Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 15, 2021 - Viva & Barnes

02:10:43

Ep. 74: Free Speech; 8th Amendment; MSM Loses; DOJ Misconduct; Biden's Immigration - Viva & Barnes

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	It was bound to happen one of these days, people.
	I don't know how many seconds late I was, but I'm going to blame the dog.
	It's always easy to blame the dog.
	Alright, how's the lighting?
	How is everyone doing?
	I'm sweating a little bit.
	Alright, another Sunday, and it's hot in the basement.
	My air conditioning is a wall unit, and it doesn't seem to get down to the basement.
	But yes, I'll blame the dog.
	The dog is always the...
	The one who is responsible for making people late.
	Let's see what's going on.
	I'm tired of living under a dictatorship.
	Well, Jean-François Bouchard, we just called the federal election in Canada and things are going to get real interesting real fast.
	For those of you who don't know, outside of Canada, we're heading into an election.
	And you know, in the United States, the elections last a long time and they're painful and they are ugly and they're vicious.
	In Canada, they are, I won't say less vicious, but they are definitely quicker and more painless in that they've called the federal election today.
	The election day is September 20th.
	That's five weeks within which people are going to have to make their arguments for change or for more of the same.
	Oh yes, hot and sweaty is right.
	Well, it was a pretty hot day out here today.
	So, we've got so much on the menu for tonight.
	I mean, some of the stuff we're familiar with, you know, some big news for mainstream news.
	Not good news because it feels like the tide is changing.
	But other stuff, too much to even mention in the monologue.
	Before we get started, I see a super chat, so that's pretty much the good segue into it.
	Because I've missed the super chat.
	And that's going to be the good segue into it.
	You were heroic on Pantelis episode 115.
	Great job.
	Thank you.
	I did a podcast with a Montreal comedian, writer, Pantelis.
	I mean, I like the guy.
	It's a fun podcast.
	It feels like Joe Rogan, you know, the Canadian version, if I do say so, myself.
	And we had a good talk.
	Default username.
	Now let me see if I missed the other super chat and I can't bring it up.
	I think I did.
	Anyways, let me see.
	No, I can't bring it up.
	People should shut up and obey Chancellor Biden.
	You guys have some stuff going on in the States too.
	I wouldn't call Trudeau painless.
	In the DHS new terror warning, is the DHS new terror warning a shot across the bow?
	Let me just screenshot that and we'll talk about it with Barnes.
	All right, so let me say what's going on in Canada.
	We've called the election.
	Many of you know that I'm running for the People's Party of Canada for the District of Notre Dame de Grasse and Westmount, where none other than Marc Garneau is the candidate in my writing.
	He is the current Minister of Foreign Affairs.
	He was shuffled out of Minister of Transport for some reason under the Trudeau government.
	And it's an amazing thing.
	You know, they call the election today, which means billboards can go up.
	And within the day...
	I've seen billboards everywhere now.
	Garneau's getting his billboards up.
	The other parties are getting their billboards up.
	I'm going to go now, get my 100, 150 signatures so that my name appears on the ballot.
	And then I'm going to go try to compete with these machines, these political machines that have been enjoying something of a political monopoly for a while now.
	And it's going to be an interesting way to...
	The broad reach is not going to be the problem.
	We've got a broad reach.
	People are sensitizing themselves and getting sensitized to the fact that the PPC is not a bunch of extremist weirdos.
	It's pretty mainstream and I think it's getting more and more mainstream as time goes on.
	But I'm in a district where an interesting demographic that tends to vote liberal as it has for the last 30 years.
	And the question is going to be, other than opening up the eyes of Canada to the PPC as a party, how do I...
	Have any chance of actually cracking into the demographic of my own riding.
	And we're going to see.
	It's going to be fun.
	Thank God you got a new shirt.
	Rest in peace picnic shirt.
	Yeah, this one's good.
	The only problem is it shows my sweat a little too much, which picnic shirt is good in that it doesn't show sweat.
	All right.
	Supreme Court and Barrett has once again proved the fact that they are an illegitimate institution and can't be trusted to uphold the Constitution.
	I think we're feeling that everywhere.
	We're going to talk about it.
	Yeah, we're going to talk about it.
	So hold on, let me say, I will show my support for Viva and the People's Party of Canada.
	I hope you and Maxime Bernier can make a good change for Canada's future from your mouth to the political god's ears.
	That's all I want.
	So the next steps for anybody who's interested, you got to go, you got to get 100 signatures, valid signatures from members of your riding who can vote so that you submit your candidacy 21 days before the election so your name is on the ballot.
	I've got to go do that.
	Then we've got to go buy some billboards.
	We've got to maybe think of some creative ads to run on Facebook, wherever, the radio.
	And I want to organize in-person meetings to actually hear what people think and what are the problems that people are facing.
	But already going door-to-door, it's an amazing experience.
	You go door-to-door.
	The signatures you are required to get are not signatures to support the party.
	It's just people just say, okay, I may not even vote for you.
	But I'm going to sign your papers so that you can get the signatures to get your name on the ballot.
	But even in doing this, you start to get into the discussions with people as to what's of concern to them.
	And you start to get people's impressions, first impressions, right impressions, wrong impressions about the political parties.
	And it's already eye-opening.
	It's already awakening.
	It's already interesting to see the reflexive impressions that people have of various political leaders.
	And they don't know why they have them.
	But you can't challenge people for having the beliefs they have.
	You just have to discuss with them and try to open them up to the idea that they might not be right in what they believe.
	They may not know why they even believe it.
	And you have to try to get them to change their mind in a non-abrasive, non-confrontational, and ultimately in a manner that allows them to make the change and not you to force it on them.
	It's very interesting.
	So, it's going to be a learning experience for me, and I'm very much excited for it, but I want it to be a changing experience for Canada as well.
	The Constitution is its people.
	Change the people, change the Constitution.
	Well, when your Constitution has a first provision that says, we guarantee the rights herein, except in as much as they can be infringed upon in a free and democratic society, you realize what the heck that caveat means when a virus with a mortality rate of...
	Less than 1%.
	I think we can all agree on that.
	Much less than 1%.
	When that is the trigger to basically justify limiting all of your rights and freedoms in a free and democratic society, you begin to appreciate that you never had any in the first place.
	Hi, David.
	I'd like to welcome Jacques Boudreau as the new leader of the Libertarian Party of Canada.
	I don't know who that is, but nothing wrong with the libertarian philosophy.
	This is water.
	I'm exquisitely thirsty.
	So, that's what's going on with me.
	It's going to be one heck of a next month and five days.
	And I just hope that...
	I hope we can do something great.
	Now, while Barnes comes in...
	Oh, yeah.
	Sorry.
	Standard caveats.
	Superchats.
	YouTube takes 30% to Superchats.
	If you don't like that and you want to support us, vivabarneslaw.locals.com is the place to be.
	You get exclusives.
	You get sneak peeks of all of my vlogs.
	You get hush-hush episodes that are worth a college tuition.
	You get art of the day.
	You get fun stuff.
	You get embarrassing photos.
	It's the way to support if you want to.
	All those super chats are also...
	We appreciate those.
	I will not be able to get to all the super chats, so if you get miffed if I do not bring up your super chat like this, don't give it, but I do my best to bring them up and try to read them like such.
	The Big G. I've watched every episode since you guys started doing this.
	However, this will be the first time live.
	You guys are the best and a bright light in an otherwise dimming world.
	Best wishes from England.
	And now I feel I have to go back and read that in a British accent, but my British accent is not good.
	The Big G, thank you very, very much.
	Thank you very much, not just for the Super Chat, more so for the actual encouraging words.
	The world can be overwhelming at times for everybody.
	And so hearing things like this actually are more encouraging than you can understand for me.
	In 2020, Canadians came to the US to campaign for Bernie.
	Can we do the same for you?
	It only seems fair.
	Nope.
	I am not going to become the beast in battling one.
	And I'm going to be honest and transparent, probably to a flaw, because it doesn't seem like the rest of the world works this way.
	No foreign donations.
	No jokes about cheating.
	We're going to do this legit, or it's not going to happen at all.
	Let's see what we got here.
	We got another super chat.
	Winston is my spirit animal.
	Any thoughts on the completion of our, quote, successful, according to Blinken, 20-year mission in Afghanistan?
	Can you believe what goes on in the world?
	You know, the foreign policy of the U.S. and Canada, to a lesser degree, has been problematic in a way that you can't...
	Whenever I use the word problematic now, I think of Scott Adams and how problematic is a stupid word.
	It's a meaningless word, and Scott Adams is right.
	We have no business doing what we have been doing throughout the rest of the world for a great many events.
	Some events, totally understandable, totally justified, but when...
	Who's ringing the doorbell during a live stream?
	I cannot get the doorbell.
	The war in Afghanistan...
	You have soldiers fighting in Afghanistan that were not even born when that war got started.
	And it's going to fall in overnight because it was probably an unsustainable thing to try to keep propped up in the first place.
	What will always be viewed as an occupying power in a foreign nation.
	And the second they leave, it's not even clear who...
	It's not even clear what the citizens think is happening.
	Are they being liberated?
	From the occupying force?
	Or are they being reinvaded by an occupying force?
	I mean, it's such a mess.
	And what's going to happen is the way it looks like it's going is that you're going to be shipping more people back off there because leaving and letting what might have been an inevitable collapse happen in the first place is going to draw more soldiers in.
	I can't get to the door, person.
	All right, let's see what we got here.
	Thank you, Viva, from Ontario.
	People kind who feels very alone in this crazy political world, being that I'm in my 20s.
	People only blame Ford, not Justin Trudeau or Justin Timberlake.
	You know, I've been, before this journey started, I've been documenting Justin Trudeau's governance.
	And this was before I had any reasonable thought of going into politics, and I never appreciated how bad it was from day one, and how this corruption has been institutionalized and normalized.
	Two ethics violations, meaningful ethics violations that he's been found guilty of.
	Breaking a law, a law which has no teeth, no sanctions, but two ethics violations.
	You know, one was the Aga Khan all-expenses vacation to his private island while the Aga Khan is petitioning the federal government that Justin Trudeau's in charge of for 50-some-odd million dollars and getting it.
	The second one, for firing the attorney general.
	Because she refused to adhere to his corrupt demands not to prosecute a company for corruption.
	And the third one, which I don't know how he escaped an ethics violation, but where his mother and his brother got paid $300,000 in speaking fees from a charity called the WE Charity, and then lo and behold, the WE Charity gets a sole-sourced, no-bid government contract from the Justin Trudeau government to administer a billion dollars in student loans for the administration fee of $20 million.
	It's accepted.
	It's like tribal politics.
	You'll just accept it because it's your tribe who's guilty of it this time.
	And if it were the other party, you would be clamoring for their political demise.
	There are no words for it because it's just become institutionalized and accepted.
	Biden relied on General Malley, a political general who told him the Taliban was no big deal.
	Millie protects pronouns, CRT, and hunts insurrectionists.
	Yep.
	You know the way people are going to view this when the focus of the military in the States is on putting out FBI ads that I don't like the word, but that are woke politics.
	And then in the meantime, you know darn well you have Russia and China absolutely laughing at the United States military for what's going on.
	And now they're seeing just...
	An absolute implosion.
	And people died for this implosion.
	People died.
	They sacrificed their lives.
	They were sacrificed for this probably inevitable implosion.
	It cost however many trillions of dollars.
	It cost however many tens of thousands of civilian lives in Afghanistan.
	And it's going to be all for naught.
	Not even back to square one, because it looks like the Taliban is going to inherit some weaponry that is probably an upgrade from what they had before the invasion.
	Or before the war got started.
	Let's see what we've got here.
	We're destroying the lives of children because cable news is scaring people to death.
	It's really disgusting.
	Leave the kids alone.
	The kids make for easy, easy tools of manipulation in the war of propaganda on all sides.
	Okay, let me see what's going on here.
	15 minutes in, let me see if Robert has the info.
	I'm sure he does.
	And I'm going to get to some non-super chats as well because I want to spread the love.
	We're live, smiley face.
	Okay, to those in Ontario, I know you know.
	Not everyone's so aware, but it's coming slowly.
	Just spread the word, people.
	This is it.
	The grassroots, bottom-up change is the most meaningful.
	You build the house from the foundation.
	You don't start from the top floor.
	And that's how you get meaningful, lasting change.
	And that's how you get people to truly understand what's going on.
	Perhaps it's just one of those situations where, but for the fact that the Conservatives have not been in power for the last five years, the corruption is inside of the Liberals.
	Maybe, maybe not.
	But at the end of the day, if you vote for corruption, you're voting for corruption.
	I mean, there's no other way of putting it.
	And then you've got the new Democratic Party.
	With Jagmeet Singh spouting off these divisive, idiotic catchphrases about how if you don't wear a mask, you're an extreme right-winger who doesn't care about community and you're selfish and all this crap.
	And then you get Jagmeet Singh not wearing a mask, hugging someone, breaking his bubble.
	And, well, you know, oops, I had a lapse in reason.
	In your opinion, does it seem like Canadian confidence in your elections will be shattered if the Liberals gain a majority or our dear leader stays MPM?
	I think there will be a...
	Shattering of the confidence in our electoral system if any shenanigans are played with locking down and mail-in voting or taking it digital for the election time.
