Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 22, 2021 - Viva & Barnes

02:05:47

Ep. 75: Biden losses; Maddow Wins; Canada Election; and MORE FBI Misconduct! Viva & Barnes LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Second.
	This time, people, I think I was actually on the nanosecond or the millisecond.
	F, you're late.
	It will never get old.
	Things will never get old.
	Being accused of being late and the Fs.
	Okay.
	People, it's going to be one heck of a stream.
	And you want whatever Viva's on.
	I had a double espresso iced cappuccino.
	That wasn't an iced cappuccino.
	It was iced coffee.
	That I iced as I went door to door to get another 10 signatures.
	Just because I had about an hour and a half, I wanted to get another 10 signatures just so I have some insurance signatures, just so I can meet the neighbors, just so I can relive.
	When I was a kid, I guess 15, 16, I worked door to door sales for one summer.
	It was the most, humbling is one way of putting it, soul crushing is another.
	When you go door to door, Nobody likes people ringing their doorbells.
	And when I was doing it back then, I remember the pitch.
	It was E-College E. And it had like those letters, E-College E. And it was recyclable house products sold by, you know, students, college students, hence E-College E. And man, is it tough to get people to buy stuff that they are going to otherwise use in the first place.
	Going door to door to talk politics.
	Man, it's interesting, but eye-opening.
	So I went and I did another 10 signatures.
	Took about an hour, hour and a half.
	And while I was doing that, in the sweltering heat, I had a double Nespresso chilling in the freezer, which I had.
	Forrest Franks, thank you very much.
	I know that I missed another one that I see right there.
	Hold on.
	Nope.
	Forrest Franks.
	So, let's see here.
	Hold on one second.
	Hey, Viva.
	Of course, no reminder from S-C-R-E-W-T-U-B-E.
	Yeah, that's what the intro is about now.
	It's letting everyone...
	But I do say...
	Notifications are helpful, but everyone knows, you know, exceptions aside, we go live Sunday.
	Heck or high water.
	Ghost of Recon.
	Don't sweat the clock.
	You're on time as per the U.S. atomic clock system.
	Thank you very much.
	Yeah, I gotta watch what I even read in the chats, because certain things just...
	Trigger certain responses from the algorithm.
	All right, so let's get into the standard disclaimers before we get into the intro.
	It won't be a rant.
	It's going to be a rant.
	Standard disclaimers.
	Okay, Super Chats.
	YouTube takes 30% of Super Chats.
	If you don't like that, and I can understand some people don't want to feed that beast, Locals is the place to support us.
	Locals takes 10%.
	The payment processing takes another percentage, but that comes off our end, so no sweat off your end.
	There's a lot of good goodies on locals.
	Super Chat, I may not get to them.
	If you're going to feel miffed, if I don't bring it up or read it out loud, don't give the Super Chat.
	I don't like people feeling miffed.
	No legal advice.
	No medical advice.
	I know my limitations in life.
	We are here for entertainment and education purposes only.
	There shall be no medical or legal advice.
	But you will understand the world better after having watched our streams.
	Complimentary F. Hi, Viva.
	Thank you, 2007 Shockwave.
	Now, let's get into the rant of sorts.
	As you all know, I am making a foray.
	Foray?
	Whatever.
	I'm trying to...
	I'm running for office.
	Uphill battle is an understatement.
	Trying to unseat the incumbent liberal in liberal Westmount NDG in my writing.
	Liberal for 30 years.
	It's like trying to catch lightning in a bottle without getting struck to death.
	You know what I mean.
	It's going to be an uphill battle and it might require just a little bit of luck and surprising grassroots movement of a silent majority.
	Now, for those who don't know how the system works in Canada, we have federal elections.
	It's sort of like the states.
	You have your federal government, then you have your provincial government, so you have federal elections, provincial elections.
	Of our federal parties, You're going to get a rundown here.
	We have Liberal, Conservative, New Democratic Party, which from what I've explained is left of the Liberal.
	Jagmeet Singh is the leader of that.
	The New Democratic Party, surprisingly undemocratic when you have the leader Jagmeet Singh saying that the leader of the PPC, People's Party of Canada, should not be given a platform to debate with the other leaders at the leaders debate.
	And that's what we're getting to.
	Then you have, ironically, you have the Green Party.
	I think you have a Communist Party.
	You have the Bloc Québécois, which ironically, for those of you who don't know, is a federal party that gets a fair number of seats, primarily because Quebec votes for them.
	Their platform is predicated on the separation of Quebec from the rest of Canada.
	So you have a federal party that is predicated on separating from the Federation.
	Hashtag irony.
	They had some good opposition at one point in time.
	The ultimate irony now is that the Bloc Québécois are not even real opposition to the policies being implemented by the Liberals, which are being supported by the NDP and the Conservatives.
	Then you have the PPC.
	Now, hold on, I'm going to bring up a few chats just so I don't lose these.
	I'm planning to visit Montreal this fall.
	Have you heard any info regarding how the vaccine passport will apply to out-of-province visitors?
	From what I understand, it might not recognize mixing and matching of vaccines.
	Don't quote me.
	I'm not sure.
	You have to check with the government websites.
	Thank you very much for the super chat, though.
	I missed your name.
	And it was...
	Cal-El.
	And enjoy Montreal.
	It is a beautiful place, but notwithstanding all its foibles.
	If anyone can catch lightning in a bottle on a sunny day, it's you.
	Keep up the good work.
	Thank you very much, Jeremy.
	Was it Jeremy?
	It was Jeremy Stevenson, who is a UFC fighter, if I'm not mistaken.
	There's a UFC fighter with that name.
	So now you have the breakdown of the parties.
	The system, as it goes, you have a leaders' debate, which is put on by the Leaders' Debates Commission, which is a federal entity created by the government to regulate, moderate, to govern the leaders' debate, which is an invitation only of the leaders of the federal parties to debate their policies before Canadians.
	In order to get invited, as per whatever rules the Leaders Debates Commission sets up for that election, this year, in order to get invited to participate in the Leaders Debate, you needed to have, okay, try to get it.
	If you haven't seen my video from yesterday, this will be news to you.
	You have to get 4% of the voter intention, as determined by reputable pollsters, which they have their list of.
	For polls that were conducted in the nine days prior to the issuance of the writ, that is to say calling the election, and five days after calling the election.
	A weighted average of 4% of the stated intention to vote for that party in order to be invited.
	What are these reputable pollsters?
	You have your list, Ipsos, Leger, these other ones, I can't think of the names offhand.
	And what ended up happening, well, first of all, one question is why on earth any poll?
	That precedes the declaration of the election would be relevant.
	Why would any poll conducted in the nine days before calling the election be relevant for anything?
	Setting that aside, long story short, Maxime Bernier was not invited to participate in the leaders' debate despite polling at about 6% now, currently, by reputable pollsters.
	The logic implemented by the Leaders' Debates Commission is that...
	Averaging out the nine pollsters that they used, the reputable pollsters, he was polling at about 3.27%, because one of the reputable pollsters, Ipsos, had him polling at 0.7%, whereas two other pollsters, reputable, had him polling at 5.2%.
	So you ask yourself how within nine reputable pollsters you have a divergence of 100%, because that's what it is.
	Ask yourself that question at first, and we can move on from there.
	Ask yourself how one of the reputable pollsters had the People's Party of Canada at 0.7% when last federal election they got 1.6% of the popular vote, which is not a lot, but it's 1.6%.
	It's twice, two and a half times what this reputable pollster has them at, and they've only been gaining in every polls.
	How any poll has them at under 1% requires some explanation, but you get the feeling that...
	You get the feeling...
	That the system was sort of set up to, you know, basically be able to arrive at whatever conclusion you want to arrive at.
	Pick whichever polls allow you to average up or average down the polls.
	Anyhow, it's a bit of an outrage.
	Let me read this.
	I'll be praying you win, Viva.
	Being an American with Canadian friends, I don't think there is a whole lot more I can do.
	Prayers are welcome.
	I'm not a religious person, but I do believe in the positive energy that comes from collective thought and the overall...
	Not karma.
	What's the word?
	Mojo it imparts in the cosmos.
	That's a lot of words that I don't actually...
	You know what I mean.
	Okay.
	So he wasn't invited because these nine reputable pollsters averaging weighted average of nine pollsters that started nine days before the election was called and five days after have him at 3.27% and he needed 4% to get invited.
	The PPC have candidates in over 300.
	Of the 338 federal ridings in Canada.
	So let that sink in.
	This is not even comparable, from what I understand, to the Green Party, which doesn't have that many candidates.
	You have a federal party, which is polling by and large at 5% to 6%, making gains in basically all polls, has candidates in virtually every riding across Canada not being invited to participate in the debates.
	And then you have Jagmeet Singh, the leader of the New Democratic Party, saying, yeah, he shouldn't be invited anyhow because his...
	Rhetoric is divisive, and he denies science.
	And the things he says hamper the public health response to COVID.
	This coming from the guy who said that if you didn't wear a face mask, you were a right-wing extremist, selfish, didn't care about community.
	Talk about divisive, and then talk about denying science.
	He himself then subsequently gets caught, maskless, breaking his COVID bubble, hugging somebody who he invited into his house.
	This is the guy lecturing Maxime Bernier on being divisive and denying the science.
	These people, if they didn't have double standards, these politicians, they would have no standards at all.
	So that's the outrage of the week.
	Maxime Bernier doesn't look like he's going to be invited to the federal debate.
	There is a 48-hour timeframe within which to appeal, which they've done.
	So, you know, politics, all politics aside, you are all getting a crash course, as am I, in the Canadian federal election system.
	And it's eye-opening to me.
	I hope it's eye-opening to you.
	And let me just see if I can get to some of these chats that I've missed.
	Okay.
	Gavin Cross says, Crazy policy.
	Clearly, only government polls were used.
	This government is corrupt.
	The pollsters are corrupt.
	We just did a stream with Richard Barris talking about how fundamentally corrupt these pollsters are.
	And we're lawyers.
	We've had experience.
	We know that...
	I mean, if anybody hasn't seen that stream with Richard Barris, it'll open your eyes as to the problem with pollsters.
