ninth Circuit usually says, and other courts, oh, you don't have standing to bring your claim because you can't prove you're one of the people who suffered a consequence.
	It's a game.
	It's a shell game that they do.
	But to me, it's still not, even that part's not legal.
	But the part that's clearly, incontrovertibly, not legal.
	So the NSA's got a bunch of numbers with, you know, communications in their huge database.
	That doesn't mean they know, you know, Viva sent a text to me yesterday at 630.
	They have to unmask the identity of those communications to know who sent them.
	And that's what they did with Tucker.
	That was the illegal part, or the clearly illegal part.
	I think all of it's illegal.
	But the clearly illegal part is they unmasked that.
	But then they did a second, a third illegal act.
	Which was they shared it with aspects of the media.
	And so trying to make Tucker Carlson look like he was really part of Russia collusion because he wanted to simply interview the president of Russia, who usually likes to sit down with deep state hacks because he likes to show his own Russian audience, look at all the CIA spooks that operate jobs in the American media.
	There was a good thing last week with Eric Hunley and Mark Grober.
	About the CIA media role.
	How many people are flat out CIA people in media.
	It may surprise them.
	One of the most recent replacements for Rush Limbaugh is a CIA guy.
	One of them.
	The other one is Clay Travis.
	Draw your own inferences.
	That's a good show to watch too.
	Someone blew the whistle to Tucker.
	Tucker made a FOIA request.
	Which, interestingly enough, the NSA was glad to share with BuzzFeed very quickly.
	Record speed they got back to BuzzFeed on BuzzFeed.
	BuzzFeed simply requested, tell us what Tucker requested.
	So someone, I forget who, FOIA'd Tucker Carlson's FOIA.
	So Tucker Carlson FOIA's, whoever, NSA, that goes through the motions.
	Someone FOIA's Tucker Carlson's FOIA to see what Tucker Carlson FOIA'd for, and they get it.
	Virtually immediately.
	Well, Tucker still hasn't got a response yet from his FOIA request.
	It's interesting.
	What was put on there is they did disclose, the NSA, that they're waiting on general counsel's response.
	Kind of interesting thing to wait on if you weren't spying on him and unmasking him and you weren't disclosing his communications to third parties.
	I don't know who it was that I shared today from the intercept or damage control.
	I don't know who these entities are, but they're mainstream media.
	And they were basically saying...
	What did they say?
	Oh, yes, it was revealed that Tucker Carlson might not have been specifically targeted, but he was intercepted in the NSA surveillance, which it's not a good thing that the NSA does this.
	This is what mainstream media journalists say.
	It's not a good thing that the NSA catches American citizens in their surveillance.
	It might not be a good thing.
	It might be the design of the surveillance in the first place.
	Catch everybody.
	Get everybody under the umbrella.
	You're not targeting anybody.
	You're just getting everybody.
	And for people that don't...
	Don't recall, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which is where FISA comes from, were passed as a response to the Church Committee's Select Committee on Intelligence in the mid-1970s that exposed all the CIA and other corruption and NSA corruption because the first person, famous politician to ever be exposed as being unlawfully...
	Having his communications intercepted by the NSA was Senator Frank Church himself.
	That's why he had the motivation he had.
	And the point of the law was to stop precisely this from happening, which is what they were doing is saying, well, we're only monitoring communications with people who live overseas.
	Incidentally, we pick up on Americans communicating with them.
	And they said, no more of that loophole.
	If you're going to be doing any of that kind of interception, you need to go through the FISA court and have a FISA warrant and have a protocol.
	Now, unfortunately, that has been a toothless remedy, but none of this is supposed to be happening.
	They're not supposed to be unmasking Tucker Carlson, period, ever, anywhere, anyhow.
	And they're never supposed to be leaking it anywhere, anyhow.
	And in my view, they have no right to be intercepting the communication from the first place.
	All right.
	Now, multiple people have asked, what are you drinking and what are you not smoking tonight?
	Because you're not allowed smoking on YouTube, people.
	Exactly.
	This is a 40-year special edition of a combination of 40-year hearty cognacs.
	And this is a special edition.
	I think it's K-D 'Orsay.
	You know how to say it better than me.
	Oh, K-D 'Orsay.
	Yeah, from France.