	If that happens, it's going to be cataclysmic, in my humble opinion, in terms of confidence and in terms of consequence.
	When people lose faith in the system, it's a big problem.
	But when it looks like the system is thumbing...
	It's nose in your face.
	You know what I'm saying.
	If they do something involving a lockdown because of increased numbers of the Delta variant and we have to vote by mail or digital, I don't know how that can conceivably be done, given the time frame, but so help my goodness, if that happens, it'll be devastating.
	It'll be utterly devastating.
	So I'm just hoping that the election goes off smoothly, you know, in all likelihood.
	It'll be a minority government again, and maybe it'll be a majority government because the Conservatives are going to give it to the Liberals, but this might be the beginning of the end of the Conservatives, and with any luck, the beginning of the beginning of the PPC, because the Conservatives are, in a way, worse than the Liberals in that they are betraying what they purported to be their principles, whereas...
	The liberals have always been this way.
	At least Trudeau's liberals.
	I voted liberal in the past, people.
	I don't think it was always as bad as Justin Trudeau.
	Alright, with that said, I see the Robert is in the house.
	Let me bring him in.
	Robert, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	Alright, so there's a lot on the menu tonight.
	We're going to start with one that I know you're going to know more about because I've been following it, but I'm not saying I'm spreading myself thin.
	I'm just saying that I'm getting spread thin.
	So, I'm doing my best to keep up with the news.
	But, Robert, what's going on in Afghanistan?
	What is going on in the States?
	I saw Jack Posobiec is trying to get, where's Joe Biden trending?
	Debrief the rest of the world.
	What is going on?
	The withdrawal from Afghanistan, the utter collapse, and now bringing back more troops.
	Yeah, I mean, basic, I guess they really believe their own internal...
	BS over the last 20 years, because the pitch has been that we were there building a government, building institutions of government, building a lasting democracy, building a security force, building a domestic military.
	And those of us who have been critics have suggested that that was not what was happening and not what was occurring.
	And it was just one big money laundering grift for a bunch of defense industry contacts to build up, you know, hoppy distribution machines and, you know, the opium and heroin explosion.
	That, you know, maybe not coincidentally coincided with our invasion there and setting up.
	You know, we made it safe for poppy fields, is what we really did for the last 20 years.
	And the Taliban was the institution that we helped install between 1979 and 1990 when we wanted to drive the Soviets out.
	And if the Soviets couldn't contain it, and if the Taliban was the only institution in town...
	Once the Soviets left, that was a sign that we were highly unlikely to actually build lasting institutions.
	We instead built grifting institutions.
	If people were somewhere between the Taliban and the U.S. and their perception of Afghani power in Afghanistan, they were mostly shut out of any degree of influence.
	And now we're seeing the consequence for that.
	And apparently they didn't fully predict it or anticipate it.
	So we're re-seeing Saigon 1975.
	Almost identical images of the helicopters lifting up over buildings as people despair to rush to the airport to get out of town.
	Because they reverse the normal script for getting out of town.
	The normal script for getting out of town is, first, destroy the secret documents.
	Second, get key military personnel out.
	I'm sorry, get key civilian personnel out.
	Third...
	Make sure the transition is in place.
	And then the military leaves.
	Biden did it in reverse order.
	And so it's a complete embarrassment and total debacle.
	Not that we ever should have been there because it was always an unsustainable objective from the first instance.
	Robert, I seem to have missed Marion Holtzman's $499.99 super chat.
	Barnes, you must get involved in every lawsuit for we the people, please.
	Now, first of all, Marion, I'm thanking you for the super chat.
	If that was a mistake of a number, email me afterwards.
	And I'm not saying this tongue-in-cheek.
	If it was not a mistake, thank you very much.
	It's, you know, beyond generous.
	If there was a dot of a typo of a mistake, please email me afterwards and we'll figure it out.
	Even if you meant to give more.
	If you meant to give more, we can accommodate you too.
	Well, I don't know what the limit is at YouTube, but I mean, look, if that was a mistake...
	If it was a mistake, thank you.
	And thank everyone regardless.
	But if that was an accidental typo, let me know because it has happened.
	And I would feel...
	Regardless, I'm sorry, I can't bring it up.
	Marion Holtzman, Barnes, get involved in every lawsuit.
	Robert, how is...
	I mean, on that note, how are you doing in terms of lawsuits that you're getting involved in?
	What's coming down the pipeline?
	A lot of suits probably to be filed this week and next.
	So the suit against the FDA with Bobby Kennedy concerning whether or not the emergency use authorization and any biologic license for a COVID-19 vaccine has met proper legal scrutiny under the Administrative Procedures Act and constitutional rights at issue, given that it is being the FDA's approval.
	Even under just emergency approval, is being used by governments, employers, and educational institutions in places of public accommodation.
	To issue coercive mandates or segregation plans.
	And so that raises issues of whether or not their decisions have been what's called arbitrary and capricious.
	Whether or not they've followed the rule.
	The rule of reason is what's really supposed to happen that's enforced by the rule of law that is supposed to be supervised with judicial oversight.
	And that just hasn't happened in our view.
	Now for the details of...
	Any medical information related to this question or controversy, for that, people have to go to viva.barneslaw.locals.com right there.
	That's where you can look up the various breakdowns of the fact sheets relating to the vaccine, to responses to the CDC and the Department of Justice's positions to date on the vaccine, and to prior lawsuits concerning the vaccine.
	And whether emergency use authorization should have occurred, whether biologic licensing should occur, whether it should be limited by groups of people, by individual characteristics, whether that be age, whether that be comorbidities, whether that be particular health conditions, whether it's appropriate for it to ever be considered the kind of drug that should be mandated at all, anyplace, anywhere, anytime.
	Because so much of that concerns medical information and scientific information that YouTube does not allow to be discussed, on my small YouTube channel, they took down a video, struck it this week, that was from 16 months ago concerning just your legal rights concerning a lawsuit.
	And because any lawsuit's going to get into some of the medical disputes and controversies, they just struck it right away.
	And so for that reason, that's why all of that will be at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	All of the lawsuits that I'll be filing will also have links there.
	We can now at Locals upload PDFs.
	So there will be PDF uploads of the suits and complaints, all the ones that have been filed by others, the ones that have been filed by me.
	And yeah, they're coming.
	They're coming for firemen, for teachers, for cops, for workers.
	Tyson Foods might be sued with a very big class action coming soon in the next week or so, unless they correct their actions.
	Walt Disney, the Disney Corporation, I'm looking at suing them.
	Suing the cities of San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York.
	Taking action if necessary, if the military does in fact order it.
	Against the Defense Department.
	And then, of course, challenging all of it altogether, particularly for children in certain younger age groups, but ultimately for everybody on the FDA challenge, because one of the big problems is the FDA has refused to announce what their standard is.
	And their standard for ultimate approval or their standard for interim emergency authorization use approval?
	All of it.
	What's their standard for determining safety?
	What's their standard for determining efficacy?
	What's their standard for determining necessity?
	What facts are they looking at?
	What facts do they consider relevant?
	What information do they consider pertinent?
	So, for example, is it a 1% risk?
	Is it a 5% risk?
	Is it a 10% risk?
	What's the risk of a severe adverse event from the vaccine?
	And is that going to differentiate by group?
	So, for example, maybe for 16-year-olds, there's a whole different risk profile than there is for an 85-year-old.
	And shouldn't they know that?
	Shouldn't each one, as part of the informed consent process, are they requiring fact sheets be given to people before they get the vaccine, which is supposed to be the informed consent enforcement process as part of the statute and the rules?
	Because we're hearing many people got the vaccine without knowing.
	Any of the information in the fact sheet, including some who were identified as being at risk under the vaccine fact sheet.
	So, I mean, every problem it is, in looking at this so far by the FDA, every problem that you could imagine...
	In the regulatory process.
	And this is, again, a case of legally what they look at is the process.
	They don't look at your conclusions because they're not here to second-guess your conclusions.
	They're here to see, did you go through the right process to get to those conclusions?
	Did you consider all relevant facts?
	Did you provide an opportunity for people to comment and then answer those comments in the citizen petition process?
	Did you apply any decision-making as part of your process?
	something that's not supposed to be considered, such as political pressure.
	All of those things.
	And this process is the worst process for the approval of a vaccine I have ever seen in the history of the FDA.
	I've been studying it now for a long time going back to the history of the FDA.
	What your standard is for determining safety?
	What your standard is for determining efficacy?
	What your standard is for determining necessity?
	What your standard is for determining effectiveness of alternatives?
	What your standard is for giving informed consent?
	Then we're dealing in a standardless environment that is completely contrary to the whole point of both the Administrative Procedures Act, governing agencies, and the constitutional provisions to govern our government.
	You know, and Robert, I'm going to read this super chat, then I'm going to ask you a question.
	Barnes, is there anything I can do to help?
	I'll be a grunt.
	I'll do whatever is necessary.
	Deliver documents.
	Thank you very much, Jasper Tones.
	But someone else said, you look tired.
	I don't think you look tired at all.
	I think you look determined now.
	And especially when you start talking about this.
	But explain for people who don't understand how you operate.
	Because you're not a one-man show.
	And I don't think people appreciate the system that you have to take these lawsuits and to file them in various states and various jurisdictions.
	If you don't mind explaining.
	Yeah, sure.
	So for anybody out there that either wants to help, wants to be local counsel, I have about 25 states covered of local lawyers who are going to be assisting in these cases.
	We still need the other 25 covered, including Arkansas in particular at the moment.
	We got a lot of the big states covered.
	It's a lot of small states we still don't have.
	So it's local lawyers that all their...
	We will be asked of them to be what's called pro-hoc counsel.
	In a state that I'm not licensed in, they agree to work with me so that I can work in that state and file suits in that state.
	Not much work.
	Usually not too much.
	And then anybody who wants to volunteer, anybody who has a potential case, go to the law firm website.
	There's a contact page at barneslawllp.com.
	There's a contact page.
	Use that.
	I know a lot of people have been reaching out through other forums.
	I do follow everybody at Locals, but on Twitter and other social media, I don't have time to go through all of that.
	If it goes through organized method through the contact page, that's organized.
	It's an automated system to make sure everybody gets it and the information is stored.
	I know some people are wanting immediate responses.
	I will not be able to respond to everybody.
	And people do.
	I get the messages from locals.
	And so people are saying, there's a few questions that come up frequently.
	How do I find the template for the employer letter?
	That's on the pinned board.
	I mean, you have to just ask anybody.
	Just go to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	At the top, it will be pinned an example of letters that have been successful for employees as to the vaccine mandate or as to religious objections to the vaccine mandate.
	Both are present, and many other people have utilized it to success.
	Clearly, this is a coordinated effort.
	The other terrifying thing is what was said to doctors in California is now spreading to even places like Arkansas.
	And it may be because big corporations are also putting pressure on state actors or getting the message out.
	But I have cases now where doctors have told their patients that because of their particular medical condition, they don't think they should take the vaccine.
	But the same doctor has told them they don't want to sign a medical exemption because they've been told they'll be put under immediate scrutiny by the state.
	So doctors are being intimidated.
	Into interfering with the patient-doctor relationship, which by the way is constitutionally protected, that patient-doctor relationship, to try to discourage the use of medical exemptions.
	And then several employers, like Tyson Foods, is deciding what religious beliefs it's okay for their employees to have.
	And so that if you have a pro-life belief and you're concerned about the vaccine because the vaccine...
	I won't get into the issues.
	Again, go to vibabarneslaw.locals.com.
	It involves trace materials or materials from humans that are used in the development, research, or production.
	So I think we can leave it at that.
	Precisely.
	And employers are lying to people about that.
	They're saying that something was not done that, in fact, was done, and that I have all the medical evidence for, the uncontroverted medical evidence.
	But again, all of that, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	That will be available.
	We'll be breaking down the suits as we file them.
	We'll break down some of the suits that have already been filed.
	There are suits filed this week, or are anticipated to be filed this week, from the District of Columbia to Hawaii.
	Some of the Hawaiian union members or members of the board reached out to me.
	We had a discussion earlier this week, and they filed suit on Friday on behalf of 1,200 union members because it was also a violation of their union contract and agreement.
	The governor's just issuing edicts like these are 16th century.
	I guess he thinks the king is back in Hawaii, and he can just start issuing orders.
	And so there's going to be a lot of challenges on a lot of grounds on all these vaccine mandate issues.
	The big one will be with Children's Health Defense and Bobby Kennedy challenging the license altogether, that the FDA has not followed the rules they're supposed to follow, has not adapted the information they were supposed to adapt to.
	They have not even answered basic questions and basic comments in the citizen petition filed many months ago.
	By the Children's Health Defense.
	And again, this is extraordinary.
	No drug like this has been approved in this time frame without answering comments from major citizen petitions.
	There will be signed declarations by leading doctors across the world that will be part of that case.
	So that will be sort of the center case.
	But there will be other cases challenging public accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Conspiracy to Commit Battery.
	There'll be additional claims against employers under that and potentially religious rights claims because they're starting to...
	What's supposed to happen is what's happening in the UK.
	You assert your religious exception, period.
	There's supposed to be no further investigation on that.
	That's been clear for quite a while.
	They're basically trying to remove people's ability.
	And this has been on the left for a couple of years now.