	You're talking about pollsters who can very much frame the result that they want to get by the order in which they ask the questions, by the framing of the questions, by the people they're targeting.
	Because when you look at the amount of people some of these pollsters are polling to get to their results of a national average, they're polling 1,000, 2,000 people by phone.
	You know, calls during the day or in the evening.
	So you have to ask yourself already, a thousand to two thousand people is representative of Billy Squat, Jack Squat, absolutely nothing to start with.
	But then you're going to a demographic of who's answering their phones at three in the afternoon to seven in the evening.
	I don't know when they do the numbers, but who has a landline anymore?
	Who's answering these phones to do these polls?
	And then who who answers the phone actually takes the time to do these polls?
	You're not getting representation of anything.
	And then to use that as the excuse to invite or not invite a leader of a federal party with representatives and candidates in almost every riding in Canada, it makes a mockery of the system.
	It disillusions and disenfranchises voters.
	It discredits the process to people who want to have faith in the process.
	And they do not, or they do understand the damage it does to the perception of legitimacy of the process.
	Thus ends my rant, and I see Robert is coming in, so I'm going to bring him in, because I know Robert's going to want to say something about these polls, but let me just see if I can get some more chats.
	Find the results you want, then make the rules to make sure you get the results you want, are the only ones possible.
	This is the game within the game.
	For anybody who has never had experience with pollsters, Benjamin Disraeli, there are three types of lies.
	Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
	You can get whatever result you want from the stats by...
	Conveniently including certain representatives, excluding others who might become non-eligible.
	Welcome, Arthur Lambert, to his house of the Lamberts of the memberships.
	Welcome to membership.
	Membership is $5 a month.
	Members get sneak peeks, which is basically the only thing I really have the bandwidth to consistently do.
	But, you know, another way to support is to become a member of VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com where you get some other goodies because Robert Barnes is prolific in publication on VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	A religion is defined as a system of belief.
	Nobody has no system of belief.
	If you do not believe in God, you should just say so.
	Okay, I'm not sure.
	The question is, what is God?
	An ultimate creator?
	An initial creator?
	A force that is beyond our understanding?
	Whether or not one believes in what one would call a capital G God depends on what your definition is.
	But I definitely believe.
	That there is something more out there and that we ultimately, I hope it's there.
	So, we'll see.
	Okay, with that said, locals chat tonight.
	I believe there's always a locals chat afterwards.
	I'm going to do my best to get into it.
	Robert Barnes is in the house.
	I'm going to bring him in.
	We're going to ask him a couple of questions before I forget.
	Then I'm going to do a shout-out before I forget.
	And then we're going to get into some heavy law talk.
	Robert, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	Okay, who's on mute?
	Are you on mute or is it me?
	I don't think I'm on mute.
	I'm another idiot moment.
	I apologize.
	Robert.
	You can hear me good.
	Someone wanted to know about your cigar choice for the evening and cigar advice in general.
	Sure.
	This is a Monte Cristo 1935 edition.
	I mean, not from 1935.
	That's the name of it.
	But, yeah, I mean, it depends on whether you like mild cigars or spicy cigars as to what kind of the strength you like will dictate both the size of cigar and the kind of cigar you like.
	All right.
	And now, second question before we forget, what is the book recommendations of the week?
	So, I mean, given what's in the news, clearly Fool's Errand by Scott Horton is a good book about the insanity of what was going on and has been going on in Afghanistan.
	The other one is Contours of American History by William Appleman Williams, who explained why, you know, deep state operatives have this knack for wanting to explore foreign nations for domestic purposes and other purposes.
	And it's a good historical overview of sort of empire type builders.
	So both are great books.
	All right, excellent.
	And now the shoutouts that I don't want to forget.
	Two shout-outs.
	First of all, DSLR Dave, the guy who does my thumbnails, DSLR Dave, can't understate or overstate the importance of good thumbnails, and I don't give him enough credit publicly, so I've been meaning to.
	DSLR Dave, if anybody needs thumbnails for their YouTube stuff, contact him.
	He's on Twitter and YouTube.
	Second shout-out, for anyone who's seen my PPC banner that was prepared by someone who reached out to me from out west of Canada.
	And it's conorcreative.com, the website.
	Let me just make sure I got the website right.
	conorcreative.com,.ca, conorcreative.ca.
	And they prepared, in short order, a compelling, striking, symmetrical, beautiful campaign poster, which I'm going to now blast everywhere.
	I'm going to try to get ad space in the Montreal Gazette, La Presse, Westbound Independent, to reach the locals.
	So I just want to say thank you to those two individuals.
	You know who you are.
	conorcreative.ca, DSLR Dave.
	And Robert, I just went into a mild diatribe about the polls being used as the basis to invite or not invite federal leaders of federal parties to the federal debates in Canada.
	Without going over everything we discussed with Richard Barris, would you give us your opinion on the legitimacy of pollsters in general or in the current times?
	How susceptible are they to inaccuracy, corruption, or merely providing...
	The conclusion that they sought in the first place.
	Well, the bigger problem I see is debate societies and debate groups and debate sponsors using polls to screen out candidates.
	Which, by the way, wasn't always the case.
	But the League of Women Voters used to have control over debates.
	They decided not to include John Anderson in 1980, if I recall right.
	But basically, the debate commission was created so that people like Ross Perot would never get back into a debate again.
	That was the goal.
	And so a lot of these debate societies came up with polling numbers intending to keep out third-party candidates, which makes even less sense in a parliamentary system like Canada's, where 5-6% matters a lot.
	So they artificially and arbitrarily choose.
	polls in the first place.
	And the other irony here is they're using polls before, uh, in other words, the debate is what will likely get you established as a candidate and get your approval.
	So they're pre-screening, you know, it's, it's the way they used to do slave laws in America.
	Uh, then they did the same with civil rights with the segregation laws, Jim Crow laws, which is in order to prove in order to be able to show that you are not a slave and are legally entitled to certain rights.
	Uh, They precluded you on the grounds that you were a slave.
	But you were predefined as something that you couldn't disprove in court, effectively.
	It was using circular logic.
	And it's the same thing that they do with the system, that the very means by which you could get popular approval, they deny you from having and then say, well, because you don't have it, you can't get it.
	It's like what federal courts do in criminal cases.
	They say you can't pursue discovery because you don't have it yet.
	That kind of thing.
	So it's clearly what it is.
	And the problem, though, I put on the debate sponsors because they're the ones who are picking which pollsters they credit, and they're the ones who are picking polls in the first place, and they're the ones who are picking thresholds in the first place, polling thresholds in the first place.
	But it is also independently true that polls have been wildly erroneous for the last decade or so around the world.
	I said when you have a variance of 700% among the reputable pollsters, Something's wrong and you can't rely on that period.
	I mean, I know these are the rules that they've set up, but I would say if you have a certain amount of candidates in ridings, a certain threshold, you deserve to be on that stage regardless.
	It's common sense.
	But actually, I want to bring up a few chats here.
	Viva, can you explain the purpose of having a leader's debate when their name does not even appear on our ballots?
	Best of luck.
	That idea is that when you go to vote, you're not going to see Maxime Bernier's name on any ballot.
	You're going to see your local candidate.
	So what's the purpose of the leader's debate?
	If the name doesn't appear on it, I know they want to turn it into something of a presidential-like system where you are electing the leader of the party so the debates will let you know who to vote for locally, but it's a fair point.
	I want to bring this one up because I discussed this on a podcast today, which is going to be live tonight or tomorrow.
	If there's no accountability for 2020, then why should we even participate by voting?
	If it worked for them, what's to stop further chicanery?
	Are we providing cover for illegitimate governance?
	Robert, what do you have to say about that?
	Two things.
	I mean, one, I understand that sentiment.
	If that's the sentiment you want to have, and there's good grounds to have it.
	But my general view is that they are guaranteed to win if you don't vote.
	So if your reason for not voting is that you believe somebody else stole an election before, then you're rewarding their prior theft by not participating in the electoral process in the first place, because then they don't even have to cheat anymore.
	So that would be the counter, main counter.
	And like I said in the podcast today with Leanne Bridges, it'll come out soon.
	Things happen.
	Miracles do happen.
	2016, whether you like Trump or don't like Trump, was objectively a political miracle, given what everyone said was going to happen.
	Now everyone's going to say, well, they've fortified it more now so it can never happen again.
	It happens.
	It doesn't happen if you don't get out there and vote.
	And if you resigned yourself to not voting...
	Well, nothing's ever going to change.
	And then the next step is one that I don't want to contemplate because the next step from resigning yourself from voting is another further detachment from the process, which is not a productive one.
	So I say before you give up and before you get despaired by the results, you have to participate in as much as you can.
	Independent Aquaman says, Britt Cormier is correct.
	The DNC kept moving the goalposts on Telsey.
	Oh, and I worked for both Ipsos and Leger.
	Ipsos fired me for refusing to lie.
	I cannot vet the truthfulness of that.
	All that I know is that the Ipsos, I was mentioning it, Robert, polled the PPC at 0.7%, even though all other reputable pollsters have them at 5% to 6% now, and even though they got 1.6% of the general vote in 2018, and they've only become more popular.
	So that is a laughable result, and it leads me to question a lot of things from Ipsos.
	Yeah, Ipsos has been bad around the world.
	I've never heard of them until now.
	That's the thing.
	So I'm learning a lot of stuff.
	I never heard of Ipsos, and I know it's an international company.
	They work with Reuters here in the States, typically.
	Okay.
	Well, so on that note, people, do not lose faith and get people out and get people encouraged.
	And if it doesn't go the way you like, we can be despaired the day after, but then you rebuild and move forward.
	All right.
	Now, speaking of which, Robert, what do we start with?
	Do we just do a little synopsis on the state of Afghanistan since our last...
	Kick-ass sidebar with the Duran.
	Have there been meaningful developments other than Biden shrugging it off and saying he's not aware of the polls and that was four or five days ago?
	Yeah, that people falling off of planes.
	Yeah, that was four or five days ago, so don't worry about it.
	I'm going to have another ice cream.
	You know, in the Taliban, the Taliban is trolling the president of the United States.
	How pitiful is the Taliban?
	I mean, I never thought I'd live for all that.