	Yes.
	And so that's the brand of cigar where they're actually having some protests this week in that little island off the coast.
	All right, and in here is my brother-in-law's gin called La Chaufferie, which means the boiler room.
	Yeah, it's amazing.
	It's made in the boiler room of the Imperial Tobacco in Granby, and I have no financial interest in this company yet.
	I wouldn't mind, but the problem is the micro-distilling market for gin in Quebec has been absolutely saturated, or oversaturated, I should say.
	It's like the government gives permits and then they decide to just penalize the entire market by giving everyone a permit.
	And so now micro-decillery in Quebec means nothing because there's too many to even sample.
	What happens next with Tucker?
	So he's got the FOIA request.
	Someone FOIA'd his FOIA.
	But the bottom line is Tucker was effectively correct.
	And now from Stephen Colbert to whoever's not going to correct or retract their initial denials, Stephen Colbert's argument is now...
	Don't do stupid things.
	Don't try to interview the president of Russia and you won't get spied on by the NSA.
	Where does it go from here?
	It's him developing more information and seeing whether there's a civil remedy because there can be, in certain circumstances, a civil remedy for certain kinds of FISA violations.
	But mostly what he's done well is he's understood this is a case for the court of public opinion, that this is that he was going to out them for doing this to try to remove their attempts at any kind of future blackmail or extortion or anything else, and was going to go right at them for what they did.
	And so credit to him, kudos to him for rather than backing down, standing up, because most journalists in his position run away.
	People like him and Cheryl Atkinson are the ones that have been willing to push back and stand up.
	I can't imagine what it's like to live under that type of pressure and stress.
	I say that in Canada, we're living under our own pressures and stresses, and mine might, you know, You may not like Tucker Carlson, but to do what he's doing in today's day and age with today's government surveillance programs as we now see them, it takes some type of character, which some people don't like, but that's what it is.
	Now, on the subject of expanding state surveillance, I guess this is a good segue into Capitol Police.
	I'm not sure I understand this.
	I think I understand what's going on.
	I don't understand how it's going on and how it happened.
	Break this one down for us.
	I'm not sure I can phrase it properly.
	This is the D.C. police basically saying now, or Capitol Police saying, we're going to create offices outside in different states so we can effectively operate in other jurisdictions, or they are our jurisdictions.
	For reasons that I don't understand.
	So what they're doing is, you know, people can go back and look at the first ever Hush Hush that was just a few days after January 6th at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	And some people sometimes ask, what is the Hush Hush?
	It's a series of episodes you can see on there.
	You can go to the playlist and look at all the Hush Hushes on the content tab at the button.
	And in fact, there's a live chat ongoing at the vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	But one of my predictions at that time was that, one, the January 6th story would unveil very differently than the media was presenting, and that secondly, people who might want to profit from it might be more culpable than they've let on at some level.
	Maybe just negligence or dereliction and security is the means by which they're culpable.
	Well, it's fascinating.
	They're now using January 6th as the pretext to say, you know what?
	Our Capitol Police, all these police do, are supposed to guard one building.
	A couple of buildings in the Capitol.
	Literally, just the Capitol building with the House and the Senate.
	That's it.
	They don't guard the Supreme Court.
	They don't guard anything else.
	Just the Capitol building.
	They're not Secret Service.
	They're not under the executive branch of government at all.
	I've never been a fan of having police that are outside the executive branch.
	But these are controlled entirely by the Speaker of the House and the leader of the Senate.
	So they have complete carte blanche over who gets hired.
	There have been all kinds of scandals involving the Capitol Police that have been suppressed over the years.
	All kinds of internal scandals that get suppressed because the Capitol Police is beholden to the most powerful politicians in the House and the Senate.
	They're basically the Praetorian Guard of Nancy Pelosi.
	Well, so here's the question, actually.
	Is the supposition or the assumption that it was Capitol Police, it was a Capitol Police person?
	Man or woman who shot Ashley Babbitt?
	Is that one of the suppositions of this?
	I believe that's the case, but it's unnecessary for what they're claiming is this.
	You know, that their duty, even though their duty is just to really protect the building and then to protect the people in that building, they've extended that to say, you know, look at what happened on January 6th.
	What we really need is we need to be an investigative police force, not just a protect a building security night guard police force.