	There's been law review articles where they're like, we've got to get rid of these religious objections, these conscientious objections.
	We can control medical exemptions by overruling doctors, which is what they're doing in New York.
	Big case pending before about likely to go up to the U S Supreme court on whether or not the state of New York can interfere with a patient.
	Doctors relate.
	Doctors have signed medical exemptions for kids and the state, some state bureaucrat.
	There's not even a doctor's overruling them.
	These are the people who believe in science, but it's just garbage.
	So all these cases are going to be fought and it's going to be a one heck of a legal battle.
	Robert, two questions that come up.
	Pretty frequently.
	Okay, so we know that the manufacturers, the vaccine manufacturers were given immunity.
	We know that by and large, the government has sovereign immunity for that which they do in the course of their governance, to the extent it's not criminal.
	If an employer requires an employee to get vaccinated or to do anything medically, let's make it more abstract.
	If an employer requires an employee under these circumstances to get a procedure and the employee suffers some sort of damage.
	Can the employer be held to compensate the employee?
	It's an unknown question at the moment.
	What is clear is that employers are not covered under the immunity statute.
	So the immunity statute attaches to any vaccine maker, any vaccine marketer, any vaccine manufacturer, any vaccine administrator, any vaccine medical professional that gives advice concerning it.
	It does not apply to any employer or anyone else.
	It doesn't apply to places of public accommodation, doesn't apply to educational institutions, all of whom may be liable for any injuries suffered.
	And again, there have been, even as a proportion, I was checking into the, well, go to vivabarneslaw.locals.com for that data.
	I'm getting the same question in Canada.
	My understanding is that, in general, the general rule was yes, but under these circumstances, I don't see how that's going to be possible or even logical, given the government's position on all of this, which is we're requiring it.
	Everyone's basically got immunity.
	And how then could you hold the employer responsible for something that the manufacturers themselves cannot be held responsible for the same damages?
	So I don't know how...
	Historically, if you condition access to the service, particularly when they're overriding medical exemptions, like some of them are trying to do, then you could really be liable.
	Because you went against the employee's doctor's advice and still required they be given that information.
	And in my view, if you even have a doctor that won't sign the medical exemption, you can say you have the medical exemption, you've received advice from a doctor, but they don't want to have a retaliation against them.
	And in my view, that's going to put a lot of employers are assuming everything they've watched on CNN is true.
	They assume that they have no risk from the vaccine having any adverse effects, and they assume they can only have upside.
	And they might want to research that data a little bit more because they might discover they're being stuck and left on the hook.
	And in particular, small and medium-sized businesses may not be able to absorb this.
	It only fits into the existing, I won't call it a narrative, but the existing train of events that have been penalizing medium to small businesses since the beginning of this.
	But not the government, not big tech, and certainly not big pharma.
	The second question that comes up a lot.
	Some people have been asking me, is it not breach of contract now to insist on this particular requirement, which might not have been provided for in the initial contract, to which I'm thinking it's either going to be force majeure or what are you going to do?
	Because how can an employer...
	I think if you have a contract, you can absolutely bring a breach of contract suit because they're trying to unilaterally change and renegotiate the terms of the contract.
	And, you know, they could have thought of this at the time when they did this.
	So they could claim that it's an emergency or something else and try to opt out of it.
	But, you know, good luck with that.
	I mean, a lot of insurance companies lost on some of those claims related to COVID.
	And there they would have to meet the evidentiary standard.
	And my view is they wouldn't because nobody so far that I've talked to in this context that's thinking about issuing the mandate has reviewed any of the science about this.
	They have no idea what they're doing.
	They're just assuming the New York Times couldn't possibly mislead them.
	They're in for a real shock when it comes to a real trial.
	And as an example, what they're really banking on is that the political prejudice of judges will protect them.
	And they may be right.
	There's plenty of people that are scared to take on these cases because they think it's too much of an uphill battle, too much of an underdog case.
	And so I understand why they think that way.
	Because you have the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and this is going to be a big issue.
	You have judges issuing vaccine mandates.
	How is a judge going to be impartially preside over a vaccine mandate case when his very ruling could make him liable for his own actions in the same context?
	This has never happened before.
	To my knowledge, this is totally unprecedented.
	You have a bunch of courts that cannot be impartial about this because they would implicate themselves because they're making the same mistake.
	Other governments and employers are making.
	And it's amazing.
	And they're totally accustomed to no pushback at all.
	I'll get randomly lectured by some random court that says, okay, we're going to do mass throughout the trial.
	I'm going to start objecting.
	I mean, who knows what that looks like?
	I mean, does that impact the jury?
	We have no idea.
	We know it limits their...
	Does it mislead them into thinking your clients, say, in a criminal case more guilty or a defendant case more guilty because they're masked, because of the underlying unconscious association with masks?
	Who knows?
	Are you getting an impartial jury pool when you have all this paranoia about the pandemic?
	Judges haven't even thought about it.
	They are such a tiny little echo chamber.
	They have not thought at all about their political prejudice, about their personal bias, and other things.
	I'm going to be challenging all of it.
	So we'll see how it happens.
	But the challenge has to be made, no matter what the odds may be.
	You know, I don't know if you're following.
	Well, you do follow because it comes from my Twitter feed.
	But in Quebec, Francois Legault is unveiling the vaccine passport, unrolling, rolling out the vaccine passport September 1st.
	It's a vaccine passport.
	There's going to be a QR code on your phone.
	You go into a restaurant.
	They're going to scan you, make sure you're double vaxxed, fully vaxxed, whatever that term means.
	And you talk about it not going through any sort of public debate, any legislative process, any show us the evidence, let's have a discussion and ask the questions.
	And apparently, I haven't heard the exact quote, but it was quoted in CTV, which is government subsidized news.
	Francois Legault, the premier of Quebec, says that the reason why he doesn't want to go through the legislative process is he doesn't want Quebec citizens being exposed to misinformation or to conspiracy theories.
	And this is like, it is difficult not to get discouraged and not to get, however you feel about all these issues, not to get discouraged at the way the government and the way the courts and the way employers...
	Are taking this as to be, effectively, it's a massive, I don't want to call it mass psychosis, but everybody now is just panicking and going in the same direction without the second thought.
	And the people leading the charge have immunity, and everybody following, I guess, thinks that they're going to have the same immunity, both financial and moral, from what's going to happen or what might happen or from what this is going to do to our constitutional rights.
	But it's the same thing in the States.
	I think we might be a little ahead of the States in Canada, so you're looking into the future to some extent.
	It's an attempt to reinstate the fascism of the 1940s.
	The state and corporations have complete control over everything.
	Your speech, your body, your autonomy, your freedom, your travel, you name it.
	And that's why it has to be fought back at every level possible, legally.
	Is the FDA trying to rush approval of these jabs to this September in order to avoid all of the lawsuits?
	Yes.
	They're trying to approve novel drugs using novel technologies for a novel virus that they have never been able to successfully use as vaccine for in American or world medical history.
	And I mean, again, average length of time for a drug vaccine to be approved as a drug to be approved as a vaccine is 12 years.
	And Jacobson.
	The Supreme Court, which was a eugenics decision, the foundation of the eugenics era.
	But even that court said it was critical that that smallpox vaccine had been approved of and used without problems for more than 100 years.
	This comes nowhere near that level of medical scrutiny.
	And the key has been big tech and big media and big government colluding to suppress information that could expose issues related to this.
	And that's why, you know, that's the great utility of locals and why we created it in the first place is precisely for issues like this.
	About half the country has no clue that they would fail a basic literacy test concerning COVID.
	They would fail a basic literacy test concerning this vaccine.
	They would fail a basic literacy test about how the process is supposed to work in the first place.
	And to Dershowitz's credit, who's a huge champion of the vaccine, he said that no vaccine should be mandated that doesn't go through legislative scrutiny first.
	And so he has stuck with what he told us during our debate with him.
	He said that, you know, that yes, it has to meet the legislative process.
	Yes, it has to meet a certain high evidentiary standard, substantial risk of severe harm.
	And that evidence has to be tested both in the legislative process and in the courts of law.
	And this is a guy who's a huge vaccine champion.
	So that is what the law requires.
	The only question is, will our judges enforce it?
	It's already one step too far when our politicians are not enforcing it.
	And TM reminds me, yeah, there was also the announcement for mandatory vaccines for planes and trains, plus federal departments.
	Don't forget the political parties are joining the bandwagon.
	This is another thing that I have to get off my chest when the liberal governments and, you know, the Democrats in the States, when pushing all of these plans, also purport to be, you know, the party of tolerance, the not racist party.
	Just imagine that...
	We know the demographics of who's getting vaccinated and who's not.
	It's even more pronounced in the States, but it follows a similar trend in Canada.
	You are now saying people who are not vaccinated cannot get on public transport.
	You're now saying basically it's going to affect disproportionately and disparately certain demographics.
	It's not going to affect the wealthiest of the wealthy who have their own methods of transport, who have their own private jets.
	It's not going to affect the government.
	It's going to affect...
	Already the most vulnerable, who have already been most highly impacted by this in Canada, and I suspect it's the same in the States.
	And it's predictable, and it's unavoidable, and it's coming from the very same parties who purport to be the champions of minority rights.
	It's hypocrisy of the worst order, but it's also just incompetent or worse governance.
	They know what's going to happen.
	But they cloak all of it in benevolence, and they're going to impose these vaccine passports that are going to have disparate effects on specific minority communities, and they know it, and they don't care, and nobody calls them out on it because they bought the media through government subsidies.
	Well, that would be one of the stub classes, like against Tyson Foods, against City of New York, is that this is racial discrimination in violation of various either constitutional or statutory provisions, either federally or state or both, because this disproportionately impacts...
	People of certain racial groups, and they can't justify it.
	I know some people don't like disparate impact interpretation of laws related to racial discrimination, but the reality is most people don't admit that they're racially discriminating.
	So disparate impact has always been a very effective way to root out.
	Racial stereotyping and racial prejudice and racial disparate effects that cannot be justified.
	They get the opportunity to say, okay, it has this disparate impact, but not only can that not be our motivation, we can show you it's not protectual by how business necessary our provision is.
	They get that opportunity.
	They just can't meet that standard here because they haven't even looked at the evidence themselves.
	They have not done that at all.
	This happens at even high-ranking executive levels.
	People are looking at suit.
	High-ranking lawyers and high-ranking law firms because the big law firms are trying to compel it on their other lawyers with even less justification and even fewer accommodations that are easily available for those people.
	Everybody that really what they assume is all the stakeholders agree.
	They assume their little echo.
	This is our first major test of what does massively censored media look like when big tech colludes with big media, colludes with big government to suppress completely.
	I mean, there were little examples of that during the campaign, the Hunter Biden laptop issue, etc.
	But the COVID-19 issues, and especially around vaccines, that's the biggest and broadest use of big tech, big media, big government collusion to suppress adequate and honest information.
	I'm sure some judges, when they're going to be seeing the complaints that we're filing, despite their biases and prejudices that they come in with, are going to be shocked at some of the allegations and the sources of those allegations.
	that the sources of those allegations in many cases are federal government documents, that the sources of those allegations are peer-reviewed published medical journals, that the source of those allegations are some of the leading doctors, including in the vaccine context, in the world.
	They don't know the history of repeated, you know, 1950s, rushed a polio vaccine, led to massive number of deaths here in the United States.
	Another rushed polio vaccine in Belgian Africa, in the Belgian Congo, late 1950s.
	Journalists attributed that to be the cause of the AIDS virus decades later.
	That's an example where you don't see the bad consequences maybe until 25 years after the fact.
	That's the risk with these things if they're not done right.
	1976 swine flu.
	United States rushed vaccine.
	Total disaster.
	Total debacle.
	We've had a bunch of those.
	More than people know.
	More than people realize.
	And because there's been complete media suppression of this information, then people don't know what they should know and that they need to know.
	And that will be part of this process as well.
	Every case we bring is intended for both the court of law and the court of public opinion because the court of public opinion is going to have a big influence on whether these laws and rules and restrictions go forward.
	By the way, you're on mute.
	Yeah, it's exactly why certain social media tech giants block the discussion, any form of it, under the pretext of misinformation.
	It's exactly why our own premier of our province says he doesn't want to have the public debate because he doesn't want to expose people to misinformation.
	I was having a discussion with someone where I said, where I characterize what's going on here as tyranny and dictatorship.
	And someone says, well, that's a little exaggerated.
	And I said, what else would you describe a government?
	And they said, well, they were democratically elected in the first place.
	And I said, well, I hate to draw analogies, but so were a number of other dictators throughout the history of humankind were democratically elected in the first place, but abused of the system in order to stay in power indefinitely, and then started imposing.
	rules without any legislative process.
	That is what it is.
	And like, it's as though because it can never be the same as it ever was in the past that it can never be compared to it.
	And that's why Mark Twain said that history doesn't repeat, but it tends to rhyme.
	And we've got a lot of rhyming phrases now with what have come up in the past.
	I don't care if people disagree with you or people think that you're...
	I don't know how anyone can disagree with certain...
	Principles here, which is proof, safety, efficacy, and when the FDA has had historical standards that they might just brush aside, it's a problem.
	I don't know how anyone can disagree with that.
	Whatever your positions are on other things, it looks like the system is being gamed right now in a way that discredits the institution that was there to protect the people.