	So it continues to be just a walking, talking disaster and debacle that no one will ever forget, not for a couple of generations at least.
	I don't know if it was a troll, and I don't know if they did it on purpose or it was just a conveniently timed photograph, but there was the picture of ISIS wearing, sorry, not ISIS, the Taliban wearing U.S. military, carrying U.S. guns in front of the jeeps, but there was one where they were planting the flag, and it was very much...
	A similar photo, I think it was Iwo Jima.
	No, a famous American photo.
	Don't know if it was done on purpose, but Twitter certainly picked up on it and juxtaposed the two images seemingly of the Taliban replanting a flag.
	If they weren't recreating the American iconic photograph, it certainly looked that way.
	You have the Taliban that's social media literate, which is incredible.
	I mean, you had the Taliban trolling Robert, it is...
	It is a pure clown world.
	And Donald Trump is not on social media, notwithstanding the most recent developments in January 6th, which I guess is a good segue into our first subject of the evening.
	So I don't know if Alex Jones was specifically cleared because he had been accused of instigating or at least participating in.
	But the big bombshell of the week, I guess, FBI intelligence through anonymous sources familiar with the situation, yada, yada, yada.
	But it's Reuters, so it's mainstream, saying that they found basically no evidence of any concerted, colluded, organized effort to insurrect the government on January 6th.
	Some isolated cases, you know, maybe four people here, 40 there, but by and large, no evidence of what the mainstream media had been running with since day one.
	The very same allegations that they sought to impeach Donald Trump a second time for.
	What do we make of this?
	Because I put out a tweet that said, you know, the FBI now just...
	Jumping off this entirely, I get the impression they're doing it because what's going to come out is going to be not just that there was no coordination among the citizenry, but there might have been coordination among the informants or, you know, what we've seen in the Whitmer case.
	What do you make of it?
	So, I mean, they try to dump it on a Friday.
	So, you know, that's whenever you have an embarrassing story, the government tries to dump it on a Friday afternoon.
	And basically it was...
	Two things.
	One, it was that there was, as you note, there was no coordination, collusion, organizing effort.
	There was no insurrection.
	Stephen Colbert was busy comparing the people on January 6th to the Taliban.
	Richard Barris, speaking of polling, found that the District of Columbia...
	Over 90% of the potential jurors in the District of Columbia have already presumed all of the defendants are guilty and believe they've committed crimes of insurrection and sedition, which they haven't even been accused of, and which the FBI this week made clear that was never the case.
	It shows how impossible that jury pool is, and hopefully the defense lawyers in that case will use the information that Barris has developed to move to transfer a venue.
	To my knowledge, they specifically cleared both Alex Jones and Roger Stone, so that there was nothing illegal either one of them had done.
	This was clear from day one.
	Jones had tried to get people out to get people away, had worked to rescue and defend those people to save them from putting themselves in harm's way, had gone up to the people, the Capitol Police had volunteered to go in to get people out.
	The Capitol Police chose not to act on that.
	If they had, probably more people would have been out.
	So it was always a ludicrous story, but it was one the Washington Post and the media kept recirculating.
	Alex Jones under investigation.
	It was always false.
	But what about, I forget his last name now, Owen, on the Infowars, has a warrant for his arrest and he's going to turn himself in on Monday?
	I don't know what the warrant is for.
	Well, it's revelatory.
	They knew that this...
	This cleared Alex Jones and Roger Stone, contrary to all the wacky, you know, the Seth Abramson's and other wacky conspiracy theorists out there had this long-extracted version that this was all a big plan involving Flynn and Stone and Jones and Trump.
	That was all put to rest.
	But you knew that they knew that was going to be the story, so they wanted to step on and bury that side of the story.
	So they brought a couple of minor misdemeanor charges against Owen Schroyer.
	For standing outside the Capitol steps.
	I mean, that's literally, and they're saying, and the only reason they did it is because they knew they had to clear publicly Alex Jones.
	So they wanted a media story to, hey, don't talk about Alex Jones being cleared.
	Talk about a Infowars reporter, Owen Schroyer, being charged with misdemeanors, which is what the media did.
	The media pretended the Alex Jones story didn't happen.
	Pretend the Roger Stone story didn't happen and usually with misleading headlines like Reuters and AP and the rest of them.
	Infowars reporter indicted on riot charges.
	And now, I guarantee you, if you Google those search terms, this story is going to pop up and certainly not the exoneration or clearance of Alex Jones.
	It's a way to keep it at the head of the Google search results to keep promoting the narrative that you want to promote.
	Precisely.
	And so, I mean, from my understanding, that the charges against Schroer, aside from being minor misdemeanors, are factually wrong.
	And in fact, it wouldn't surprise me to see them dump the charges some months from now.
	This was, I think, done for a media story.
	And I think Owen will hire some good counsel, and he can use it as a great opportunity to do the discovery that some of the January 6th defendants haven't yet pursued.
	Including everything that went on that day, everything about the Capitol Police, everything about Pelosi and McConnell, everything about what the FBI's seventh floor was doing, everything about what the QAnon story was.
	If I was Owen Troyer, I would use this as an opportunity to get the real information and do some undercover reporting that he can only do now that he's a charged defendant.
	And I think he probably will pursue that.
	And probably around the time the discovery is due, they'll drop the charges.
	It wouldn't surprise me if that's the case.
	He's already been selectively prosecuted before for just standing in the middle of the Capitol protesting, doing less activities than the Kavanaugh disruptors did by far.
	None of them paid more than a $50 fine and weren't criminally prosecuted at all.
	He was criminally prosecuted for that.
	So, I mean, it's clear politicized targeting.
	It proves the Capitol Police are there to just cover up the corruption of the people they work for.
	There's other examples of that that I won't get into now, but part of suits that I'm part of now.
	So I think it's part of a pattern, but that's the...
	It's a purely political prosecution of Owen Troyer that I don't think is factually well-merited, that hopefully he uses as an opportunity to discover some truths the government's still trying to hide, which corresponds to the reason they may have sped up this disclosure, even though the first ever hush-hush at vivabarneslaw.locals.com predicted all of this, for the most part, about January 6th.
	I think the feds do not want...
	More discovery into who was potentially involved in organizing efforts because it likely will come back to the feds.
	Now, I just want to say one thing.
	Is our Locals Chat not set up for this stream now?
	Oh, sorry.
	Not yet.
	Okay.
	It'll be active after the show this time.
	Okay.
	And by the way, so we're also simultaneously streaming on Rumble if anybody wants to watch it there.
	And we've been getting good numbers on Rumble, which is great to build up that platform as well.
	I mentioned this.
	Karen Strahan, who comments a lot on the channel, made the astute observation that they don't want to release the 14,000 hours of footage because it might reveal something that they don't want to reveal with the aggregate knowledge of the internet.
	If you can find some fisherman harassing Tucker Carlson in a fly fishing shop that he's related to intelligence within a matter of minutes, it would be a field day on this.
	And I suspect Owen Schroyer...
	Is going to have a sufficient amount of video evidence of his behavior and his conduct that day to be sufficiently exonerating.
	But like you say, they'll probably just drop the charges later on once the headlines have been run and the story's been buried.
	There was news on some of the defendants who have been since released, or was that not new since last week?
	Not that I know of.
	I mean, they brought up some new claims against one person who it looked like was going to have a resolution and that was delayed, but basically nothing else really new on that front other than more and more January 6th defendants keep firing John Pierce because they're discovering he's an idiot.
	He tried to join a bail motion of somebody else, which he can't do in the criminal case.
	I mean, the guy's a total moron, doesn't know what he's doing, and more and more defendants are recognizing that, and the people who have been busy promoting him.
	They're going to have a long list of people to apologize for when this is all said and done.
	Okay, so the bottom line now, FBI, or at least intelligence, is confirming no coordinated effort, minor unrelated incidents of individuals, mostly misdemeanor.
	They have one person who's going to be sentenced to eight months in jail for something that might have been more violent than...
	What's the other grannies and, you know, innocent people meandering through Capitol Hill, you know, we're guilty of.
	Not releasing the footage as of yet.
	And this is what's going to, you know, January 6th is going to fizzle up into this.
	What started as and was promoted as something comparable to 9-11 is now fizzling out into this and the media will never get over their initial trauma.
	And I've always wanted to say to people comparing this to 9-11.
	January 6th is to 9-11 what January 6th was to 9-11.
	These are things which only in the most dishonest, morally bankrupt mainstream media could anyone even compare these two events with any serious face, if only to try to create that narrative as opposed to actually reflect any semblance of reality.
	It does a disservice to everybody.
	It's a bad thing.
	And part of the reason, as Darren Beatty said, part of the reason probably for pursuing this is they don't want to go through what the Whitmer prosecutors are currently having to go through.
	Well, good segue, Robert, and drag out the truth.
	Speaking of dragging out the truth, the longer the Whitmer prosecution goes on, the uglier it looks for the FBI and the prosecution.
	The latest developments.
	We've been covering this from day one.
	Robert called this before it happened.
	And it was a good thing to call because at the time...
	Sent like the more unlikely prediction to have made.
	This looks like more of a setup entrapment than a bona fide crime.
	We've covered all of the original stuff, you know, 12-plus paid informants.
	Some of them paid like $50,000, $60,000 with active leadership roles in this alleged plot, giving the training, the logistics, the infrastructure to the other militia members of the Night Watchmen.
	I forget what they're called.
	Doesn't really matter.
	Now we're discovering...
	The Wolverine Watchman or something like that.
	Wolverine Watchman.
	And I don't mean to be glib.
	I knew the name Watchman was in it, but it wasn't watching the Watchman.
	When you see that name, you don't think, okay, you think these are kids who read too many comic books.
	You don't think, you know, real dangerous revolutionaries.
	As far as it goes, it doesn't seem like any of them had real meaningful criminal histories until this came to be.
	So we found out no less than 12 paid FBI informants with leadership roles.
	FBI informants themselves.
	Proactively inciting, instigating this event.
	And now we're discovering that there were text messages between one of the FBI agents and one of the, I don't know if it was a paid informant or not, I suspect they might have been paid, Dan.
	Basically saying, the FBI agent is getting Dan to, or asking Dan to lie.