	We need to be a proactive CIA type, domestic FBI type investigative research.
	And for that, we really need to have jurisdiction all over the entire country.
	This goes back to something I've said multiple times.
	The government is the only institution that, when they fail, give themselves a raise as a result.
	There are people asking legitimate questions.
	Why weren't the doors locked?
	Why weren't the Capitol Police prepared?
	Why did the Capitol Police let certain people in?
	Faced with all of that now, we're at an issue where because of what happened, the Capitol Police now are saying, given our failure, given our outright egregious failure to secure the only two buildings that we are basically created to protect, given our failure to do our jobs.
	We need more power.
	We need more leeway to do our jobs.
	Government is the only thing that can get away with doing this.
	In the private sector, you're fired if not sued for this.
	So they're now invoking the events of January 6th to justify expanding their presence to investigate in other jurisdictions that which might have contributed to the events of January 6th.
	I'm understanding that relatively correctly.
	Not only that.
	To prevent another January 6th.
	So they need to be monitoring dangerous extremists all across the country.
	And they got a $2 billion increased budget to help do it.
	So think about it.
	Imagine a security guard for a building having an office thousands of miles away from the building.
	But that's what they're doing.
	And they're going to become sort of a...
	A secret police, Stassi-style police force for the Speaker of the House and the leader of the Senate.
	That's what they're going to be.
	Mitch McConnell, Chucky Boy, and Nancy Pelosi's private police that the executive branch has no control over.
	And here's the other key component.
	They're the only police force, only law enforcement in the entire federal government that is neither under the control of any aspect of the executive branch.
	Has no responsibilities under FOIA.
	So they never have to be transparent about what they're doing anywhere, anyplace, at any time.
	Why is this not the most enragingly shocking thing that any American should have ever heard?
	Because they're keeping it very quiet.
	The story is just one of those, you know, page C, section 4, column 3 at the bottom stories.
	They're keeping low-key the extraordinary thing they just did.
	Two billion dollars.
	Who gave that to them?
	When and how did it happen?
	After January 6th, we need to buttress this force.
	And this is the other reason.
	Republicans in Congress see how wonderful it could be for them down the road.
	So nobody's willing to say boo about this.
	And the Biden administration is complicit in this to give Pelosi and Schumer even more extraordinary, invasive power.
	So they're busy doing their little vaccine knock-on-your-door force.
	And so they're all happy with this.
	And so that's how this has slipped through the cracks.
	And the institutional media is not talking about it.
	It's just egregious when $2 billion poof like that, when Americans have been suffering and waited, how long did they wait for their stimulus checks?
	And how many of them have not yet gotten them?
	All right.
	Try not to get blackpilled in all of this, Robert.
	We're going to go.
	Do we have a happy thing to talk about?
	Let me just discreetly go to our list and see what we...
	Oh, laws banning CRT, critical race theory, a concept that was foreign to me until about six months ago.
	And now I know more about CRT than I ever thought I ever wanted to know.
	Explain what's going on.
	Which states are trying to ban CRT?
	How are they trying to do it?
	And what's the pushback?
	A bunch of states are passing it.
	And what it's done is basically saying something that I thought the Constitution, frankly, already required of public education, but it's just putting it in clear statutory language that you cannot teach people racism.
	And so you can't teach people to feel bad about themselves because of the color of their skin or the origin of their ancestry.
	And that's all these laws are.
	They're pretty basic, pretty elemental, pretty straightforward, passed in Tennessee, passed in a bunch of states across the country, probably going to be in 30 states by the end of next year.
	And it's getting surprising pushback, not too surprising if you knew these people, but somewhat surprising from the people who have been big free speech advocates in the school context for conservatives like David French.
	But that's because David French is, as he usually does, is lying.
	He misquotes the statutes to make it sound like they're saying you can't teach anything that might have the effect of somebody feeling bad about their racial identity.
	That's not what the laws say.
	The laws say you can't directly teach them to feel bad about themselves because of their racial identity.
	So these laws don't prohibit teaching about slavery.
	They don't prohibit teaching about things like the Haitian Revolution or about the Civil Rights Movement, which is kind of what floods of...
	Bloods and Rovers about.
	A little bit different, James Elroy style.