	Okay, so I'm excited.
	We'll see what the lawsuits are, and we'll see if we can't talk about them here.
	Rumble and locals have a union now, an unholy union, which might allow us to have these live streams on locals the way we have them elsewhere.
	Yep.
	What do we move on?
	I mean, a good bridge, good transition into one vaccine suit.
	So the state of Florida...
	Passed a law prohibiting vaccine passports, and a federal court struck down that law this week.
	This is how eager these courts are to ramrod, you know, to force foreign chemicals into kids' bodies all across, into other human beings' bodies all across the country.
	The court ruled that it was a free speech First Amendment violation to prohibit vaccine passports.
	One of the most ludicrous interpretations I've ever seen.
	So I've read some analyses on this.
	This was one where I couldn't understand the argument and I couldn't even begin to do justice to it in a vlog.
	But the argument was that it was a free speech issue.
	Of whom exactly?
	What is the element of free speech here that is being infringed upon?
	Papers, please.
	And if you don't allow cruise companies or any other corporation or business to say, papers, please, then you're restricting their First Amendment rights.
	It's the kind of argument only somebody like David French could think was a good argument.
	Freedom of speech requires some value, some artistic or expression of meaningful...
	Thought or creative thought.
	What is the expressive thought that is being protected there by that First Amendment protection?
	Papers, please.
	I mean, it's ridiculous.
	I kept trying to realize, like, I can't figure this out.
	And I mean, I saw how it was clear.
	If you read the rest of the decision, it's purely political motivated.
	It's a judge who...
	Loves the idea of vaccine passports.
	Doesn't want anybody to even be able to prohibit them.
	That's how eager this judge is to enforce things.
	Making up facts that don't exist, frankly, in many instances.
	And wanted to shove vaccine passports down the throat of the people of Florida.
	And so decided that somehow the First Amendment, it's like the way the New York Times thinks.
	The First Amendment only protects us, but no one else.
	You know, we're in some sacred position.
	When the founders were writing the First Amendment, they meant to say the right of the New York Times to lie, not the right of free press.
	You know, that's what's in the imagination of all these little millennial kid reporters who are a disgrace to the history of journalism.
	It's the same mindset.
	And so I read it three times, trying to figure out, it was like...
	Because I was looking at it and thinking, I wonder if I can steal this somehow and say that, you know, the vaccine passport laws violate First Amendment because if it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander.
	That was what I was just about to say is that my First Amendment right also involves the right not to be compelled to say certain things.
	So if someone's asking me private information that I don't want to disclose, setting aside all of the medical issues, where's my First Amendment right to not answer your question that would ask me to divulge?
	private information of a medical nature.
	Yeah, exactly.
	So, I mean, I'm going to include it.
	It's such a stretch.
	It's hard to argue.
	And you know these same courts, this same judge.
	When someone makes that argument, we'll make the flip claim.
	All of a sudden, the First Amendment will magically no longer apply.
	And these Obama appointees are the worst at this.
	It's just, hey, come up with something that sounds like the law.
	And say, that's why you can't do it.
	And I, the judge, have unilateral power.
	Like you had judges in Texas and Oklahoma doing that this week on a range of grounds.
	Overruling governors, overturning state legislatures on grounds that really are not appropriate judicial supervision.
	While watch them try to run and hide and cower like cowards when it comes to either an election dispute or it comes to these...
	FDA challenges.
	They're so political that they've disappointed.
	I think this was a very political decision, but you're right.
	If there's a right of a cruise company to say, papers please, then is it their right of ordinary people to say, no papers please?
	It is obviously going to get appealed.
	I mean, I've read several articles and reviews, all of which, and even coming from sort of more centrist publications, say that the judgment does not hold water, cannot hold water, and is legally untenable.
	It does get appealed, or has it been...
	Oh, yes.
	Yeah, the state of Florida made clear that this was a challenge to the state of Florida.
	So the governor, DeSantis, said he was absolutely going to raise it.
	Now, some fair points made in the case is that the state of Florida should have expanded.
	The vaccine passport limitation.
	They told their constituents they did one thing when they actually did something else.
	They protected the number of places that cannot compel vaccine passports or vaccine mandates or vaccine information.
	Very limited in almost all of these laws.
	So the classic Republicans, they exempted pretty much all employers from these provisions so that employers in Florida can demand.
	Vaccine passports as a condition of employment under that law.
	And the judge made the point of how hypocritical the law was.
	And that point was a fair point by the judge.
	And it's because Republicans were busy protecting their...
	They only wanted to limit vaccine passports on communities and constituencies that are not big Republican donor groups.
	And that's why we got a law that lacked consistency and thoroughness.
	Now, I think the judgment did speak to this or at least raise it.
	But what of the argument that...
	Even if the judge said, okay, fine, Florida's within its rights to impose this anti-passport, I guess, legislation, what happens when the ship gets out into international waters?
	They then are not bound by Florida law.
	They can then say, papers, please, with the appropriate sanctions on the passengers who now cannot invoke this Florida statute to refuse.
	The thing there was, I thought the cruise ships that filed suit, I didn't think their argument was as strong.
	In that context, they can just say, in order to access this port, you have to provide vaccine documents when we get to that port before you can go to the port.
	And they have restrictions on that already.
	So they made it sound like, oh my goodness, our whole system falls apart economically because these other countries are forcing us to do things.
	But that has always been true in the cruise industry.
	There's always other countries that have different limitations on who can onboard.
	At different port locations and who cannot.
	So they've been dealing with that for as long as the cruise industry has existed.
	So the idea that somehow this one requirement made it impossible for cruise ships to operate at foreign ports was really not being honest by the cruise ship industry.
	That's why most of the cruise ships liked this law by Florida and liked it when Florida...
	Won the case against the CDC on their behalf about being able to mandate this precondition.
	It's only a few cruise ship industries, a few businesses that filed this suit.
	And that tells you all you need to know.
	If this was really a universal problem, then no cruise ship industry would have joined the state of Florida in the first suit against the CDC.
	And all of them would have joined this suit against the state of Florida here.
	In fact, most of them were on the side of the state of Florida in this related litigation.
	So that tells you this was not as economically necessary as the judge tried to pretend that it was.
	Okay, interesting.
	What do we segue into now?
	I think that, oh, interstate travel.
	One last component.
	People have been asking questions because it leaked that the Biden administration was considering two things.
	I consider the second one much scarier.
	The first one was requiring a vaccine.
	The privileges and immunities clause of the U.S. Constitution forbids states from restricting this.
	Presumably that applies to the U.S. government as well, the federal government as well.
	I think they leaked it to test what people would do and say and how they would respond.
	And they got so much pushback so quickly in the court of public opinion that by the end of the day...
	They shot down their own trial balloon and said that they're not right now going to do any kind of limitation on travel between the states because that would raise a lot of legal issues and upset a lot of people within a lot of states to not allow travel between states on that condition.
	And it's an amazing thing because we're sort of like the states, just like the little brother who has somewhat different rules.
	So we've had this now.
	We've had the...
	Maritime bubble, where in order to get into the maritime provinces, you had to show, at the very least for me at one time, proof of vaccination.
	Now they're talking about train, planes, and not your own personal automobile showing proof of vaccinations for interprovincial travel within the country.
	We have a constitution.
	It contains very similar provisions to your constitution.
	The right for interprovincial travel, the right to take up and leave in any province, to leave the country when you want.
	Except we have that Article 1 that says these rights can be violated in as much as can be justified in a free and democratic society.
	Canadians have, by and large, not just not fought back against these measures, but welcomed them.
	I won't say everyone I met in New Brunswick either opposed or supported these measures.
	I found a good mix.
	Some people liked the bubble that was created by these interprovincial restrictions on travel, but you don't put up with that in the States for one second.
	Maybe I'm wrong for admiring that, but I admire that.
	It doesn't lead to what we have now here, but your government is still testing it.
	Yes.
	So, I mean, in my view, that's clearly a fundamental right, and they can't meet strict scrutiny that should apply to any fundamental right.
	It's like interfering with children, you know, in terms of mask mandates.
	That deals with the parents' right to have control and care and make medical decisions for their children is a fundamental right they have to meet strict scrutiny if they're going to interpose or...
	Invade that right or limit or constrict or restrict that right.
	So I think that there would be an immediate suit if they did so, and they would be on weak legal standing, in my view.
	But the second one is even scarier, which is as a trial balloon, they are considering denying medical care and reimbursement for medical care to people that are unvaccinated.
	That's just shocking.
	George Takei just put out a tweet to this effect today.
	He says, there's no reason why anyone who willingly does not get vaxxed to get services by priority to someone else, effectively saying, if you decide not to get vaccinated and you get sick, he was saying you shouldn't get priority treatment over someone else.
	There's a triage system in a hospital for a reason, but it does sound an awful lot like, if you make a decision we don't agree with, we're going to bump you to the bottom of the line for medical treatment.
	And I said to George in a tweet that...
	He'll never see.
	I said, that's very nice of you.
	Now do overweight people.
	Now do smokers.
	Now do drinkers.
	Now do kids who bump their heads on bikes when they weren't wearing helmets.
	Do people who have unprotected intercourse and contract viruses.
	Do any number of morally shocking analogies where the logic would be the same, but you'd be called a bigot for even suggesting it.
	But no, all of a sudden it's so politically expedient.
	To not just wish death on your political adversaries, but to actually hasten it by not treating them.
	Carry on while I go get the dog, Robert, as to what the likelihood of anything like that passing is, because it's shocking to me.
	Well, I mean, they would never get it through Congress, so the only way they can do it is these continued executive orders and diktats and decrees as if they're royal governors.
	And so that's where the risk is posed and where it continues to be posed, and that presents additional...
	Constitutional grounds to challenge it because it's a violation of the checks and balances between the tripartite system of government we're supposed to have here and is constitutionally consecrated that they wish to basically tear apart overnight.
	And it's a good transition into the other area where a lot of suits have now been filed from New Jersey to Nevada.
	There's now multiple challenges to mask mandates.
	There's a New Jersey class action that's been filed against the governor related to the mask mandates on school children.
	There's now been a class action filed in Nevada against the governor there based on his mandate, mask mandate for school children.
	And the grounds is that it interferes with the parents' rights to care and control and custody of their children, particularly as to medical matters, which is a fundamental right protected under the Due Process Clause of the Constitution.
	It is a violation in some cases if there's no religious exemption of parents' religious rights.
	That's been raised in certain contexts.
	But it's a violation in certain cases of the method of which the enforcement order came down, and it did not go through the legislature.
	So that is being challenged.
	But the other interesting challenge is they're really making a strong, robust first amendment, and they're challenging on equal protection because it's only schoolchildren that get the mask mandate in certain instances, not everybody in a public gathering in some of these circumstances.
	So school children are being treated worse than other people in public gatherings, even though school children benefit less from the mask mandate and are less at risk from COVID than our broader, broader population.
	But most importantly, and they've made a good challenge on a so, It's a violation of speech and associational rights because it limits your ability for children to have nonverbal communication.
	And how important that is for associational purposes, expressive purposes, fundamental speech and liberty purposes.
	So they're bringing a First Amendment challenge that's pretty good.
	And they go through all the medical data and other literature about how important this is to children for associational learning and other purposes that the First Amendment was meant to protect.
	Because you can only communicate with your eyes.
	You can't communicate with your facial features.
	Now, I'll play devil's advocate for 30 seconds.
	That argument, by analogy, one could say, well, by forcing me into a uniform or by forcing me to wear any clothes whatsoever, you limit my ability to speak with my body.
	In terms of clothing.
	But clothing has always had more limited than this because the big difference is clothing doesn't limit your body language, whereas this does.
	And so the question becomes, because body language is such an integral component, particularly in schools where you can't talk while the teacher's talking, but you can make gestures and whatnot, that it's very restrictive of core First Amendment rights.
	And to me, it was a rather persuasive argument.
	And if you establish that they're interfering with the First Amendment right, then they definitely have to meet strict scrutiny as well.
	And their point is that there isn't clear and it's not, no, they're not clear and convincing evidence that this is medically necessary.
	This medical Sharia law is what it is.
	But in my view, but the it's the same thing wearing it, you know, wearing the thing over your mouth of your face and body.
	So you can't express yourself because of somebody else's political beliefs or somebody else's medical interpretation or gender ideas.
	It's just, you know, different excuse, but the same logic being applied.
	And the assumption has always been that this kind of medical Sharia law would never be constitutional in the United States.
	It's one thing to have very limited standards like...
	Prohibition on nudity, prohibition on obscenity, things like...
	And even the school clothing code context, they've had to be careful about how they do that.
	They can't...
	I mean, so in the public school environments, mostly private schools, only a limited number of public schools have a strict...
	And usually in that instance, they can justify why they've chosen what they've chosen.
	As opposed to completely limiting facial expression solely on the grounds that it might limit the spread of COVID in a group that is at extremely low risk from COVID.
	And so it's not narrowly tailored, not even necessarily a compelling public interest given the low health risk to kids.
	What I find amazing is that over the last two years, I don't know why the emphasis has not been on rapid testing and early diagnosis so that presumably would be a more effective means of stopping any propagation than forcing people who don't have COVID to wear face masks.
	Because I think we can all agree on the science, face masks do nothing on someone who does not have COVID.