	If anyone suspects him of being an agent or an undercover FBI source, blame somebody else, an innocent third party.
	And then he says, by the way, delete these text messages, which I guess he didn't do.
	All of this is now coming to light in the context of one of the prosecutions.
	I don't know what you can add to this.
	One question I had.
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	It's sort of going out and soliciting the crime.
	But entrapment as a defense could actually involve much less proactive entrapping by the FBI, right?
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	It used to have a very high standard, but that standard was lowered ultimately by the Supreme Court.
	So they have to prove that, but for their involvement, this wouldn't have happened.
	And that's what the, I mean, they're trying to impose a standard that isn't fully there anymore.
	And that's why it's not, it doesn't mean the same thing it once meant.
	Okay.
	And now the question I had, there's one guy in this who pleaded guilty, which is what I love about this.
	Hold on.
	Tim Pool keeps saying he'll have Robert Barnes on.
	We'll make it happen, Robert.
	I didn't know that that's happening.
	We'll have our people contact his people.
	We've got email addresses.
	One guy pleaded guilty.
	Ty Garbin was the first and only of the 14 or 15 defendants to plead guilty.
	For his thanks, the FBI or the prosecution is looking for nine years in jail.
	So the two questions I had...
	Oh, by the way, the FBI is thanking Ty Garbin for confirming that there was no entrapment because the one guy who pleaded guilty to strike a better deal for himself is now confirming that there was no entrapment as though a defendant can come to that legal conclusion of law.
	Regardless, Ty Garbin can never take back his guilty plea or can he and say like Jesus, maybe I shouldn't have pleaded guilty.
	Very hard to.
	Very hard to.
	Prior to sentencing, it's more liberal than post-sentencing.
	But it's not easy to withdraw a plea.
	But it's easier to do so before sentencing than afterwards.
	Now, if there was material information he didn't have that changes his position, that can be grounds to withdraw his plea.
	Given that he's facing nine years, that was not a good plea deal.
	I hate to laugh because I'm not laughing because there's no just desserts here.
	Although I'm sure the other defendants are now saying, enjoy your nine years because the case for entrapment is looking stronger and stronger.
	First of all, your predictions on this.
	What are the chances that they actually...
	Either get acquitted, have the charges dropped, or have the prosecution agree to an insignificant plea deal.
	I think they're going to, it depends on what the court does with discovery, but if the court orders them to turn over stuff that they're still hiding, and they keep finding more and more exculpatory materials, even without the government turning over almost everything that's pertinent and material, including, I mean, when you have a federal agent saying, blame the wrong person for something, and basically kind of a fabricating evidence kind of claim, and the...
	In order to facilitate and promote the entrapment.
	And secondly, telling him to delete messages.
	That creates an extraordinary issue.
	You have the government destroying evidence from the very beginning throughout the case.
	And so you don't know what may have been deleted by other people.
	I mean, this guy just didn't happen to delete that tech.
	But I'm sure, I mean, so there's going to be major issues that it would be wise for them to reconsider.
	And just dump the charges if I were the government.
	But these prosecutors may march forward because of how high profile it is.
	But I think it does explain in part what happened on the January 6th cases.
	They're trying to avoid what's happening in the Whitmer cases where more and more information keeps flowing out by trying to limit the scope and scale of relevant discovery.
	The prosecutor's objections were just not well taken.
	They're pretending that, well, they already had this idea.
	Well, we don't know unless you have all the entrapment evidence and whether they would have done it anyway.
	And we don't know if we could even have all the evidence because maybe the feds deleted it because they were instructing their informants to delete text and delete written paths, track records of things.
	But this is what I don't understand is the prosecution is basically saying, They haven't really sufficiently argued entrapment, so we don't have to turn over this information.
	My understanding, I think we've discussed it previously, is that it's a positive obligation.
	They have to turn over anything which could be potentially exculpatory.
	And by virtue of them saying, you didn't allege entrapment enough in your defenses, so we're not turning it over.
	It's just a fundamental violation of the rules of disclosure of evidence in the context of criminal prosecution.
	Yeah, it's why I'm in favor of open files.
	Some people had wondered why I said that some of the Soros prosecutors have done some good things that are mostly critical of them.
	But one of the things some of them have done that has been good has been they have had several of them have adopted open file discoveries, policies, and that every prosecutor's office should have that.
	When you have a prosecutor deciding what's relevant for the defense, when is he ever going to think anything is relevant to the defense, unless it hurts the defense?
	I mean, that's just the nature of a prosecutor.
	You're putting in the prosecutor's hands someone who has no understanding or interest or incentive or motivation to adequately disclose all relevant information because he's going to have an artificial limitation on what that is.
	I mean, he doesn't even know what the defense strategies might be.
	So how is he going to determine what might be relevant to the defense?
	So it's always been a problem.
	And it's how evidence gets hidden all the time.
	Prosecutors just convince themselves that this wouldn't be relevant to the defense somehow and don't turn it over.
	Clearly, all of this is relevant.
	All communications concerning any of the witnesses, concerning the defendants, concerning the agents involved are clearly relevant in this case.
	And so, yeah, it all should have been turned over from the inception.
	The fact that it wasn't.
	This shows that they knew, in my view, that they had created...
	This was a political case that they brought right on the eve of the election solely to make a political point, to protect a Democrat in a competitive state.
	And by the way, one of the key agents who was involved in this whole entrapment plot is one of the key people who was running the January 6th cases for the feds, for the FBI.
	So, I mean, it has stunk from high heaven from day one.
	Said so from day one, and it keeps getting worse, and maybe one of the worst entrapment cases ever.
	I just, I don't know what, you know, when you discussed or mentioned, you know, what the likelihood of prosecuting the prosecutors for this entrapment are, does it, you know, the best thing the defendants can hope for is acquittals or dropping of the charges, but like someone said earlier, the process is the punishment, and it doesn't look like there's going to be any sanctions for any, what appears to be increasingly...
	Obvious evidence of rampant FBI prosecutorial misconduct.
	People are going to be feeling despaired and abused at the end of this.
	Yeah, I mean, it's extraordinary.
	And the media is just trying to keep a quiet lid on it.
	But the local media is all over it because it's a big story.
	And so it just shows what they're willing to do.
	The timing of it raised serious questions and the nature of the defendants raised serious questions from day one.
	You could smell this a mile away.
	Unless you're like shipwreck crew and you have no sense of smell because you got COVID sometime in the past, maybe.
	But, you know, unless you're one of those government apologist types, this was clear cut from day one.
	The worst thing is, I mean, I have discussions with people who bought it from day one.
	I didn't buy it.
	I just said, like, okay, I don't know enough right now to deny what's being said.
	And people in the beginning were saying, like, oh, it's dangerous to float the idea of entrapment because you're undermining the seriousness of this potential crime.
	And then lo and behold, they will never let go of that belief, no matter how much exculpatory evidence comes out, because they just don't like the Wolverine Watchmen, and they think that they're criminal types to begin with, so therefore, you know, being criminal type with a militia makes you fair game for absolute...
	FBI entrapment.
	And this goes all the way back.
	The militia movement in the United States started largely because of the FBI, in my view.
	Just go back and read the PACCON files.
	They started right after the end of the Cold War.
	That's also a discussion of what happened in Oklahoma City at Hush Hush.
	At vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	But, yeah, this has a long history.
	And they've been entrapping people for forever.
	And especially when it's a terror-type case, be very suspicious.
	Because after 9-11, they did this every other year.
	They found some 17-year-old nitwit, convinced him that he was going to be something significant, got him to plot something so they could say, we stopped another plot, you know, to continue to cover for their complete dereliction of duties in 9-11.
	They uncovered this plot, and then meanwhile, a number, if not all of the most recent, without getting into details, actual events of violence involved people who were on the FBI watch list, who were under surveillance, who were known risks, and yet somehow managed to perpetrate their crimes.
	But meanwhile, they have to go and frame, I won't say frame, seemingly allegedly in trap, or at the very least actively induce, the Wolverine Watchmen.
	To commit a plot that they would have never done but for the involvement of these people, even according to a BuzzFeed article.
	All right.
	So in that, I mean, we expect their trials are supposed to be coming up soon, right?
	In October?
	I think so.
	So what happens if they don't get this evidence?
	Who makes the motion to postpone the trial?
	Does it require a motion?
	And does this just go on forever?
	I mean, they can request motions to continue to get the evidence, motions to adjourn for that purpose.
	And I believe they have filed, many of them have filed motions for discovery to compel this information being turned over because the government won't.
	And apparently, in some cases, the government hasn't even returned their own phones back to them.
	So I don't know how they could be prepared right now to go to trial in October, that they're not going to have that information by that point.
	And so we'll see what happens.
	I would be surprised if it goes off in October.
	You know, courts can be bad, but I would hope the court knows seeing what's happening in the local press will give them the discovery they're legally entitled to.
	You never know.
	You have some judges who think their duty is to help the prosecutors, not help justice.
	All right.
	Well, I guess maybe a good segue speaking of courts either doing or not doing a good job.
	Let's move into one of the ones where we've been following it for a while.
	The Rachel Maddow defense has now been officially affirmed.
	I don't know what circuit it was, but it's out west.
	Is it the Ninth Circuit?
	Yeah, because the case was filed in California.
	Oh, and the live chat is now up at feverbarnslaw.locals.com.
	This was the One America News Network, where basically Rachel Maddow's defense was, nobody could ever take me seriously as a journalist or think anything I say is factual.
	Sorry, I wanted to bring this one up.
	It says, Yo, Viva, my extended family live in Michigan opposite us in Ontario.
	They all say Whitmer ought to be impeached.
	Charlie LeDuff is a pro.
	By the way, Charlie LeDuff is awesome.
	If you want sort of like a Howard Stern, delivery meets Robert De Niro, but good journalism, the No Bullshit Hour, Charlie LeDuff, amazing.
	Viva Barnes is the most important podcast on Earth right now.
	Do ya?
	I tend to agree.
	Oh yes, the Rachel Maddow defense.
	Nobody could have ever taken her words to be statements of fact.
	They would have known.