	But it doesn't require any of that.
	But what it does say is that critical race theory, which is just a new form of neo-Marxism taught in just replacing class with race.
	Tim Pool got that basically right when he was describing it last week.
	That this is what fundamentally critical theory is.
	Critical theory, the other thing, they're pretending it doesn't exist now.
	That's the new thing on the left.
	It's been around since the late 1960s.
	Any of us that went through school had it instructed by professors.
	I don't remember who it was that said it on Twitter.
	Again, picking a fight with someone I've never known, but for a hole in the wall.
	Someone said, I've been a law professor.
	I've been a professor.
	I think it was Georgetown, but I don't want to put Georgetown under the spotlight.
	I've been a professor at this university for 30 years.
	I've never heard anyone talk about critical race theory.
	I googled the university.
	The first thing that I came up with was a course called CRT in law.
	It's like, oh, you've never heard them talk about CRT?
	And they offer a course in CRT.
	And then, you know, the idea is that, oh, they don't use that term for it.
	So it's this semantic shell game where, like, we don't teach CRT.
	It's called...
	Analyzing one's society, whatever.
	Analyzing one's nation.
	But this professor said, I've never heard of it talked about in the hallways.
	I think they teach a course on that.
	So either they're not talking about their own courses among the alumni or you're lying on Twitter.
	I don't know which outcome is the same.
	I wish someone knew.
	I have to go back to my tweets and see.
	I hear noise.
	Okay.
	So now, but what is it?
	So you pass these laws.
	What's going to be the pushback?
	What's going to be the legal argument for why the laws or why these restrictions are going to be untenable or unconstitutional or unlawful and have to be withdrawn?
	How does that argument go if you're playing devil's advocate?
	I assume they're going to bring it on some sort of First Amendment grounds, but that's going to be tough.
	That's going to be a real reach.
	Also, the left wants to have sort of carte blanche to censor people on campuses.
	So they want to sit around and turn around and say, now you can't censor on campuses.
	And again, this is only limiting what can be publicly taught in public schools that frankly, in my view, conforms to the 14th Amendment.
	Because what they were teaching people was racism.
	So they were instructing them to hate themselves based on the color of their skin, based on their ancestry.
	And that was not appropriate, in my view, ever.
	But these laws simply enforce that.
	And so there may be, and I think there are some lawsuits pending.
	There's also lawsuits already pending against those schools that do CRT theory.
	That do critical race theory.
	And so far, those lawsuits have made very good progress by Christopher Ruffo and others that are associated with those legal challenges.
	So I think that they will likely prevail.
	The people challenging and contesting critical race theory are going to win in the courts of law, just as they have been winning in the court of public opinion, which is why there's been this sudden squealing from some aspects of the professional class on the left and the quasi-right.
	We need cameras in classrooms.
	Yeah, well, because the cameras in the classrooms that come through the Zoom cameras capture what's being taught in schools, and people are getting a little shocked and outraged about it.
	Viva for Robert Barnes, live free, wise words.
	Viva Barnes is the most important podcast on Earth right now.
	Chris Weiners, thank you very much.
	I concur.
	Robert, we're running out of time, but we're going to go for a little longer than normal.
	We have a few subjects to broach.
	I was checking on the questions on the live chat at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Some people are asking about some of the vaccine-related issues.
	I'll have more on that next week.
	The door-to-door vaccine stuff.
	I guess that's more commentary than law.
	I don't think they have a right to do that.
	My question is, how do they know the...
	Who's vaccinated and who not?
	My response to your tweet, my response to that question would have been, we don't know.
	They're going to say, we don't know.
	We're just going door to door.
	You vaccinated?
	Yes, sir.
	Thank you very much.
	Have a nice day.
	I would be curious if they're targeting the doors based on their knowledge of the vaccination or non-vaccination.
	They're just going door to door.
	It'll be interesting.
	They're going to get into racial discrimination problems because the groups that are disproportionately disfavor the vaccine so far We've got to figure out how to say this.
	That disfavored this particular medicine disproportionately African.
	Because Richard Barris pointed this out in a poll result, and YouTube immediately cut him off.
	Because he just pointed out, here's who it is that's saying, no, I'm not going to take it.
	And YouTube was like, nope, nope, nope, nope, can't talk about that.