	So the only question is whether or not it does anything on someone who is...
	Asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic.
	Whereas if you had rapid testing, presumably you can get past that stage such that you wouldn't need to compel these things in the first place.
	And it's an interesting thing.
	Someone said the deaf and the blind.
	There are a number of issues for autistic children, deaf children.
	The argument that it negatively impacts the disabled is the same argument for...
	Oh, geez, now I forgot the other way it goes.
	Oh, in terms of compelling vaccination, whereas if you have a medical condition that can excuse you or that can get you out of it, those are the clear examples.
	Have there been any big successes for special needs, the disabled people with medical conditions to successfully challenge any of these mandates, or do they just drop these mandates as relates to those exceptional circumstances to get out of the debate?
	There's a range of ADA-type laws that apply to educational institutions as well.
	And in my view, sometimes it's in the ADA, sometimes it's in an analogous law, federal or state law.
	And I believe it applies here to everybody, not just people who have a different disability, because they're treating these children as publicly, as physically limited if they're unmasked somehow.
	And so in my view, that's assuming a physical limitation.
	And so the ADA's analogous law should apply.
	These current cases that have been brought don't bring that challenge, but I'll be bringing it in the vaccine mandate context and may add in here or there a mask mandate challenge as well.
	Particularly, it appears in my home state or origin state, Tennessee, they're considering it in Nashville.
	And I think it was Matt Walsh plus Clay Travis went in and denounced the school boards.
	For their absurd ideas.
	Though, you know, Sebastian Gorka shared a doctor's statement, I believe, I forget where, but it was either a school board or local community where he went through all the medical issues that he saw with the assumptions being made.
	And not only has it been banned from YouTube, to my knowledge, or they've tried to, but Twitter has posted on it saying that it's misinformation.
	It fails to explain how anything he says is misinformation.
	It's, in my view, a defamation action by Twitter.
	Which it's grown accustomed to abusing.
	All these big tech people have.
	And, you know, that's probably a good bridge into the many defamation cases this week.
	Let's start with Nunes because it's an interesting case.
	And someone posted a comment.
	I forget where it was.
	It might have been on Locals.
	It might have been in the comment section.
	Long story short for Nunes, everybody.
	He's suing the Washington Post because they ran nothing shy of a hit piece saying that Nunes supported Trump's baseless comments that he was wiretapped in 2017 when the Post itself in 2017 said no, Nunes disagreed with Trump, said that he wasn't wiretapped by the purest definition of the term wiretapped, but rather he was caught up in surveillance, which everyone knows now to be true.
	They referred to the claim as baseless, Nunes supporting this baseless claim in a hit piece suggesting that Nunes had something of an illicit midnight run with Michael Ellis, who was appointed general counsel for the NSA.
	Nunes sued.
	Washington Post issued a garbage retraction in which they said the midnight run, Nunes says, occurred during the daylight hours, and they corrected in a very weak way their prior misinformation.
	Bottom line, Washington Post asked for a motion to dismiss, lost on the motion to dismiss, but succeeded on the dismissal of the aspects of the claim based on negligence.
	It doesn't really matter much because Nunes is going to get to continue with the lawsuit.
	But the judge said, basically confirmed that prima facie, it's not...
	It's not on the merits.
	To survive a motion to dismiss, calling something baseless, calling an allegation baseless, could suffice for an action in defamation.
	Which is very interesting.
	And someone said, now all these politicians have to go back and find articles where they refer to their statements as baseless, where they weren't, and file suit.
	Now, I like the decision.
	The reasoning was good in that the judge said, basically, for the actual malice, A jury could come to the conclusion that there was actual malice because of the fact that the Washington Post basically contradicted their own prior reporting in order to run the hit piece on Nunes.
	Do you think it's good law?
	Do you think it was a little bit too pro-Nunes?
	And I didn't dive into the judge.
	What was the political appointment history of the judge?
	Do you know?
	Well, it's interesting.
	It's the same judge who issued the Dominion decisions.
	He's got both.
	So it's the same judge who presided over the Nunes v.
	Washington Post case, is presiding over the Dominion v.
	Sidney Powell v.
	Rudy Giuliani v.
	Michael Lindell case, issued big decisions this week in all of those cases.
	And so he had choice of law questions, venue transfer questions, personal jurisdiction questions, substantive defamation law questions, so a lot of legal issues to deal with.
	And I think for the most part came to a decision that won't be reversed on appeal.
	I'll put it that way.
	He's a late Trump appointee, though he comes from the very pro-government side of the equation legally.
	So he's going to be a Federalist Society type judge, not as bad as Barrett, which people got to see this week.
	Barrett decided unilaterally to not allow the Indiana University...
	The challenge to the Indiana University's vaccine mandate unilaterally said that no emergency injunctive relief would be heard by the Supreme Court, when normally that's transferred to the whole court.
	Some of us had predicted this is how Barrett would handle these kind of questions, took a lot of criticism from a lot of people on the right about it, and a lot of those people on the right should be busy apologizing to everybody out there right now, but instead they're hiding.
	But a lot of people on the right keep pushing these Federalist Society nominees and keep getting burned and then going, oh, how did that happen?
	And then they go and do the same thing again.
	People in the chat early on were not happy with ACB.
	So maybe we'll come back to that in a second, actually, if there's more to elaborate.
	But in this particular decision, it will not get overturned in appeal.
	This is the same judge who allowed Dominion's suit to proceed against Lindell and Sidney Powell.
	Full disclosure, I think it shows consistent reasoning.
	I think those lawsuits should continue.
	I mean, I think they've alleged enough.
	I come from a jurisdiction in Quebec where premature dismissal on a motion to dismiss is referred to as the ultimate sanction.
	And the judges here only grant it really, really, really exceptionally before depositions or before discoveries, a little more liberally after discoveries if there's overt contradictions that come out through deposition.
	But I come from a jurisdiction where They never get tossed, and it always goes to the merits to a flaw.
	But when I've got exposed to the American system, I notice that they get tossed early, in my mind, to a flaw.
	So I appreciate that Dominion should go forward, and I think that Nunes should go forward.
	Yeah, I mean, I think that, yeah, substantively, it was a very good ruling because all these media plays have been playing games where they lie about somebody but say, nah, really, it was just an opinion, and you could have interpreted it differently.
	But when you choose to use language like When you choose to use language like meritless, when you choose to use language like no evidence or without evidence, they're now going to start getting burned because that was the point of the judge.
	He's like, that's a factual statement you're making.
	That's no longer a statement of opinion.
	You're saying there's absolutely no evidence that supports his claims.
	You're saying he's saying something that he knows not to be true.
	That's a defamatory statement.
	And can be actionable.
	And maybe you can prove that you issued corrections and retractions that mitigate actual malice, but that's for trial or later on post-discovery, not for pre-trial.
	Or you then get into the motivated reasoning of the judge who dismissed...
	Candace Owens' lawsuit where they said when the fact checker says hoax alert, they don't mean hoax alert.
	They just mean read with more caution.
	I mean, that's why there are two lines of reasoning that are fundamentally mutually incompatible.
	I prefer this judge who says when you make a fact check statement, it's a factual statement.
	You're saying baseless is not opinion.
	It means as a matter of fact, there is nothing to support it.
	No evidence.
	But then you get these other...
	I'm going to call them wonky judges, like in Candace Owens, saying hoax alert from a fact checker is not a defamatory statement of fact.
	It's just read with more caution.
	Where do these all get reconciled?
	Because you get these wildly varying judgments depending on jurisdiction.
	Where is the uniformity or top court reconciliation of the principles?
	There should be a little bit more clear standards.
	To me, the decisions in the Nunes and Dominion cases by the same judge articulated pretty well the standards.
	The only issue I would have had disagreement on was venue on the Dominion cases, but otherwise he had pretty good defamation-specific standards that conforms to the law and understood it pretty well.
	The problem is, as long as there's discretion there, you're going to have judges making politically motivated decisions.
	Where they decide no reasonable juror could conclude something that everybody knows a reasonable juror could conclude.
	My first exposure to this was with the Sandman case, where the judge made the list of statements, oh, not of and about salmon.
	I was like, no, when you say not of and about salmon, that's a jury question.
	That's not a legal question.
	But I think a lot of these have been dismissed way too early.
	It's good to see some of these going to the merits.
	I very much think that everyone should get their day in court, which means not getting dismissed on a 12B6 motion to dismiss.
	The aspect of Nunes, where he alleged negligence.
	Now, I forget the details of the negligence, but the negligence side gets dismissed.
	What's the basis?
	What's the rationale?
	And how do you feel about the negligence side getting dismissed, but not the defamation side?
	There's no negligent defamation unless you're not a public figure.
	So the lawyers that Nunes has have had a lot of, let's just say they haven't been real successful, and some of us have not been big fans of some of their work.
	So I think they caught a good judge because negligent defamation is something I didn't see how it could be alleged.
	I mean, he's clearly a public figure.
	So I didn't understand that.
	And so that was always going to be dismissed.
	And luckily, they caught a judge that didn't hold that against them, that they filed something that most lawyers would know not to file.
	So now, going on to Dominion, all those cases are not only marching on, they're staying in D.C. Now, Scott Adams, someone asked Scott Adams the question, could this be what Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani and Mike Lindell want?
	Because now they're entitled to discovery from Dominion.
	That may be the case.
	They definitely are now entitled to Discovery to prove their arguments, just as Patrick Byrne and One American News Network are because they just got sued as well.
	And on the same grounds that Powell, Giuliani, and Lindell could not dodge Discovery, Patrick Byrne won't be able to dodge Discovery, but all four will be entitled to it.
	They had suggested beforehand that they wanted to be sued so they could get Discovery.
	But they didn't behave that way once the suit got filed.
	They were basically screaming, please don't have the case heard here.
	Please have it transferred.
	Please have it dismissed.
	This is where when you want to get into the motivations and all the things, you're going to say, somebody who wants to believe the plan is going to say they had to file the motion to dismiss so that when the motion to dismiss gets dismissed and the action can proceed, Dominion cannot then say, we're not going to submit to deposition or we're not going to communicate certain documents.
	Because we don't have to, or we sued you so we get to limit sort of what you get discovery to.
	Some people are going to say they're going to read it the way they want to, which is they had to do this, so now Dominion loses an argument to limit the scope of the discovery because they succeeded on their opposition to the motion to dismiss.
	My mind is you have to make the motion to dismiss argument regardless because it's, I guess, if you want to proceed, It's a win-win, because either the lawsuit gets dismissed and it's a win, or the lawsuit continues and it's a win, you get to go to deposition, which is what everyone wanted.
	But look, it was par for the course.
	Nobody should make anything more of the fact that they sought the dismissal in terms of the broader plan that they stated from the beginning.
	I mean, yeah, I mean...
	My own view is I don't think this was part of their plan personally.
	But maybe it was.
	They will be entitled now to discovery.
	That will go both ways, of course.
	And the big motion they lost was the motion to transfer.
	Because now all of these cases, once they get to a jury trial, they will be heard by a D.C. jury.
	So they're completely screwed there.
	Unless they beg the judge later on to expand the jury pool.
	Or transfer the case because of jury bias issues.
	And maybe they'll be able to get that.
	But right now, the only upside for them is discovery.
	Otherwise, they're at serious risk of massive financial damages because Dominion's damages are now mounting.
	There are more cities, counties, and states that Dominion will blame on these statements being made by these people.
	I don't think it'll be $1.6 billion.
	And I don't know how everybody's responsible magically for the same amount.
	That's the problem.
	They've got to apportion damages.
	They're getting some contracts canceled that are in the $100 million plus range.
	So they may have half a billion dollars.
	I mean, that'd be enough to bankrupt any of these people other than maybe Mike Lindell.
	Oh, yeah, but it's not like Lindell wants to pay $500 million anyhow.
	But the change of jurisdiction, the change of venue is always a no-brainer.
	You want to get to a favorable jury selection pool.
	But, you know, like it is D.C., but who knows what comes out of Discovery.
	In my mind, Dominion's got more exposure on the discovery than Lindell and the other defendants, because I don't believe...
	They may be ill-founded.
	They may have...
	I don't know if jumped the shark is the right word, but they may have some wrong impressions in fact and law, but I doubt you're going to see conspiratorial emails among them to say, let's make these allegations to screw Dominion.
	Oh, yeah.
	I agree.
	Probably the most embarrassing discovery for Byrne, Lindell, Powell, Rudy...
	Is going to be that they were put on notice by a range of people that this information was unreliable.
	I mean, I'm on public record saying that this information was unreliable.
	So you can imagine that other people told them that in email form, too.
	And that will probably be the most embarrassing, that they didn't vet it at all.
	They put a bunch of fraudsters and scam artists and idiots up.
	And people can just read the court's order.
	Again, this was a Trump appointee, and he's a relatively decent one, as Trump appointees go.
	You just look at the details of what's there.
	I mean, they promoted people who had been convicted fraudsters.
	They promoted people who had been a history of allegations and court determinations of prior fraud.
	They said themselves in communications that they had...
	I mean, it happened again this week in Mike Lindell's cyber symposium.
	His only cyber expert comes out to the Washington Times, by the way.
	That was the original story.
	It was a conservative press.
	They reported and said, oh, by the way, we don't have any of the proof that we've been telling him that we have proof of.