	That when she said OAN and Christian Ruz is really, literally, Russian-paid propaganda, it was hyperbolic not to be a statement of fact.
	Now, everybody knows the backdrop to this story.
	OAN sued for defamation.
	They got their suit booted on anti-slap motions.
	It went to the Ninth Circuit Appeals, who affirmed it.
	I don't think I got it wrong.
	I think there are two George Bush judges and one Obama, one old George Bush, one younger George Bush, one Obama.
	I don't know that I disagree with the decision on the substance or I can understand how they got to it because my argument from the beginning was Christian Ruse was, in fact, at one point paid by Sputnik before OAN.
	So, you know, someone can say, okay, he was paid by Sputnik, which is a Russian-controlled media entity.
	So it's exaggerating to say that he's literally Russian-paid propaganda, but there's a sufficient basis, in fact, to justify it.
	They didn't even go with that argument.
	They just said when she said literally really Russian propaganda, it was hyperbolic exaggeration that her audience was expecting from what was otherwise accurate reporting on the Daily Beast article.
	It was a 3-0 decision.
	I mean, how do you feel about the decision?
	Because this sort of cuts both ways when it comes to other defamation lawsuits where we think people should...
	Yeah, I mean, what it shows is the complete contradiction by the courts.
	And this has been the case in defamation context for a long time, that when it's a liberal media defendant being sued, it's almost always hyperbole or exaggeration and never a statement that any reasonable person, because the legal standard is, could any reasonable person think that's a factual statement?
	Not whether or not...
	These judges think it's a factual statement, not whether her audience thought it was a factual statement, but whether any reasonable juror could think it's a factual statement or any reasonable member of the community.
	And by that standard, I thought she crossed the line when she said One America News Network was literally Russian propaganda, that there'd be at least some people who would interpret that to mean One America News Network is Russian-paid propaganda, and not whether one person was ever paid by the Russian government at any Russian media station before.
	And so, but as you know, they just said this could never be liable because anything he says is always just opinion exaggerated hyperbole and is not factual, which I think is...
	I don't think that fits the legal standard.
	I can see where someone comes to that conclusion, but I don't think every juror and every member of the public would agree.
	So that's one issue.
	It also definitely contradicts what they've said in the Alex Jones cases.
	If anybody is known for hyperbole, it's Alex Jones, and yet none of his statements are considered hyperbole.
	They're all absolute factual statements that he's subject to liability, even when he made no factual statement in some cases at all, or even referred to the person ever.
	Well, Alex Jones, here's the thing.
	When looking at Alex Jones, I think people are looking at Alex Jones more for...
	Hyperbolic, opinionated statements, which are built on issues of fact, but also just exploring possibilities.
	Conspiracy theory means you're not stating fact, rather, you're stating theory.
	That's the exact diametrically opposed matters of fact.
	A theory is not a statement of fact.
	It's specifically hypothesizing.
	With Rachel Maddow, first of all, I just double-checked, by the way, Sputnik is Russian-owned.
	By the Russian government.
	It's a Russian news agency.
	I say that without judgment.
	CNN.
	I say that without judgment.
	But just to fact check that.
	And someone has said, you know, isn't this not identical to what Tucker Carlson did with talking about the hush money paid where he accused one of the hush money ladies of quite literally extortion?
	Now, there's a legal distinction which some people might not agree with, is that when Tucker Carlson said this is literally or this is extortion...
	That I think most people are going to accept as being his opinion because they were never convicted of extortion.
	He was just saying, in my opinion, this is extortion without saying the in my opinion part.
	But I still say it's dangerous to make accusations of criminal conduct because it will lead to defamation lawsuits.
	But when Tucker Carlson said this is extortion, I think most people understand that that's an opinion of law because there was no finding of law of extortion.
	When Rachel Maddow said they are really literally Russian paid propaganda.
	That is going to, in the mind of most reasonable people, lead them to conclude that OAN is somehow paid by Russia in whatever way.
	I think the weaselly way to get out of it would have been to say, yeah, well, Christian Ruse was, and therefore it's sort of true enough that you have a former Russian-paid journalist at your outlet.
	So they've been infiltrated.
	It's Russian-paid propaganda.
	But no, they didn't even go there.
	They just said when she said it, it was hyperbolic.
	Everyone understood it to be hyperbolic.
	And therefore...
	Dismissed.
	Meanwhile, you get Alex Jones, who maybe did accuse people of being crisis actors, suggesting that something that happened did not happen.
	And then they say, those are statements of facts susceptible to defamation, and he's going straight to trial.
	So yes.
	Yeah.
	I mean, the people are suing him.
	He's never talked about ever.
	He's never mentioned by name ever.
	So the disparity of standards is extraordinary.
	The contradiction.
	But it's one, if you dig into the court's history, all the courts have a long history of it.
	Institutional press gets protected.
	Sometimes ideologically aligned press gets protected.
	And other people don't.
	And it's a problem of not strictly applying the standard.
	The standard is, could a reasonable person have interpreted that as being a factual statement?
	And they may have been able to have an argument that you're mentioning that it was sufficiently true or they disclosed sufficient underlying facts that it wasn't defamation.
	But that's not where they went.
	They said that nobody could possibly interpret.
	If I say I'm a news person on a mainstream media network and I say this is literally true, it turns out nobody could reasonably interpret that as being factual.
	I mean, it's an indictment of Rachel Maddow that she's a crackpot opinion maker that no one can take as saying anything truthful, factually, to such a degree that when she says, by the way, this is literally true, that definitely means it's not at all true.
	Yeah, the inter-attorney correspondence where they said literally can either be literal or hyperbolic, and when she said it, it was hyperbolic.
	I mean, when a word can simultaneously mean one thing and the exact opposite.
	To be left up to your sole interpretation, words cease to have meanings.
	But what drives me crazy in all of this is I do think a reasonable jury member could have come to the conclusion, whether or not they should have or whatever, a reasonable jury member could have.
	Where the judges come in on what they call a matter of law, say as a matter of law, no reasonable jury member could come to this conclusion.
	It was the same thing with Salmon.
	Have they not just usurped the very role of the jury?
	That's exactly what they did.
	And the other issue that was present here is that in most federal courts, you know, somebody might have told One America News Network this in advance about where to sue, but that ship has sailed.
	In most federal courts, the anti-slap statute's not applicable, and so then they don't have to pay Rachel Maddow's fees even if they lose.
	I think maybe the Ninth Circuit may be the only one where that's true currently.
	So that presents an issue for the Supreme Court to get involved where they might otherwise not.
	They need to resolve a conflict between the circuits about does any slap statute under state law apply in federal court?
	Most federal courts have said no, including an opinion Kavanaugh wrote when he was on the D.C. Circuit.
	So, because of that unique procedural angle, they might have a unique means to get it up to the Supreme Court that could then also rule on what the scope of liability is concerning libel that the Supreme Court's looking at some other cases potentially about.
	Obviously, both Thomas and Gorsuch have said we need to clarify our libel standards and probably have it be more strict than expansive.
	Now, I'm not in favor of that position that Gorsuch and Thomas have, but this case will also present an opportunity for that.
	But that procedural aspect may be the ticket whereby the One American News Network has an above-average chance to get the Supreme Court to hear this case.
	And what about the dismissal with prejudice?
	Because the court, yet again, finds a way to justify the discretionary, but I imagine it's less often that they dismiss with prejudice as opposed to allow the party to amend to include additional facts that might be relevant.
	The court dismissed it with prejudice, but responded and said, even if we allowed the amendment, it would have been useful anyhow, useless anyhow.
	But they nonetheless dismiss it with prejudice, meaning they cannot amend to add allegations to rectify or remedy whatever deficiencies were in the proceedings.
	Is that not susceptible of appeal?
	And how does that happen?
	Because in Quebec, unless it's changed, and I don't think it has, you can pretty much amend at any time, pretty much without limitation, unless the amendment is contrary to the ends of justice or, you know, not timely made, but even those exceptions are exceptional.
	Here, to dismiss on a...
	Motion to dismiss under anti-slap without giving leave to amend or the permission to amend seems like a denial of their day in court.
	Yeah, the only time you can do that in the States is when you say there's no set of facts you could possibly allege that could possibly give you a claim.
	Now, it kind of shows where their bias was, that they said there's no scenario in which there's any...
	I mean, beyond concluding, if Rachel Maddow said it, it can't be factual and everybody knows it.
	Beyond that conclusion, which is the inference by these decisions, now they wouldn't want to say that because they're probably all, at some level, Maddow fans.
	A lot of your Bush judges are not great judges, especially the Ninth Circuit.
	But, I mean, that's the only way you could say no amendment could work, is to conclude that nothing Rachel Maddow ever says could be taken by any reasonable person as even possibly being factually true.
	Yeah, well, I think the problem is she didn't say they're literally Russian.
	It's literally the best car on Earth or it's literally the stinkiest cheese on Earth.
	I don't know why those two examples just came to mind.
	She said really literally.
	It was to emphasize a fact in my mind, but so whatever.
	Yeah, literally.
	But it's Rachel Maddow.
	The federal courts have ruled Rachel Maddow.
	Anything she says can't be factual as a matter of law.
	They'll say it's a liberal spin.
	Everyone expects it from her, and that's what it's worth.
	All right.
	I'm going to set this up to the next discussion, then I'm going to go get that dog so we don't hear him barking all night.
	Well, I guess another one that I'm relatively familiar with, and then we're going to get into the discussions that I have not been able to read up because the list you sent me was lengthy.
	Do we do Biden's recent losses in Texas and Louisiana?
	Sure.
	Okay, so for anyone who doesn't know, this is an interesting thing.
	Biden comes into office.
	Issues a bunch of executive orders, or at least one executive order, which effectively says we're going to stop enforcing federal law as relates to immigration and immigrants coming in illegally from the border, which required anyone who was detained by ICE who was guilty or had convicted a crime to then be released but detained by law enforcement.
	And I hope I'm not mixing up two cases here.
	They're related, because one of them was a return to Mexico policy that the Trump administration negotiated, and the other one was about releasing them once they're here, and they're interrelated in terms of what's happening.
	What's happening is they're not returning them to Mexico, and instead of detaining them, they're releasing them.
	And so the different states sued over both parts.