	I've raised the same concern in Canada.
	That we know the stats, we know who's reluctant, we know who has questions, and it gets back to the...
	I wonder why.
	Why would groups of those say, hmm, I don't really trust the government wanting to stick a needle in me?
	I wonder where they get that idea from.
	Anybody who now decides they're going to trust the government is fill-in-the-blank.
	I'm just going to say naive or does not understand...
	Naive.
	I'm going to say naive and doesn't understand history.
	And, Robert, yesterday during the impromptu livestream on Locals...
	Where I said, you know, your unique, as far as I'm concerned, your unique ability is not just to understand the facts and to understand history.
	It's to contextualize the facts in the context of the history, which people are just unable to do.
	Myself included.
	Unwilling, unwilling to do.
	They don't want to talk about Tuskegee.
	They don't want to talk about forced sterilizations.
	They don't want to talk about all the past times the government came knocking on the door, particularly disproportionately of certain groups in this country, telling them they're there to help them.
	It's like when they brought Native Americans those nice little warm blankets.
	I was just going to say, it's not different than in Canada when the federal government set up residential school systems to assimilate Native Americans into mainstream Canada.
	The government did it.
	For your own good.
	And now the outrage is that we're discovering the unmarked graves of all 150,000 Native Americans over 100 years.
	And now they're discovering the remnants of the impact of what they did.
	But they sure as heck said, we're from the government and we're here to help when they did it at the time.
	And anybody who thinks that for whatever the reason, in the anomaly of humankind, the government today is any different than it was the government of 40 years ago, 20 years ago, 100 years ago.
	You're living in a utopia that is a government-induced utopia.
	And apparently some of the administrative officials connected to this Biden regime are telling people to ignore no soliciting and no trespassing signs.
	And I pointed out Tennessee, a lot of our local board members pointed out large parts of other states too.
	I wouldn't recommend that.
	Good luck with ignoring those signs.
	You know, in Canada, where trespass, or at least in Quebec, where trespass is not even a crime, only assault by trespass is a crime.
	Whereas if you, you can trespass.
	But if you don't leave when they ask you to, and you commit assault when they ask you to, that's the crime.
	Assault by trespass.
	Trespass in Quebec is not a crime.
	And even in Canada, it's a provincial statutory offense.
	It's not a federal offense.
	But yeah, in the US, dude, I give my kids warnings.
	Do not trespass in the US.
	The consequences can be different than in Canada.
	The door-to-door stuff is just so spooky to hear the government say it.
	I didn't read it the way you did.
	I didn't read it as in they know who's unvaccinated and they're going to go to those doors.
	They're just going door-to-door.
	Hey, I want to talk to you about your belief in God.
	The problem is, I mean, that census is such a massive project.
	They don't have the resources or time to do that.
	That's why I was suspecting that they were going to target certain, either target certain groups that's going to end up being racially disparate and discriminatory, or they know information that they're not disclosed.
	Here's the reality.
	I brought the biggest Bivens class action ever on this after Obamacare went through.
	They are gathering everybody's medical information, digitizing it.
	And I have reason.
	Well, I know because I brought the suit.
	The IRS was at least in process of having everybody's medical records easily available to them.
	I think that's a no-brainer.
	Without knowing if it's true or false, it's a no-brainer because it's so easy and it's obvious.
	It's like, okay.
	That's the starting point.
	The only question is, where do you go from there?
	But yeah, you're going to target certain demographics.
	We have the same demographics in Canada, the same demographic issue in Canada.
	And so, yeah, go door to door.
	I mean, I think they're just going door to door anyhow.
	And I don't mean to be derogatory to religion because, you know, certain religions go door to door.
	And it's fine.
	It's fine.
	It is just the idea that in a world in which the government has demonized religion and removed religion, now they're trying to replace religion.
	It is what it is in not the good way.
	Apparently I won't be visiting Canada anytime soon.
	Dear Trudeau has said that nobody who's unvaccinated can come across the border.
	Maybe they'll accept I identify as vaccinated.
	I don't think that will suffice for Canada.
	Robert, you could have even had COVID and test positive for the antibodies.
	It still won't be good enough.
	Even if you had it, They'll double-vax, and then they're going to come after kids age 12 to 17, which they're doing now.