	You know, at his own cyber symposium or at the end of it.
	I mean, they made a lot of mistakes, made a lot of dumb, dumb statements.
	Powell made very aggressive statements, said she had the affidavits that proved it, videos that proved it.
	No, she didn't.
	She made it up and she got caught.
	And that's why they're all in serious trouble.
	I'm sure there's some embarrassing discovery from Dominion that they can find and get.
	It's not clear to me that they are prepared to get it.
	It's not clear to me that they have the people to get it.
	Because they could have done this in the pre, even filed a motion to dismiss, but asked for some limited discovery to prove aspects of the motion to dismiss.
	Or to prove, like, the reason why they lost the motion to transfer, they could have alleged a bunch of facts that this judge probably would have transferred to the Western District of Texas for jury pool purposes.
	They just didn't even allege it.
	I mean, they've had, they filed the most, they filed only the things that they had to file.
	It doesn't show the signs of real sophisticated civil litigation so far.
	So I don't intend...
	None of these people are all...
	Rudy Giuliani hasn't been in court, but once since 1992.
	Mike Lindell does not do a lot of litigation.
	Sidney Powell is a criminal litigator, not a big civil litigator.
	These are people that...
	And a lot of the lawyers they've hired are decent, but nothing spectacular.
	So it's not...
	I think they will be outdone in court, unfortunately, on this.
	What was I just about to say?
	I forget.
	It was...
	No, I'm going to forget now, anyhow.
	But...
	Oh, sorry, limited discovery.
	That was the question.
	So it's going to be very easy for Dominion to say, well, the discovery of documents that the defendants might be entitled to can be reasonably limited such that Dominion can either limit its exposure or just limit the scope of whatever they're going to have to publicly disclose.
	And I guess it would be very easy also for them to file a number of things under seal or I don't know what the American equivalent is.
	File it confidentially so that the world may ultimately never get to see it in the first place.
	I mean, I think Dominion has made a mistake.
	I mean, the lawyers that they hired are the lawyers that did the Rolling Stone cases.
	They're close to a lot of politicians in Washington.
	Close, by the way, to Fox News.
	Some of them have appeared on Tucker Carlson before to attack theories about the Covington cases they didn't want to see brought.
	You know, Tucker got taken for a ride in that presentation.
	But that's another story for another day while they were promoting Lin Wood, by the way.
	Notably, haven't got around to suing Linwood.
	Kind of odd how that keeps working out.
	Everybody but Linwood keeps getting sued.
	Hmm, wonder what that is.
	Given all of these dynamics, it wouldn't surprise me for them to try to move for limited to discovery, but their problem is their suit is too broad.
	They should have stuck with the obviously false facts, left out all the rest.
	But by putting at issue whether there was any problem with the election...
	They have opened the door to discovery to everything, in my view.
	So if they do a good job, either Patrick Byrne or One American News Network or Lindell or Giuliani or Powell, then I believe they're entitled to full discovery on pretty much everything and anything.
	Now, what they'll find is some of their theories that won't be backed up at all.
	By the way, this was a sign when I was predicting Dominion would sue.
	And a lot of commenters were like, you're full of it.
	They'll never sue because they know they're guilty.
	This should be a sign to everybody that they think all the evidence will back them up.
	They had no fear about marching forward.
	Or people are going to say, or they feel confident they've deleted or destroyed whatever could be incriminating.
	But I say anyone who's practiced law for any period of time knows you cannot ever fully delete, fully bleach bit, whatever.
	You can't do it.
	You can't rely on that.
	If they did, that's a spoilation order against them.
	Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, Federal Rule 37, if you deliberately destroy evidence that you know you're going to use or need in litigation or will be relevant in litigation, then the court can find a whole bunch of sanctions against you.
	I can't believe Dominion would have taken that gamble.
	My view is that Dominion is very confident in their position.
	Powell and all the rest, if they believe that they have...
	That they'll find evidence.
	They're now going to be given full opportunity to get it.
	So, you know, if they don't get it now, that means it never existed, period.
	But they are going to be subject to some discovery on their own.
	Now, Dominion can ask for some aspects of that to be under seal, under protective order.
	And what they'll do is they'll say every time any of these defendants have got even pieces of information, they've misused it and lied about it.
	So we want limited what they get access to.
	And the court probably would partially grant that, but not fully.
	But they'll have their chance to prove their case, and we'll see if they are able to do so.
	But I mean, on some of the things, they're dead to rights, unfortunately.
	I was going to say, even if they successfully prove 10% of what they claimed, I'll still be impressed.
	I mean, I'll still be...
	I might eat my words, depending on what that 10% includes, but let's see where it goes.
	The depositions will be fun.
	And speaking of depositions, it's going to be fun.
	So Project Veritas...
	It's another victory in that they get to pursue their claim.
	New York Times, everybody knows this, filed a motion to dismiss under New York State anti-SLAPP legislation.
	The motion to dismiss was dismissed.
	New York Times appeals the dismissal of their motion to dismiss.
	In the interim, asks for a stay of proceedings, for a stay of discovery, pending the appeal of the dismissal of their motion to dismiss.
	I hope that made sense.
	The motion to stay.
	The discoveries was dismissed.
	Good news.
	I mean, it's good news all around the judge.
	Robert, I'm not wrong.
	The judge who heard this case, sorry, the judge who rendered this decision was the judge who rendered the original decision dismissing the motion to dismiss, correct?
	That's absolutely right.
	Because in New York, New York Supreme Court refers to the lowest possible, the trial court.
	Okay.
	People got confused by that because they assume Supreme Court always means the highest court of the state, not in New York.
	Leave it to New York to have to have a different definition.
	In British Columbia, I think they have the same thing, the Supreme Court of British Columbia, which is the first court, not even below the appeals.
	So the same judge hears the motion for stay, and he says, look, you didn't persuade me the first time.
	You didn't persuade me this time.
	You didn't provide any authority to justify granting a stay of discovery.
	When it's a dismissal under the anti-SLAPP legislation.
	And so you're going to proceed with discovery.
	Great victory all around.
	But that last paragraph of the lawsuit, which says, without prejudice, basically to their right to petition the appellate division for a stay.
	What does that mean and what can that turn into?
	Can they just go to the appeals court and say, look, this judge got it wrong or override this judge?
	They can.
	It's just very rare that that's granted.
	Okay, so it's good.
	Look, the Project Veritas' massive victory is that there will be no stay of the discovery, which, I mean, the delays were shocking, but not so shocking.
	Hurry up and wait in court.
	The judge was saying the delays could be three years, which I think is a double-edged sword because the New York Times can turn around and say, look, we're going to be subject to three years of deposition before the...
	The appeal of the motion to dismiss dismissal is heard.
	That's double prejudice.
	But bottom line, it's just money that can be compensated if they succeed on the dismissal of the suit.
	We'll see where it goes because their depositions are going to be gloriously revelatory.
	Because if anybody, if I had to trust anybody to run their mouths without control privately in email and text correspondence, it's journalists at the New York Times.
	So I'm dying to see where that one goes.
	Yep.
	So Nunez got a big win.
	Project Veritas got a big win.
	I'm not going to discuss this case in detail, except at vivabarneslaw.locals.com because of the information contained in it.
	But one of America's frontline doctors has sued CNN for defamation, identifying all the ways that they lied about her.
	And she was one of the people that was really caricatured by the media.
	And it turns out it was all based on misrepresentations by CNN.
	So I'll be breaking down that suit later this week at vivabarneslaw.locals.com because it shows the scope and scale to which the media has been lying about a lot of issues related to this pandemic.
	All right, let's move into, I mean, I guess some more good news.
	More good news, I guess, is when justice prevails after a half year of injustice.
	Some of the defendants, or at least one defendant to the January 6th insurrection.
	Riot, protest, whatever you want to call it.
	The judge basically said enough is enough.
	This is unjustified detention given the absence of allegations of any threats, community risk that this defendant poses.
	The lower court did not contemplate any of the alternative methods of bail conditions which could have been explored.
	Bottom line for anybody who doesn't know, I forget the name of the defendant.
	One of the ones who was accused of assaulting Officer Sicknick.
	And I went into detail about the fake news of New York Times.
	Still has not retracted, corrected, removed that article about how Sicknick died, depicting his cause of death as being at the hands of Trump-supporting protesters.
	Setting that aside, this is one of the defendants who was accused of pepper spraying or bear macing the officer, accused of assault.
	He's been in pretrial detention since March.
	So that's March, April, May, June, July.
	Five months, going on six, pretrial detention.
	And has finally, they basically remanded it to the lower court to say, come up with something that makes sense, but get this guy out?
	Yes, that's exactly right.
	I mean, and for people that don't understand how rare this is, the courts of appeals have, since the Bail and Reform Act of 1984, have mostly abandoned any kind of oversight or supervision in bail cases.
	They've allowed magistrates and judges to do whatever they want and to go wild.
	And they used to, in part because the appellate standard changed with that law.
	But before then, it was frequent that appeals court judges, Supreme Court judges sitting by circuit, would overturn bail decisions and really enforce the Eighth Amendment from about 1950 until the early 1980s.
	But since then, courts of appeals have been abandoning their oversight duties.
	But now there have been two big wins out of the liberal D.C. circuit.
	Four January 6th defendants on bail.
	So that's extraordinary.
	Now, but I think I got it right in the video, but at the very least, two of the three judges, if not all three, were Republican appointees at one point.
	One of the three was...
	One of the three, who was it?
	It was Bill Clinton that appointed them to the appellate division, but was appointed nonetheless by Bush before.
	So, okay, people can write it off as a political decision, although, like I say...
	This should not vary depending on what side of the aisle you stand on, sit on, whatever.
	This was egregious in the first place.
	I can appreciate people saying, lock him up and throw away the key if you want to think that way.
	That would be after a trial and a conviction.
	Lock him up and throw away the key for pretrial detention is a violation of human rights.
	It's cruel and unusual punishment.
	It's unconstitutional.
	Period.
	My dog is scratching himself viciously.
	But this is another decision where there was a caveat that said subject to a full review en bon.
	What are the chances that this gets taken up by the full panel en bon and they overturn it?
	Next to none.
	So it's rare enough that bail decisions are reviewed at all.
	This was a pretty basic decision.
	I don't think they published it.
	And it just made the point that when you have someone that has no criminal history of any kind, no felony criminal history of any consequence, in that kind of circumstance, long-term imprisonment while waiting for trial is not a good idea.
	And I think what this reflects is the court of public opinion continues to push back.
	And more and more judges are hearing it.
	That's number one.
	Number two, they're seeing that the prosecutors rushed to trial, rushed to indict without evidence.
	And that they're just now gathering the evidence, that some of the evidence supports the defense.
	It was admitted this week by prosecutors that there's evidence of supporting entrapment.
	And you don't even have to show entrapment.
	Showing that people were not...
	Criminally willfully obstructing any proceeding or criminally willfully trespassing because they believed that it was okay legally for them to be there based on doors being opened, doors being held open, being welcomed by Capitol Police, Capitol Police smiling with them, laughing with them, taking selfies with them, and that they admitted that all that evidence actually exists and that they're working on getting it together.
	Otherwise, they're having to admit that evidence is missing.
	There's evidence that was on certain doors and certain parts of the Capitol that apparently has disappeared.
	They're now claiming maybe they never had it, which makes no sense.
	The cameras, maybe like the Epstein death and the McAfee death, the cameras just malfunctioned magically at the right time.
	14,000 hours of footage, but not that one minute.
	I mean, that would be the glorious thing.
	And they are admitting they can't turn over all of this evidence, including the defendant's own phones.
	That they seized back to them.
	So what you're seeing is more and more recognition by the court system that this case was not what it was laid out to be, that the courts now look like political hacks locking up people that should not be locked up for this length of time.
	The few sentences that have gone forward they recognize should not be for high sentences or sentenced at all in certain cases.
	And the Court of Appeals is now starting to respond to that as, again, the Court of Public Opinion.
	Continues to push back again and again, saying these charges have been exaggerated, this incident has been overstated, and this treatment doesn't conform to what we want the legal system and the criminal justice system to look like, especially when foreign governments can make fun of us for what's going on, like the Russian government has been now for months.
	No, I mean, you imagine the goodwill that you waste in your ability to criticize other, I say actual, tyrannical governments for their political oppression.
	Whereas you're making yourself into one in the eyes of those nations.
	And yeah, Putin's not a stupid person.
	He's going to rub your face in this the way it should be rubbed in it, where you are obstructing a formal...
	What's the charge, Robert?
	Obstructing...
	Obstructing a proceeding.
	Obstructing a proceeding that lands you in pretrial detention for six months.
	I mean, whereas the worst sentence that we've seen thus far, I think, has been eight months.
	It's unconscionable that the pretrial detention could still be going on for anybody in this circumstance.
	I don't want to compare it to Portland riots or the Molotov cocktail lawyers or the FBI agent in the Whitmer plot convicted of grievous assault causing grievous bodily harm but not death who's let out on $10,000 personal recognizance.
	There's no way to justify this.
	And it doesn't matter how much you hate these people, if you're politically motivated, it can't be tolerated.
	And it's about time.
	And I do appreciate that maybe the judges are seeing it and maybe they're feeling it.
	So I guess, you know, public outrage can take some credit.