	Okay, now I'm going to listen to this as I run upstairs, but you need to strawman, not strawman, steelman the argument.
	What is the rationale?
	To not force them to return to Mexico pending their asylum claims?
	And what is the rationale for releasing them, for ICE releasing them if they've committed crimes?
	I'm listening.
	I'm just going to go get my dog.
	Their official explanation was that they don't have enough capacity to keep them and that it's somehow unjust to return them to Mexico.
	Part of the weakness of their case was that part of this claim was brought under the Administrative Procedures Act.
	And the argument was they didn't have a lot of good evidence for what they did and why they did it.
	And so the return to Mexico policy went up this week to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
	They affirmed what the district court did unanimously, said clearly that this should not be allowed to continue and that the return to Mexico policy needs to be reinstated.
	Then it went up to the U.S. Supreme Court and Justice Alito in a kind of surprise decision.
	Just temporarily reversed it.
	Said the stay is no longer in force.
	They can continue to bring people in and release them until Tuesday when the whole Supreme Court can say yes or no on the stay.
	But it's always fascinating which things gets the Supreme Court's attentions and which ones don't.
	In fact, constitutionally questionable vaccine mandates, they get to take another nap for a couple of weeks.
	But the poor Biden administration getting to do an illegal policy on illegal immigration, even the conservative justices want to give him a break for a while.
	So I found it a peculiar action, but it may just have been because he couldn't get the other justices on the phone.
	And Alito has done this in the past, where he has reversed a stay until all the justices can rule on it.
	And this only happens during the summer because normally it always gets referred to the whole court.
	But so that's where the whole court will be deciding later this week.
	I don't understand how they're going to reverse a unanimous appellate court and a district court given the strong factual record against Biden on the return to Mexico policy.
	So I guess to simplify this or to explain it for anybody who doesn't know, Congress creates the laws.
	The executive enforces the laws.
	This is how I remember it.
	Congress creates, executive enforces, judiciary judges.
	So you have Biden coming in and issuing an executive order that basically says, don't follow the law.
	Am I oversimplifying to the point of inaccuracy?
	Or is it quite literally, effectively, what the executive is saying with these memoranda?
	And then how do they possibly withstand any judicial scrutiny?
	I, you know, so far they've lost all of this other than the Alito temporary reprieve.
	And because that's the same thing that happened in the other case brought by, let's see, one was Texas and Missouri, the other one was Texas and Louisiana.
	And the district court in the Western District of Texas and San Antonio Division went through the voluminous record and, you know, it said what's happening here is clearly illegal and violates the Administrative Procedures Act.
	Because it's not only that it's...
	That the executive branch is instructing their own law enforcement officers to not enforce the law to the detriment of the states, but that they're doing so in a manner that doesn't follow any kind of due process under the Administrative Procedures Act.
	But, I mean, the Biden administration has been doing this in a lot of contexts.
	I mean, Afghanistan, you can argue, they just skipped everything.
	What they're doing in the FDA and vaccines, they're kind of skipping everything.
	So it's sort of a rule by fiat.
	You know, it's the pandemic lockdown order kind of mindset that infection has spread to all these other decision-making roles.
	No, I mean, we've seen it in Canada.
	It's like the government no longer needs to pass laws through the standard way.
	Just edicts, fiats, whatever else we want to call them.
	They just basically say, okay, well, this is the law now.
	Sure, we don't have to have any public debate.
	We don't have to have any evidence.
	Just this is what we're going to say is going to happen and fight us in court and we'll fight you tooth and nail to your last tax dollar.
	Effectively, what they did with the moratoriums, the CDC moratoriums, and they just thumbed their nose at it.
	And what's the consequence?
	I guess you have an election in a couple of years.
	Okay, so hold on.
	So the injunction was issued.
	Did the Supreme Court stay the injunction or are they going to hear it on an emergency basis?
	They stayed the injunction for three days.
	Well, Alito did.
	Stayed the injunction, which means the injunction is not in force.
	The executive order itself is now being applied.
	There will be no return to Mexico and there will be no detainment by law enforcement after the release by ICE of illegal immigrants who have broken the law.
	Correct.
	Until Tuesday.
	And then how long does it take the Supreme Court to adjudicate on this?
	Presumably they'll decide yay or nay on whether to reinstate the injunction or not.
	So, you know, we'll see.
	You know, I guess everybody was busy partying and so Alito couldn't get everybody on the phone.
	That's the best interpretation.
	Otherwise, I found it a peculiar thing to intervene on, interfere with.
	Especially given their nonchalant, non-involvement in so many other matters that were of great consequence to far more people.
	But I think ultimately, Biden administration, the factual record is so voluminous that district courts have found in both of these cases, like a prior district court did in an analogous immigration context, that I don't see them prevailing.
	And basically, all they've done is buy themselves a little bit of time.
	They've allowed what Biden said he was doing with the CDC eviction order.
	Yeah, sure, it's unconstitutional, but it'll take him a couple months to get around to ruling on it, so I got some time.
	So, you know, I think that's what's unfortunately taking place, but hopefully the law at some time, some place, comes into force.
	All right, well, that's interesting.
	So this week will be interesting on the executive order front.
	What else?
	Was there something else that Biden had not been successful on in the courts this week?
	That was it, eh?
	He was sued by the various oil companies for not allowing and interfering with pre-existing oil leases on federal lands.
	And so they sued under about six different statutes, including, again, the Administrative Procedures Act.
	But what all their claims really come down to, they have certain specific statutory claims unique to how oil leases and public lands are regulated.
	But all of it sort of comes back to also the process here.
	That he just did something unilaterally without going through the investigative process, without going through the notice and comment process, without honoring pre-existing contracts and agreements.
	He's just operating by executive decree.
	Everything's an emergency now.
	Some of us said this is what was going to happen.
	Once courts stuck their head in the sand and let every little tin cup dictator or every little mayor become a dictator by edict, edict, edict.
	In the name of emergency, this was going to infect all the politicians, and it has, and the Biden administration's been one of the most egregious at it.
	But it's a suit that's a very strong suit, so it looks like his ability to enforce that is also in doubt over time.
	But the suit was just filed.
	We're noticing it in Canada, and I say even more so, and I guess even more so in Australia.
	Once the courts looked at certain emergency health orders and justified them on the basis of urgency, whatever, we've gone from forced detention in quarantine hotels to now a vaccine passport, not going through the legislative process because our leader in Quebec...
	Doesn't want the population to be exposed to conspiracy theories or misinformation, opposition arguments to the vaccine passport.
	And if that is not dictatorship, I don't know what is.
	I mean, they can smile and they can say they're doing it for our own benefit when they do it.
	And they can plead to emergencies and not enough time and public health, but it's dictatorship, pure and simple.
	I don't care if they were democratically elected.
	They're not behaving democratically now.
	On the front of vaccine mandates, has there been any progress?
	I mean, people I know are messaging me, what can they do?
	In Canada, federal employees now have to be vaccinated, from what I understand, by October 31st, which doesn't leave much time to go get two vaccinations if you haven't gotten one yet.
	And a booster, because apparently the vaccine efficacy, setting aside everything else, doesn't last for as long as everyone thinks it might.
	There may be lawsuits coming out of Canada for wrongful termination breach of contract, but what's going on in the States with that?
	So, yeah, so because a lot of the disputes involve medical debates and scientific debates, I've been covering that in detail at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	I've created a playlist that goes through all the different suits.
	I think I covered four or five last week, one or two the week before, going to be covering a bunch this week.
	There's talk that, and so if you want the detailed information about what those theories are, because the theories get into certain medical evidentiary disputes and debates, go to vivobarneslaw.locals.com where you can get it.
	But this week, there's talk that the FDA will approve the Pfizer vaccine application for a biologic license, which is a full FDA approval.
	Right now, everything's operating under emergency use authorization only.
	My understanding of the way that process works is they would be announcing their approval, but there's these procedural steps before they actually get the license itself.
	And once they announce that, you can't sue for that.
	You have to ask the commissioner to stay at first.
	The commissioner's got 30 days to say yay or nay, and then you get to request a court and join it.
	So the, so I anticipate if that's what they announce on Monday, there'll be a petition to stay brought by children's health defense, probably other people too.
	And we'll see what they do and then file suit relationships.
	I'm already planning a suit anyway over existing issues with the current scope of things given the process.
	The Administrative Procedures Act basically requires is for them to opt to use reasoned decision-making, which requires they have to examine every important issue.
	They have to review all pertinent facts.
	They have to respond to all comments on a citizen petition and the citizen petition itself.
	Those three things have not happened.
	There's been no response to the Children's Health Defense citizen petition or many other big citizen petitions brought.
	No response to the comments There's been a bunch of facts that they've completely ignored I won't go into what facts those are Let's YouTube nuke us overnight right here in the middle of this.
	They'll nuke us in real time, Robert.
	Oh yes, no doubt.
	So those are the legal issues that are involved.
	There's some suits that are dependent upon the emergency use authorization part, that once it's no longer an emergency use authorized vaccine, there are certain legal claims that go away, but not most of them.
	Most of the legal claims are whether this violates the Americans with Disabilities Act.
	Whether it violates common law toward a battery, whether it violates constitutional issues or if it's a state or local government, whether it's a private actor.
	California has a state law.
	Some other places have laws that say private actors can't do things to interfere with constitutional rights.
	That may be applicable in this context.
	The Religious Freedom and Restoration Act under various states.
	There was a federal court in Louisiana.
	That invalidated the vaccine mandate because they have a state law that protects religious exemptions.
	And then if someone's discriminated against for their exercise of a religious exemption, that violates state law.
	So that federal court enjoined the medical school from enforcing, in that case, not enforcing the vaccine mandate because they'd already walked that back, but from enforcing mask mandates.
	Because a lot of times they're offering as alternatives masks and testing.
	And the court said even that was unconstitutional under these circumstances.
	Well, certain things.
	Some kind of testing would be okay, but not what they were doing.
	But because almost all those details inevitably get into the medical debate, that's all going to be at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	But there's going to be a lot of suits coming.
	I anticipate filing.
	There's a bunch that have already been filed.