	And in Quebec, mark my words, my prediction, based on people who are smarter than me, they're going to be going after kids six months and older because the doctor in Quebec has already suggested it.
	No comment, because I'm not giving medical advice.
	Go check your doctors.
	You all know my decision.
	I just do not agree with vaccine passports and compulsion.
	State coerced compulsion to override free choice, and especially when it comes to children and kids who risk versus reward.
	This is not Ebola, but I'm not a doctor.
	Consult your doctor.
	Let's see what we've got.
	They won't know before who was vaxxed, but they will know after the survey.
	What about the San Francisco Choir?
	I'm not getting into it.
	This is all questions of preference.
	You watch that, and you think that that's a good message?
	It doesn't matter if they're coming after your kids for vitamin C. When a group of anybody makes a song saying, we're coming after your kids.
	Expect it to resonate badly with parents.
	I don't care what it is for.
	It could be for carrots.
	It could be for asparagus soup.
	It's not a good message.
	Did we miss anything, actually?
	I don't think we missed anything.
	The Georgia election law win.
	It's just a minor one, but it's a good one.
	They tried to stop the Georgia law, and the federal court said there were not compelling grounds to stop the Georgia election law.
	So it was a good Georgia election law still beating strong.
	That was a suit different than the Department of Justice's suit, but I think it's where the Justice Department suit will end up.
	And it was just a preliminary injunction ruling, not a substantive merits ruling, but still a good sign because of what the U.S. Supreme Court did.
	A lot of these challenges to these election laws are going to fail and these election reforms are going to pass, which is a very good thing.
	Let me just say, is that a pink phone case?
	It is.
	And it is only because it's much harder to lose a pink phone case than a black one.
	I can tell you that from experience.
	And the funny thing is, I actually went with a hot red, sort of like a hot pink one.
	Even that is easy to lose in flowers and leaves.
	And for anybody who knows me, I oftentimes bounce around on flowers and leaves.
	So I got it strictly because it's an otter case.
	It's a good one.
	It doesn't break when you drop it.
	And it's a color that is easy to find in the house and outdoors because I drop my phone and lose it a lot.
	Salmon.
	No, I think it's maybe teal.
	Is it teal?
	I can't bring up this chat here.
	It's not coming up.
	Well, I mean...
	I once bought Louis Vuitton luggage that I kind of got suckered into buying, but that's another story.
	But it ended up bailing me out twice in two different customs places.
	Once in Switzerland and once in a place I won't mention.
	But, you know, that distinct kind of thing can be useful.
	Do we still have Viva?
	We may not have either.
	Check out the live chat at vivabarneslaw.locals.com Let's see.
	Yeah, the San Francisco choir is kind of creepy, but that might have been before they did this song.
	Oh, I think we really lost Viva.
	Well, let's see what's going on.
	I think only he can shut it off so we're still alive.
	By the way, the books tonight are The Black Jacobins.
	That's about the Haitian Revolution, which is apropos for the most recent hush-hush on VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	But it's a good book.
	I won't be able to get his name right.
	I'm not getting any right.
	Tucson.
	Just say Tucson.
	That's about right.
	But it's a good book.
	The other one is Bloods a Rover by James Elroy, which I have frequently recommended in the past.
	Yes, yes, yes.
	More people identify as vaccinated, that's good.
	You know, you can identify as a lot of things these days.
	I don't know if Viva will be back, but I think only Viva can turn it off.
	Oh, the Rittenhouse motion.
	The Rittenhouse motion is on the gun charge.
	They brought a charge saying that because he was under 18 at the time he had a gun, that they believe a particular Wisconsin statute prohibits that.
	Our view of the motion to dismiss, brought by Mark Richards, his lead counsel in the criminal case itself, I'm his lead counsel in the court of public opinion, and then we'll be assisting at trial, is that the nature of the gun was something that because it's a long gun, he was actually...
	Because you were 17. Ah, there you are!
	You didn't see anything of what just happened to me in the background?
	No, no, I was just talking to the camera.
	Okay.
	Well, I don't know if anyone was seeing you, Robert.
	I hope they were.
	We love Barnes.
	Okay.
	Now, if anybody sees me sweating, it's only because I just went through the most severe of panic attacks as I was trying to reconnect.