	Part of a trend with the Biden administration this week, because they suffered, aside from the ignobious defeat in Afghanistan, this defeat in the January 6th cases on issues of bail and discovery and due process, they had a full bench trial in Armadillo, Texas, where the state of Texas and the state of Missouri sued the Biden administration.
	For not only scrapping the plan that the Trump administration took several years to get done with the Mexican government and the Texas government, which basically provided that if people came in illegally that they could be required to stay in Mexico pending their...
	Asylum hearing, if they requested asylum, as long as they were not at risk in Mexico and a whole bunch of other categories, rather than coming to the United States where they didn't have sufficient detention facilities.
	Speaking of detention, it's interesting.
	All the January 6th defendants, no problems with enough detention facilities.
	Illegal immigrants here who may be at great danger to the country.
	We don't have enough detention facilities.
	And vaccine passports.
	Vaccine requirements, mask mandates, all good for the citizens, and not a slightest expression of concern for those crossing the border illegally from the south in large numbers, and from what I understand, with relatively high, if not exceedingly high, positive rates.
	But yes, sorry.
	And then being dropped all across the country in ways that could spike local...
	Pandemic infection problems.
	And so this in particular concerned a group of people that needed to, that they could not, that they said they did not have the facilities to detain in the United States.
	So the only other option was to release them back in Mexico.
	Otherwise, there was risk that if they were released in the United States, they would never show up.
	And there was lots of evidence of people suddenly claiming asylum because a lot of sort of lefty pro-immigration organizations preached to them to say the words asylum, who clearly did not meet the evidentiary standard for asylum, which is a very high standard.
	The standard should be more generous than it currently is.
	But these are people that they know or don't really meet it.
	It's often not asserted in good faith.
	But the Biden administration had completely reversed all of those agreements between the U.S. and Mexico and the U.S. and Texas.
	And they were allowing people to come in.
	All they had to do was say the magic word asylum, and they were being released right into the United States, knowing that likely they'll never show up for the hearing.
	And so Texas and Missouri sued.
	They had a full bench trial.
	And the judge came to the conclusion that the Biden administration violated the Administrative Procedures Act, had not followed any of the provisions for that, that it was arbitrary and capricious what they had been doing because they had ignored relevant evidence, included irrelevant evidence, and came to a decision that was not rooted in the evidence.
	And it was such a bad decision that it was a decision that could not be justified under discretionary review standards.
	And so enjoined.
	The Biden administration from doing anything except honoring the original Trump agreements, no more letting people into the country and releasing them.
	And because they weren't detaining them, they had to return them to Mexico, where Mexico had agreed they could be pending their asylum hearing.
	And the reason why Mexico had agreed to that is as soon as that protocol was put into place, Mexico knew that many of these people would return home.
	Many of them didn't want to stay in Mexico.
	So what happened is when they knew the gig was up and that they were going to have to prove asylum, they knew that, okay, I'm just going to go home now because I'm never going to be able to prove asylum, and now I can't get into the country.
	So it was not just a matter of sort of detention release policies.
	It was a way of deterring more immigration, which was in Mexico's interest because it didn't like the flood of people coming in.
	So by reopening the asylum door...
	Knowing these are people that are not credible asylum people, they're encouraging massive migration and massive rushes into the country.
	It's the number one policy reason there's been a massive rush of people at the border, and this court reversal is the biggest win against that policy that might start to reverse that moving forward.
	As people are asking, I sort of can't think of an exception.
	Has the Biden administration won any of the legal challenges that have been brought against them or that they've brought since they took office?
	I mean, we've had...
	Only one.
	Which one was it?
	Which was that the Texas governor could not interfere with how they handle immigrants related to COVID-19.
	That's the only one they've won so far.
	Every other one that they have lost.
	Every CDC.
	Transitioning in, the CDC got to keep their eviction moratorium in place.
	Even the district court said, this is clearly illegal.
	Everybody agrees it's clearly illegal.
	But basically, since Kavanaugh sat on his hands, we're going to have to wait for the Supreme Court to get Kavanaugh to quit sitting on his hands for this clearly illegal order to stop.
	And people ask, can the landlords get money from the government?
	No, they can't.
	It's because of sovereign immunity from damages.
	So, I mean, they're just trying to stop bleeding cash.
	And the biggest impact on this is your small, medium-sized landlord, not your big landlords.
	Big landlords are going to be just fine.
	Your big banks, just fine.
	You know, the Fed keeps going burr, burr, burr.
	So it's going to keep rolling, the money machine.
	But for the ordinary, small, the person who lives on just one property or two properties or three properties, that's your small, medium, that's their income.
	That's their livelihood.
	They're getting crushed.
	And imagine, like, your landlord, your tenant, and your tenant uses the stimulus money to buy a boat to laugh at you going down the lake while they don't pay rent.
	You know, I mean, it's that.
	And people have these stories, story after story after story.
	And nothing's happening because, I guess, Kavanaugh's on vacation or whatever.
	So explain what you mean by the Kavanaugh being the source of the delay for a definitive solution from SCOTUS.
	So the district court, they went right back in and said this should be enjoined.
	Everybody agrees this is illegal.
	And the district court says, yeah, I agree.
	But Kavanaugh just said he wasn't going to issue the injunction.
	So I think I'm bound and I can't issue an injunction until Kavanaugh gets back in and joins the other four justices and issues an injunction.
	So how and when does that happen?
	That can only happen by the judge saying, I'm not going to grant it.
	So it has to go up.
	They have to go up to the Court of Appeals, then go up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
	By the end of the month, the U.S. Supreme Court is going to have to rule.
	And the question is whether Kavanaugh will once again sit on his hands and say, well, now it's only maybe end of September.
	It's only over the month.
	All those people that fought for Kavanaugh thinking, oh, this was a great fight.
	How do you feel now?
	Well, forget that.
	These are what Federalist Society hacks look like.
	All of the people who tried to take him down on the 38-year-old improper conduct charges.
	What a blessing in disguise it's turned into if we're viewing it through the political angle and not through the judicial one.
	But, you know, still...
	Look, explain it to me because I'm dense.
	I still don't understand it.
	This question, the Supreme Court, it was brought to the Supreme Court.
	They said...
	This type of conduct, this type of action by the CDC has to go through Congress.
	It's not the CDC's authority.
	Why was that not definitive enough of a ruling?
	Because they issued no written decision.
	So the only request before them was, will you agree to enjoin this eviction moratorium?
	Four justices said yes.
	Kavanaugh was the only one to write anything.
	And he said, I concur that you should get a stay.
	But I'm not going to grant the stay because it's almost over anyway.
	Oh boy.
	No standing, mootness.
	I mean, it's all history rhyming but not repeating.
	And short history.
	Did Biden not have a victory or is it not something of a victory?
	Has there been any progress on the lawsuits challenging the states who, I won't say preemptively, but...
	So some federal courts have ruled in favor of the states.
	Some federal courts have ruled against the states.
	So it's going to have to be decided by the appellate courts or the Supreme Court.
	My view is it's pretty clear.
	But what they've done is mostly, all they're doing is buying time.
	You know, the forcing...
	I get it, but it's the government writing a bigger check for people who aren't entering the labor marketplace, which is creating a wide range of economic issues, and how much they can survive that and sustain that is an open question.
	But I think ultimately the states will win that, that they had the right not to spend that money.
	But a lot of the judges that have ruled against the states are judges that have certain politics.
	I haven't seen a good argument for that.
	I accidentally brought this chat up.
	I'm going to bring it back up again.
	Just to explain something that I actually had a discussion with someone yesterday at the anti-vaccine passport protest in Montreal.
	This would be the type of thing.
	It's an accusation which implies intent that we'll probably never know ever.
	And I said the bottom line, I don't use that term.
	I don't like it because it's basically you're making an accusation that can never be disproven.
	All that I know is that from everything that's gone on, whether or not it was set up or whether or not it was just hijacked once it was underway or co-opted once it was underway, you don't need to make the outlandish, I can never prove or disprove the statement.
	What's clear is that the governments have seen this as an opportunity.
	If you're the Trudeau government, you see it as an epiphany, an opportunity for a reset, as they've said.
	And so they've co-opted because I don't think anybody, I don't think this was like...
	Super villain out of a movie is set up.
	But governments are opportunists and they see an opportunity and they exploit it when they see it, as do every other player.
	Big pharma, big business, big tech.
	And so I just wanted to bring that up because I brought it up by accident, but I don't know.
	I'm thinking...
	I don't adhere to that.
	I don't buy into that.
	And at the end of the day, I don't think it makes a difference.
	Co-opting in course is just as bad as setting it up from the beginning.
	It's been a power-demic.
	Amongst other things is what it's been.
	I mean, whether it was intentional or unintentional from the inception, a lot of politicians have used it to seize power, grab power, and they like that power.
	Seize power and effectively govern in a way that makes them unattackable beyond reproach, beyond judicial reproach.
	Because these measures, so many of these measures, like I said time and time again, they have not gone through legislative processes where they've been, you know, Proven, justified, and voted on.
	They've just been imposed by the dictators, the petty tyrants who have seized power as a result of the crisis.
	Speaking of people misusing their power, two interesting lawsuits this week.
	One related to Jeffrey Epstein.
	Eternal truth, folks.
	Jeffrey Epstein didn't kill himself.
	One of the three eternal truths.
	But the Prince Andrew was sued this week in New York.
	For his involvement with one of the miners, underage individuals, accuses him of crimes in New York, crimes around the world, and being a knowing, complicit co-participant in the Epstein abuse of miners for various purposes, conduct.
	So that was an interesting suit.
	Civil suit, right?
	Oh yeah, civil suit.
	And what it is, is New York has passed a law.
	Basically because of Epstein.
	They passed a law that allows you to get past the statute of limitations as long as you sue within a certain time frame if the person commits certain crimes and you bring a tort.
	The tort being battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress.
	So Prince Andrew has now been sued in New York.
	So we'll see how that case goes forward.
	That's going to be bad because Prince Andrew...
	I don't care what you think about things in general.
	Did not come off well.
	He did not do himself any favors in an interview that will undoubtedly come back to haunt him.
	Great review by the behavior panel, everybody.
	You can go out there and watch the behavior panel breakdown of Prince Andrew's interview.
	It's great.
	Oh, someone says no Hunter talk.
	Well, okay.
	Do we talk Hunter, Robert?
	We can get Hunter a little bit later, but second related suit, fascinating suit, alleges that against NBC, Saturday Night Live.
	One of the key actors for Saturday Night Live.
	And it names people like Jimmy Fallon and James Gunn being implicated in certain ways.
	Basically, that at Saturday Night Live, certain employees of Saturday Night Live targeted minor children, teenagers, but under the age of consent, for grooming purposes for sexual abuse at parties hosted by NBC.
	Hosted by Saturday Night Live, where co-participants included people like Jimmy Fallon, and very weird parties apparently by James Gunn.
	Remember, this is a guy who initially lost his job at Disney because of his tendency to make pedo jokes.
	Maybe they just weren't all jokes.
	And Jimmy Fallon looks really bad.
	He's hanging out with an underage girl.
	They're not only inviting them, not only grooming them, they're serving them alcohol while she's talking about being a high schooler.
	And they still bring her drinks and still invite her to the party.
	See her sexually assaulted at the scene.
	It's very bad.
	I've read not in detail, but there's only so much detail you need to read.
	First of all...
	What was I going to say?
	Horatio Sanz.
	Oh, it's not hashtag confession through projection.
	This is truth in jest, which I guess is a variation of confession through projection, where people make jokes.
	James Gunn, we know the jokes he made that he got in big trouble for.
	And we know other people, I don't need to name names, who make jokes that end up being a little too close to reality because they are inspired by reality.
	The entire Louis C.K. What he was accused of having done.
	And if anybody remembers his joke, his stand-up bit on skunks, how skunks' defense mechanism is to spray a toxic spray that scares people off.
	And he says, what if humans had the same one?
	And then he went into a male version in his mind of what could be that defense.
	Lo and behold, exactly what he admitted to having done in real life, lifting his tail and spraying, except not a skunk version.
	So these guys make jokes, and these people make jokes, and it's very easy to know when there's truth in jest.
	Horatio Sanz, apparently from the allegations of the lawsuit, it's not just that the allegations are serious.
	It's not just that the allegations implicate people who are big names, apparently objecting in real time, saying, are you effing kidding me?
	This is actually going on at a party that I'm at, and it carries on as usual.
	It's that apparently it alleges that Horatio Sanz Issued an apology.
	Not a written, but rather apologized for his conduct later on, saying he was going through a bad time in his life and yada, yada, yada.
	It looks bad.
	One of his defense was, okay, you were 16, so that's not good, but at least it wasn't kids.
	That's not exactly a good defense for minor child abuse.
	The defense is going to be even more misleading somewhat, because I think she was 17 when it happened.
	But they had been having a relationship since she was 15. It started when she was 14. The grooming started when she was 14. The actual sexually violative conduct, if you don't count a lot of other conduct that could be counted, but the conduct that was physical sexual assault directly was when she was 17. You're going to see some articles saying, yeah, 17 when it happened.
	The grooming process, we're going to call it that, began when she was 14-15, which involved...
	Images being sent by phone, which is itself already a crime, a very serious one.
	It's very serious.