	There's one filed in New Mexico, one filed in New York, one filed in Colorado, one filed in California.
	There was one pending in California that kind of got settled, one pending in North Carolina that did get settled, one in Indiana still ongoing because they're now a full petition for cert to the U.S. Supreme Court, one that just won in Louisiana, and there's a state of Texas lawsuit where the Attorney General is suing the San Diego School District.
	Because the governor said no part of Texas can mandate this vaccine until it has FDA approval.
	It cannot mandate it.
	Well, it's emergency use authorization.
	So that's an intergovernmental dispute that is taking place there.
	And I'll be looking at filing a suit against the FDA on the citizen petition grounds that challenge everything related to this, as well as also looking at suing the Oakland Raiders in Las Vegas, because they are saying that even if you have a seat license that you pay for, for your right to get season tickets each year, they told them, they said overnight, all your tickets are canceled.
	And you cannot come to the stadium unless you get vaccinated, even if you have a complete medical exemption, even if you cannot take the vaccine for medical reasons that a doctor certifies, even if you've been previously infected.
	So I think maybe they forgot that they can be sued under the ADA.
	Ask the San Francisco 49ers.
	I think they paid out a $28 million settlement for not making sure their stadium was ADA compliant.
	So I'm looking at that with some other lawyers that suing the Raiders, and then suing Tyson Foods, suing some various government aid companies and all the rest.
	And as I file those suits, I'll detail them at fibobarneslaw.locals.com.
	Now here's the question.
	Someone says Pfizer jab will be approved early next week.
	That's their rumor.
	I don't know if that's...
	That doesn't mean approval, approval usually.
	Usually that means an announcement of an intent to give a license within 30 days.
	That's usually what that means.
	Now, maybe they'll short-circuit that too.
	I don't know.
	Someone said earlier, I brought it up, but basically the FDA is now irreparably damaging their reputation.
	But what typically, for those who don't know, goes into getting FDA approval for a new drug or a new treatment?
	We know it's 12 years on average, but...
	What is required in order to prove not just the efficacy, because right now the only issue, or I say the primary issue, is the safety.
	You can't have proven safety until you've had years of proven safety.
	How do you bypass years of proven safety in order to get FDA approval for a new drug?
	Historically, I don't think any vaccine has been approved in less than two years from the date of application.
	Usually there's a lot of research done before they even apply.
	Full disclosure, not full disclosure, but everyone knows, mRNA technology has been around for a long time.
	My wife is a neuroscientist.
	For those who don't know, we talked about this.
	The technology has been around.
	The only question, though, is application to humans, and more specifically, young humans, in terms of what the long-term effects could be.
	And again, people, don't accuse anyone of being anti-vaccine.
	You know me, and you know what you may disagree with about me.
	It's not about being anti-vaccine.
	It's a question of not regarding.
	Or not treating this particular vaccine the way you treat the polio vaccine or the smallpox vaccine, which has decades, if not multiple decades, of trial, error, safety.
	So how do you get that in a vaccine, even though the technology has been around for decades, how do you get that with a new drug that just has not been around or administered to humans for long enough to have that proven track record of safety?
	I mean, historically, it's never been done.
	So every vaccine improved before.
	To my knowledge, it has taken at least two years of FDA review.
	Again, an average of 12 years for approval, but it takes at least two years of approval to go through multiple clinical stages.
	It starts with the general research and design and idea in the application, then usually animal testing, then a clinical testing on a certain group of humans, then a third level of clinical testing.
	And the ideas that you would have by that point...
	Like a clinical test at least a year long that would review certain risks.
	And ideally that you're using methods that are not necessarily as novel as these are.
	So that's why most people said last year that they thought there was no way a vaccine could be approved in less than two to three years.
	And I mean Kamala Harris was saying don't take a vaccine approved faster than that.
	So just saying.
	And now I want to bring this up because this is a legitimate question.
	Why didn't you bring up these issues when Operation Warp Speed was announced?
	So here's the thing.
	There are two issues here.
	Nobody is denying that for...
	And I've had these discussions as I'm going door to door.
	For those who are vulnerable, you are looking for a warp speed remedy that looks to be a solution to the problem that poses fewer or less risk than the problem itself.
	So when you're dealing with a demographic that is, in fact, highly at risk as far as the breakdown goes, You're looking for a vaccine or a treatment or a jab, a shot, whatever you want to call it, that is likely going to protect you more than the risks of the jab itself.
	So Operation Warp Speed was never the issue in terms of developing something of a solution or protection for those who are highly at risk.
	Where it becomes the issue is then going to vaccine passports, using it as a condition of employment, compelling the administration of the...
	Warp Speed jab in a demographic that statistically is at minimal risk and then using it as a precondition for employment, transportation, civil rights and liberties.
	That's where the issue becomes one of, okay, Operation Warp Speed cut some red tape at the FDA, allowed the development of this new science for those who are at risk, who by and large took it without compulsion, without coercion, without bribery and without lotteries.
	The issue becomes one where you want to give it FDA approval to then give it lawful administration to those who are not necessarily at risk for the underlying issue for which it was developed at warp speed.
	That's the distinction.
	I hope it was clear enough.
	And we have probably a lot of new members over the last year.
	I was always critical.
	of Operation Warp Speed and very critical of Trump on all of this.
	Trump was the one who came up with the CDC moratorium, eviction moratorium.
	I said at the time, politically popular, clearly illegal.
	Now, a lot of my conservative friends do have amnesia about the fact that Trump came up with this.
	But, you know, I was critical of all the lockdowns, critical of him going along with Fauci and Birx, and was not a fan of the idea of Operation Warp Speed.
	It was meant to attach Trump's ego to this.
	And I agreed with Harris, and I agreed with Biden.
	Who said you shouldn't take something without transparency, transparency, transparency.
	His exact words.
	He said it six different times during the Democratic debates.
	I agreed with my Democratic friends and the scientific community that said this is not the kind of thing you rush.
	This is not the kind of thing you race towards.
	This could permanently damage the credibility of public health authorities and credibility and confidence in vaccinations.
	So I've always been on that side.
	There were plenty of people who weren't happy with my criticism of Trump, but right around Trump's people, I've made my views clear.
	Some of us were never happy with this idea.
	We didn't flip.
	It was my Democratic friends who suddenly decided the vaccine came from God, even though it was still Trump's vaccine as soon as Biden got in.
	For me, I didn't express a lot of opinions on these things.
	Medical stuff, I avoid opinions on.
	People look to influencers for like, you have to take a position on this.
	I'm not a doctor.
	I'm not your doctor.
	So you talk to your doctor and you do what your doctor says.
	I'm neither here to promote nor deter that which requires your own medical doctor's expertise.
	But I do remember the debate and I lived through it.
	I remember what people said at the time about not trusting it because it's politically expedient that it should come out just before the election.
	I then lived through the fact that the good news only came out two weeks after Trump lost the election.
	Whereas had the good news, what everyone's touting is the good news now, come out two weeks earlier, he might have had a re-election of Trump.
	Notwithstanding the fortifications stuff, yeah.
	And you would have had a lot of Democrats who never would have had any confidence in this vaccine.
	That's the irony.
	I mean, the president changes and the timing of the announcement changes, and that somehow shapes whether you should have confidence in this.
	We have a scientific process that includes a citizen participation part of that process.
	We should follow it.
	I'm not a scientist or a doctor, but I don't trust anything that doesn't have the right process.
	I'm not going to trust the result if the process is contaminated.
	And what's taken place here has serious legal problems.
	And again, all that will be at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Plus, any medical disputes about mask mandates will be there too.
	I will not read the chat, but someone said, you know, what are the chances of ever being able to sue for damages?
	We've discussed it, but bottom line.
	Complete immunity.
	Complete immunity to the manufacturers.
	And the markers.
	And the medical care provider.
	And the advisor.
	And the government.
	It's another reason I don't trust it.
	They have no skin in the game when it comes to risk.
	All the skin in the game is on rewards.
	This will be the single most profitable drug within a year in the history of drugs.
	Well, legal ones.
	There's some illegal ones that have been very profitable.
	But the single most profitable.
	And maybe even more profitable than cocaine ever was in a given year.
	I mean, that's how insane the profit...
	And they have no risk.
	They can't be sued for anything.
	So it's like, I don't trust the process that creates that result, no matter what.
	Yeah, I mean, and you've been consistent on that.
	So it's, look, it is what it is.
	My concern is that, you know, they'll approve it.
	They'll fast track an approval in a way that's never been done before.
	It'll be wildly lucrative for share prices, probably.
	And it will permanently undermine any faith that reasonably critical-minded people have in the process and FDA itself.
	We've lived with the FDA.
	I've invested in many drug companies over the course of the last 12 years, and I've seen how long you have to hold those stocks only to have the FDA deny approval and you lose all your money.
	And now it's just going to be like, okay, boom.
	We're going to fast-track everything, approve it out of either political necessity or whatever.
	And maybe it is entirely safe.
	There's no increased risk whatsoever.
	But when you have immunity to the manufacturers, immunity to the drug companies, immunity to the government, you deprive citizens of any right to sue for what they're being compelled to do.
	No one's going to have faith in this again.
	This is what happens when science gets politicized and the FDA becomes governed by political science.
	Okay, what do we move on to now, Robert?
	Ah.
	I got my list also.
	Hold on.
	I probably should have just checked my list.
	Hold on.
	Oh, by the way, while Robert looks that up, 13,000 people.
	We're over 13,000 because we're apparently over 4,300 on Rumble, which is half as many as are watching on YouTube, the biggest video platform on Earth.
	Fantastic stuff.
	I think one of the top ones on the locals poll...
	Was that, yes, in fact, you can sue if the government fabricates evidence against you.
	The fact that that had to even go through the court system is amazing.
	The backstory is what, in order to sue for malicious prosecution, the Supreme Court said the criminal case has to go all the way through and you have to be found innocent or there has to be proven evidence of your innocence.
	So some cops that were accused of fabricating evidence, and what happened was when they got caught, The prosecutors just dismissed the charges, so it never reached a trial.
	So their defense was, ha-ha, we dismissed this before trial, you can't prove innocence, you weren't found not guilty, so now we can't be sued for trying to frame you the whole time.