	Everything went down.
	But that might be the good time to wind it up.
	Well, I guess that's what we get for talking about the NSA.
	Awesome.
	Come in here.
	Just be quiet.
	Just be quiet.
	I got a kid came in here who heard me scream like a little child from the room.
	Robert, I don't know what you just said.
	I presume it was all gold.
	Oh yeah, it was all good.
	I briefly mentioned the Rittenhouse motion to dismiss is because it's a long gun that the interpretation of the statute, because of something called the rule of lenity under criminal law, and under the rule of lenity under criminal law, you have to interpret the statute most favorably for the defendant.
	And under that interpretation, there's at least enough vagueness in the statute, even under the government's interpretation, that he was legally entitled to carry that gun.
	So they had previously brought that motion, but a different judge had denied it, but without prejudice to bringing it back.
	I believe that charge should be dismissed.
	I also believe there's Second Amendment problems with that statute if it's interpreted the way the prosecution wants it to be interpreted.
	So it's going to be an ongoing issue in that case.
	All right, amazing.
	Now, I should say, by the way, between YouTube, apparently we were over 3,000 live on Rumble, which is not just good for us.
	It's good for Rumble.
	Oh, yeah, very good for Rumble.
	In the most meaningful sense, like they've done something special and people are now gaining traction to it.
	Magnificent.
	Let's see here what we got.
	Oh, no.
	Oh, okay.
	I don't want to get in trouble.
	Shasta Mounts.
	I don't want to be mean.
	I don't want to get in trouble.
	Yeah, the only legal issue there is while the COVID vaccine is emergency use authorized, they had to make a factual finding that there were no alternative therapeutics that could suffice.
	There is some controversy over whether Fauci and the related groups did their due diligence in that respect and whether they may have improperly relegated those alternative therapeutics, which is what that person was referencing.
	But it's yet to be determined in a court of law.
	I like that.
	Not trying to silence me yet.
	I may have maxed out my bandwidth on my phone.
	Who knows?
	For the little man to buy another whistle lollipop.
	We've been using our metal detector in the local park.
	We found $5 the other day and we bought two lollipops with it.
	But they weren't the whistle ones.
	Because the store was closed.
	With that said, Robert, I think we've covered everything tonight and this has been a massively awesome live stream.
	Who do we have on this week for...
	Hopefully, loosely confirmed, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to discuss a wide range of subjects for this Wednesday's sidebar.
	So there's an outside chance he might not be able to make it, but right now it looks like he will be able to make it, which would be fantastic.
	It would be a fun discussion of a wide range of topics.
	Absolutely.
	Not the least of which is the most compelling lawsuit, which is now at the forefront of the news.
	Given Robert, for everybody who doesn't know, RFK's lawsuit against Facebook was dismissed in a motivated judgment based on evidence.
	And I happen to disagree with it, but it is...
	And he's going to be appealing it, taking it all the way up.
	Plus, he's on the front lines of everything related to coerced vaccines, everything related to children's health, everything related to a lot of the mask mandates and lockdown issues.
	And then, of course, he's writing a current book.
	He's written many other books.
	He spoke publicly last year about what he really thought happened with the assassination of his father.
	So there's a lot of interesting stuff there to discuss.
	And if anybody wants to know what the wrap-up smear looks like in real time, it is RFK and children's defense.
	Look what they've done to him.
	A guy that was a champion and hero for a lot of liberal causes, now they won't associate with him simply because he followed his independent voice wherever it took him.
	And that was since he's a chip off the old block.
	It's just shocking because I go and look him up and I literally am shocked, almost fearful from the things I see the mainstream media saying about him, where they lump him with others and they do damage by doing so.
	Even in the mind of an open-minded, cynical person like myself, the association leaves an impact and they're utterly trying to destroy any and all credibility that RFK has and deserves.
	And it's amazingly effective on anybody who only reads the headlines.
	No doubt.
	Alright, now with that said, everybody, thank you very much in the chat for all the support.
	You want to get to Trump?
	Clip segments, retweet them.
	Retweet the highlights.
	I'm going to start putting them up as of tomorrow.
	And Robert, stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.
	But you know what?
	Robert, have a good night.
	Bye, Robert.

▲