	I hate these lawsuits because they make me sick.
	I hate these lawsuits because people's reflexes are to say, well, 17, you're still pretty old.
	Setting everything aside, laws exist for a reason, and it started well before that.
	But, I mean, I think this is going to be something of a suit to settle quietly and quickly, but we'll see.
	Yeah, I mean, and my guess is it may not be the last one because what they're describing, because she describes this happening to multiple other people and that there was conspiracies to keep quiet about it, that she was put on pressure not to talk about it happening to her friends.
	So it appears that from the late 90s to the mid 2000s, at least, NBC and Saturday Night Live, part of their gig was to host these after show parties.
	And at these after show parties, they were frequently soliciting The allegations on right now are just that they were at these parties and had reason to know what was going on and were interacting with these people.
	They don't know if it went further, but it raises big, big questions.
	And how is Jimmy Fallon still on the air?
	I mean, if this was somebody...
	Bill O 'Reilly, in my view, was rightly cancelled very quickly for doing much less...
	For people that are actually of age.
	I mean, these are girls, is who these are.
	And they knew they were girls.
	And it is what drives me crazy.
	It's the people with the...
	Don't anyone accuse me of hashtag confession through projection.
	I live as though every moment of my life will eventually be broadcast on national television.
	But these people who give the impression of being the friendliest, holier than thou, more kosher than the Pope is a bad mixed analogy.
	But, you know, Jimmy Fallon, the family man, Bill Cosby, the family man, all these people ultimately engaged, involved in, if they're not directly participating in it, definitely up to no good, despite the public persona.
	And it's gross and it's dirty, but it's the industry.
	It's gross and it's dirty.
	Stay the heck away from it at all costs.
	It makes it difficult for me to watch these movies, to listen to their voiceovers in cartoons, because I know what goes on, but I don't want to poison my children with my own rude awakening to life.
	But Robert, on the issue of sending pictures via your phone, what's going on with Apple saying that they're automatically going to scan your photos for potential CP?
	And report to the authorities?
	Am I understanding that?
	Or is there being some misreporting in there?
	That's what they claimed.
	Now, I have reason to believe that a lot of that technology is already out there.
	But it was a shock to most people that Apple was scanning their phones, period, for what photos are privately on their phone and not shared on social media.
	That was a little bit of a surprise.
	People may not have known.
	Maybe that's been going on all along.
	But we'll put that aside for the moment.
	You don't have to have a Hunter Biden laptop to figure that out.
	But speaking of photos, you probably should be careful of sharing.
	I think her name is Kat Von D, the famous tattoo artist that's got 12 million Facebook followers, 8 million Instagram followers.
	She decided to put out on Instagram that she was doing a tattoo based on a famous photo of a famous jazz artist.
	And what she did is, and she showed that the tattoo she was doing was based on the photo.
	Of course, the problem with that is even though it's never reached the courts for a final decision, that appears to be clear copyright infringement.
	So she's been sued.
	There's been vicarious copyright liability suits, contributor copyright liability suits against others involved.
	And the allegations that she's made tons of money or cost...
	And here, because it's a registered copyright of the famous photo, the famous jazz man, and clearly the tattoo is just a copy of the photo because she shows the photo as the basis of the tattoo in the big Instagram post.
	Just so everybody appreciates...
	This may be your body, but this is, under copyright law, nonetheless an unlawful reproduction of a copyright-protected work, and people don't appreciate this.
	And especially the way she's ostensibly marketing it and trying to seek financial gain from it.
	It makes it sort of even more so of a violation, but...
	I mean, the damages you can get are all the unjust profits, all the damage done to his brand, plus...
	$150,000 for each time it happened is statutory damages plus attorney's fees plus cost.
	So this is going to be a multi-million dollar suit.
	It's going to be a big suit because if it goes forward through trial, it may be the first final decision about to what degree is a tattoo artist doing something that's fair use rather than directly derivative.
	This looked directly derivative.
	I mean, again, you don't have much.
	I mean, it's her smile and face next to the photo that she's stolen.
	Showing the tattoos she's doing.
	So, you know, in terms of incriminating evidence, it doesn't get much worse.
	Yeah.
	No, and Renee Mish did a great video on exactly how it works.
	Most people don't understand it.
	And the other thing, any photo uploaded to the cloud is scanned, not on your phone, so we know.
	I operate on the basis that any photo on your phone can be scanned, will be scanned, and is being scanned.
	And at the very least, if you go to the border and they want to see your phone...
	People taking...
	I don't want to say compromising.
	Beautiful, innocent pictures of their own children.
	Kids better be wearing pants in all those videos.
	And I tell people this.
	Don't send me cute pictures of your kid if you can see things.
	Avoid problems before they start.
	It's a pound...
	An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
	So the Apple business, not surprising.
	I take for granted that it's already being done.
	It's the idea of actively reporting it to the authorities that I would...
	Find surprising, especially given Apple's opposition to that in the first place.
	But who knows?
	Maybe the political tides are changing.
	It was, I mean, really what I think Apple did was disclose something that has already been going on to prove.
	Now, part of this is a legitimate complaint by people like Eliza Blue that we've had on here, that people, she has her own local station, about the complete failure of big tech to do anything other than promote.
	CP and abusive conduct.
	And so I think they're trying to answer that.
	But I think also what they're doing is they're really, in my view, trying to establish public acceptance of big tech having all of your private information.
	Because when they started out with internet regulation, the very first thing they said is, we've got to regulate CP.
	And then it was terrorism.
	And of course, soon after, it was all speech that we don't want allowed on the platform.
	That's where it transitioned into.
	They never really did much control over either terrorism or CP.
	That's easily still available.
	Often, they profit from that, but speech that they've had a desire to drive down.
	And there's a lot of us who think that there was a political pretext that they wanted to do something they've already been doing, but they want public acceptance of so that they can condition people that it becomes normal.
	That they're constantly spying on you all the time, all everywhere.
	It is.
	Winston was named both after my favorite dog from childhood and the protagonist from 1984, Winston.
	What was his last name?
	Tabernush.
	I forgot.
	But that was one reason why I named him Winston specifically.
	All right, Robert, we're at two hours.
	What do we have on a local's questions?
	I think we did good.
	There was no way we were going to get to all of these subjects.
	Yes, the Texas Democrats have been allowed to be arrested by the Texas Supreme Court for their fleeing the state, and that's not reversible, so they're going to get arrested or they've got to show up.
	The Trump taxes case goes forward.
	Trump is challenging Congress's ability to continue to seek his taxes given that they're misusing and abusing their subpoena power, and that lawsuit has also been filed, and we'll just sort of watch and see.
	I remember that one.
	Count Dankula.
	What happened with the Count Dankula law coming out of the UK?
	So, two things there.
	One is that a great win on a fireman who was fired for his Brexit speech.
	He won on that.
	And the law that was used to punish Count Dankula is now being looked at for...
	There was so much public blowback.
	And it's a gig.
	Classic example, the Court of Public Opinion mattering, that they're looking at finally undoing that law so it can never be used against anyone else in the future.
	And one last component, the Third Circuit finally got around to reviewing Judge Stickman's decision, saying the lockdown rules were unconstitutional in Pennsylvania.
	The great base Judge Stickman.
	And the Third Circuit decided it's all moot, so they can avoid ruling on it.
	The upside to that, however, is that means Judge Stickman's decision is now precedent.
	Amazing.
	So I take that as, you know, take your wins where you can get them.
	And that's what people don't appreciate.
	Stickman's decision is going to last because that was a published, motivated, on-the-merits-after-evidence hearing.
	And the fact that they say, okay, it's now moot, good.
	It means the Court of Appeal is not going to revisit it.
	It means that it has whatever precedential value a...
	First, what do you call it?
	Not first court, but the lowest court.
	Trial court.
	It's going to have presidential value.
	And thank goodness, one good judgment is going to continue to see the light of day after all of this.
	Stick around, you could say.
	Hunter Biden.
	We don't need to talk about Hunter Biden.
	Hunter has another laptop that disappeared.
	The Ruskies were involved.
	Because it's just normal.
	To just tape yourself with random strippers and hookers, apparently, in Hunter's World.
	And he's saying dumb stuff again.
	Shock, shock.
	Well, so there's things I don't share because I cannot vet.
	I don't want to make a mistake by sharing a fake video.
	What's amazing, if you go to YouTube and try to find the impugned video where Hunter Biden apparently is talking bedside secrets to a person whom you pay to have relations with.
	It's very difficult to find that video on YouTube, because they keep taking down the originals, and all you end up getting are either, I say, fakes, like these bot voices narrating what happens, and you occasionally see the original video, which, you know, it looks like audio, and it sounds like a voice, can't bet it, but it's a media blackout.
	But the only inspiring, or say, the only interesting thing is Jonathan Turley, constitutional scholar Robert, who we follow on Twitter, wrote an article about it, and he said, It's either a fake video, in which case it should be addressed, or it's a legit video, in which case it should be addressed.
	And the video dialogue content sounds legit, predictable, understandable, almost logical, and totally believable.
	But if it's fake, it needs to be addressed.
	And if it's not, it's a serious, serious problem because it's effectively Hunter saying, I had a laptop get stolen by Russian drug dealers who were...
	And it was extravagant content against me for black military.
	Nothing more, nothing less.
	And that could be, uh, I mean, that's, it's just already over the top, but, uh, yeah.
	No FBI investigation into any of that.
	While the inspector general for the NSA announced they'll finally get around to looking at why Tucker Carlson was spied upon, and the inspector general for the Department of Justice admitted that there were so many high-ranking FBI people breaking the rules and the laws governing what they were supposed to do with private information during the investigation into so-called Russiagate, where they were looking at Trump doing what Hunter Biden apparently actually could have been responsible for.
	That there's been so many phones missing, so many texts destroyed, so much stuff they can't get, that they don't even know how many people committed violations and can't go forward because so many things have disappeared in the interim.
	So it shows the FBI does understand the core lesson of never in writing and always in cash.
	Hunter Biden probably should have remembered never recorded either.
	But it is, bottom line, it's institutionalized corruption.
	From the administration, to the investigators, to the media that will not report on it.
	It is institutionalized, normalized corruption.
	I am predicting there's going to be a tide turning sooner than later.
	I just hope it's a big enough tide, and I hope it happens sooner than later.
	Robert, I think we did exquisitely well tonight covering an array of subject matter.
	So first things first, everyone's asking, when is Robert Kennedy rescheduled for?
	So, the end of August.
	So, this Wednesday we should have a sidebar, but I've got to confirm the guest.
	And by the end of August, we'll be talking to the folks from the Duran, both Alex and Alexander.
	We'll be talking to Michaelia Peterson, the daughter of Jordan Peterson.
	And we'll be talking to Bobby Kennedy Jr., who's been very, very, very busy of late.
	I hope no one thinks ill.
	Has any negative thoughts or theories as to why it's just people's schedules are unpredictable and uncontrollable.
	And next Wednesday, Robert, if we don't have a guest, we should do a sidebar with my wife.
	Neuroscientist.
	We can do it upstairs.
	It'll be totally...
	If we don't find a guest, we have one.
	It'll work out perfect.
	Okay, but you know what?
	You might be officially running for office very soon, right?
	No, no.
	It's official.
	It's already done.
	I'm officially running for office.
	They called it today.
	I've started getting signatures, and I'm going to look into billboards.
	Here's the problem.
	I genuinely cannot print billboards that are not recycled or biodegradable.
	I cannot put that garbage up there.
	So I'm going to have to find a creative way to do it.
	But the election has been called September 20th, Robert.
	I'm going to get my 150 signatures so I get on the ballot.
	And I'm going to take a Twitter war to Mark Garneau and Justin Trudeau starting immediately after we finish this stream.
	So it's going to be a great month.
	There's been a bunch of great memes at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	So you might be able to steal those from some of the billboards.
	They had you as Johnny Depp from the Pirates films.
	So I'm exquisitely neurotic about not conveying a message that could be misconstrued or deliberately misconstrued as promoting violence.
	So I'm...
	Fair warning.
	It had you running away from everybody.
	Well, that's even worse.
	But no, I say jokes aside.
	But Robert, people need inspiration, myself included.
	Give us something to look forward to.
	Give us some hope for the week to come.
	Ah, that's easy.
	Viva's running for office.
	So there's hope without doubt.
	And for all the other information about vaccine issues and mask issues and COVID issues and election issues, all of that will be discussed throughout the week and documents shared, lawsuits reviewed, some bourbon with Barnes's and all the rest at vivabarneslaw.locals.com, where I'll be right after the show or a few minutes thereafter for the live chat that's ongoing.
	All right.
	And did...
	Did Holtzman confirm that the Super Chat was intended?
	I'm going to go check my email anyhow.
	Thank you all for the Super Chats.
	Thank you all for the support.
	Thank you for the comments.
	Even the critiques or the critics in the chat.
	Critics keep us honest and they keep us thoughtful and they keep us self-reflective.
	So if anybody thinks the criticism is destructive, it's not.
	It's constructive and we thank you for it.
	So everyone enjoy the rest of the week and enjoy the week to come.
	Stick around for Viva PPC campaign.
	It's going to be fun.
	It's going to be creative.
	But Wednesday night, SuperStream.
	SuperStream.
	Sidebar.
	And Robert, stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.

▲