	And this should not come as news to anyone who followed the Jussie Smollett lawsuit, because this was one of the arguments in Jussie Smollett.
	He was arguing malicious prosecution, and he was arguing that the pretrial, what was it called, pretrial diversion.
	Where they dismissed the charges was basically tantamount to dismissal of charges, and the judge said no, plus you accepted it with certain conditions, so it wasn't a complete dismissal, so you can't sue for a malicious prosecution, or at least your claim fails.
	So there shouldn't be news, but yes, sorry, continue on with the specific facts of this particular case.
	So they went up in the Court of Appeals, what has always been the case in the law, but they were misinterpreting the recent Supreme Court case to have a new rule that was basically going to say that the government was arguing you could never sue for fabricated evidence, perjury, any effort to frame you, withholding Brady information, unless you were, one, both factually innocent, and two, the proceedings had ended in such a way that affirmed your innocence.
	And what it would allow basically the government to do is to always, whenever they get caught, just dismiss the charges, and then you are denied your civil rights remedies, even if you had reputational damage, even if you'd been in jail, as this plaintiff was for two years, waiting trial, any of those things.
	And to the credit of the Court of Appeals, Court of Appeals made clear, no, no, that's not the law at all.
	The law has always been, the Supreme Court didn't change the law.
	They just changed when your claim accrued.
	They said your claim accrues when the criminal proceedings are over.
	You don't have to sue until the criminal proceedings are over.
	We don't want your civil proceedings to be taking place at the same time as your criminal proceedings.
	It mucks things up.
	So once your criminal proceedings are over, you can bring your claim, but if it's a claim for fabricated evidence, for perjury, for suborning perjury, for obstructing the proceedings, for failing to disclose exculpatory information, for trying to frame you in some other way, for planting evidence, if it's any of those claims other than malicious prosecution itself, then you can actually be guilty and still sue, because your right is a due process right.
	The way the courts used to phrase it is, even a guilty person has a right to a fair trial.
	Even a guilty person has a right not to be framed.
	Even a guilty person has a right not to have fabricated, perjured evidence.
	So there's a civil rights.
	O.J.'s ears are perking up right now, Albert.
	We still haven't done our episode on this.
	O.J. was innocent, everybody.
	O.J. was innocent.
	Maybe my most controversial position.
	I've got several.
	What I love is it's going to be the meme of...
	Where was it?
	There was a meme of someone who says, it's coming, it's coming.
	Oh, it was Jack Black when he started his YouTube channel.
	I forget the exact words, but he says, oh, the gaming channel.
	He says, okay, can't do any gaming this week.
	It's coming next episode.
	And it was like, dude, we're never going to see gaming coming from Jack Black.
	But then you did.
	The meme is going to be, we're one day going to do the OJ Simpson special.
	The only question is, do we have OJ Simpson on for it or just Alan Dershowitz?
	I'm joking.
	Don't think we can get OJ.
	OJ's a funny troll on Twitter.
	I'll give him credit.
	A little crazy.
	I think his funny trollingness on Twitter is an indication of something, but we won't get into that.
	Sorry, Sir Robert, yes.
	Speaking of framing a guilty man and even a guilty man or woman has the right to a fair trial, please continue.
	So that was clarified this week that you don't have to prove your innocence.
	You don't have to have the proceedings go all the way through a trial in order to sue for any kind of corrupting the process by the government.
	So that was a very good and important and significant Fourth and Fifth and Sixth Amendment.
	But now, for the layperson and for the people watching, what is still required to prove malicious prosecution?
	Because even if you get to sue, good for you, the threshold is exquisitely high.
	All of those claims, malicious prosecution is reserved to you have to prove you're factually innocent and the proceedings found you innocent before you can bring the proceedings.
	Now, by the way, same with legal malpractice for criminal defense lawyers.
	That's why legal malpractice insurance is very cheap for criminal defense lawyers.
	Because, I mean, it's really messed up.
	Because if you're a criminal defense lawyer and you screw up, all you have to tell your client is that doesn't matter.
	You have to prove you're innocent before you can sue me.
	And that's true.
	Which doesn't make sense to me, but that's why it's the cheapest malpractice insurance for any practice of law.
	But you can critically bring all those other claims that now have, and well, always did, but now clearly have remedied despite this attempt by the government to crush those things for once and for all.
	Okay, interesting.
	Now, do we go on to, I think people are going to be interested in the Twitter losing on the section 230.
	So for those who don't know, I think you might have to set this one up more than me.
	What's the situation?
	What's the lawsuit?
	And what's the optimism that we can all have for Twitter being finally reined in a little bit?
	So this was the case that we discussed with Eliza Blue, which involves an underage...
	It came down to two things.
	The court determined that Twitter is protected by Section 230 from every claim except claims that were passed by Congress under the Trump administration in 2018 that made clear that Section 230 does not immunize anybody from facilitating sex trafficking or similar behavior.
	And so the question came down to, were the allegations sufficient?
	That Twitter had reason to know what was going on and was deliberately profiting from it.
	And the conclusion of the court was that evidence was sufficient.
	So consequently, they were not immune under Section 230 and could be sued for this.
	So for people that were in that space, that was a critical, people concerned about how much big tech is profiting.
	From illicit behavior in this precise arena, it was a very important consequential ruling because that would be the main claims they all would be bringing.
	And so it was the first time that it was found that big tech is not protected by Section 230 from that kind of participation in criminal behavior.
	And that you don't have to show...
	Their own intent.
	You just have to show that they're profiting from it, and they have reason to know they're profiting from it, could take corrective action and are not.
	And now, the distinction under 230, there's two aspects to the law, or two aspects to the immunity.
	One is immunity for censoring other content posted by third parties, but then the second aspect is immunity for your own conduct as not an internet service provider.
	As a publisher.
	So this particular distinction was not...
	They were not being held liable or they were not losing immunity for that which third parties posted to the platform.
	They were being allowed to be sued or not benefiting from immunity because it's not a decision on the merits yet for their participation, their alleged participation in knowingly hosting content from which they were making deriving revenue.
	Correct.
	And not taking corrective action when they could and should.
	Okay, and that was the videos of underage boys that was up there.
	The children were asking Twitter to take it down.
	I forget the reason why Twitter was not taking it down.
	Was there any reasonably defensible position for which Twitter failed to take down the content once being so notified?
	Not that I know of.
	And the other thing is this case now goes to full discovery.
	So everything they've been doing in this space is about to get discovered.
	So there have long been suspicions about their degree of culpable knowledge in this space going beyond what's even publicly known.
	And Eliza Blue, obviously very happy with the decision because this means that it gets to move forward.
	It doesn't get dismissed at a preliminary stage based on sweeping immunity for all behavior by tech giants.
	Huge win for advocates.
	Mike Demaret says, OnlyFans has amended their terms of service to not allow explicit acts.
	Sounds like this decision may have prompted it.
	I did a stream with Eric Hunley, Legal Bytes, and Emily D. Baker on Friday.
	I'm not familiar with OnlyFans.
	That's either good or bad, or that says something about me.
	I'm not familiar with it.
	Now I'm more familiar than I was on Friday.
	So what's the deal there?
	From what I understood from what was said on Friday, Fans Only or OnlyFans was specifically for that type of content.
	Well, that's an argument.
	I mean, OnlyFans was originally created to sort of be a Patreon kind of thing with direct video TikTok type content.
	But it was quickly used by people for what people considered pornographic content.
	And there was a lot of people making a lot of money in that space.
	I mean, crazy, crazy amounts of money.
	Apparently, certain things are still allowed, just not explicit conduct.
	It is true that this case may have had some impact on that.
	This was under consideration from the get-go.
	People think about 80% to 90% of their revenue comes from this.
	So it's going to be interesting.
	Though it didn't quite ban as much as people originally thought it was banning.
	It was only banning truly pornographic material.
	It was not banning nudity and things like that.
	And so, yeah, I mean, that's a crazy space.
	That's not a story to take a deep dive into.
	It's like watching that scene from Pulp Fiction where they say, bring out the gimp.
	And I was like, what?
	And I was like, oh, I wish I didn't know that.
	Someone had told me on the stream that we did with Eric Hunley, EricHunley.locals.com Unstructured.locals.com So someone said, you've never heard of this Instagram person.
	Go look at her Instagram account.
	I forget her name.
	But I went to look at her Instagram account.
	It didn't take much imagination to imagine what the fans only or only fans looked like.
	And that's not to say I'm innocent.
	I don't follow all of these things.
	So, very interesting.
	So, it's going to proceed to discovery.
	Is there any chance, I mean, any chance of appeal?
	Any chance of, what's the word I'm looking for?
	Impeding discovery the way the New York Times was trying to in Project Veritas?
	They may try, but the district court's decision was pretty well thought through, and it's clear that that statute was meant, the statutory change in 2018 was meant to reach this precise issue.
	It was meant to stop big tech from profiting off of this particular space and to make them at major risk for liability if they allow it to continue.
	I don't know if the OnlyFans will have a suit.
	I don't think they would.
	Clearly, they were going nuts about it.
	It was a violation of their rights or whatever.
	A lot of people were making lots of money off of this.
	They were deeply embittered by this.
	We'll see how all that It progresses, but not off the face of it, I don't think.
	But it does relate to another First Amendment suit in Texas.
	A creative club that, you know, I guess they call them gentlemen's clubs, in order to get around a local ban on nudity, decided to dress up their waitresses, I guess you might say, models, servers, whatever, dancers, that's the word, dancers, in latex.
	And so the Texans got agitated by this, thinking this was just an easy way to circumvent the rules.
	So they expanded their rules, saying you can't skip the rule by dressing, being still naked, but in latex.
	Well, the...
	If I may stop you, translucent or transparent latex, correct?
	Yeah.
	Of course.
	But maybe not in all cases.
	I don't know.
	I just know the latex.
	And that is technically expressive content protected under the First Amendment under certain circumstances.
	And because they...
	The problem is a lot of these rules are passed because people just don't like those kind of clubs.
	But the only constitutional way you can constrain those clubs is you have to find a very detailed factual record that these precise kind of clubs cause secondary effects, is what they call it in the law, of specified harms that you're trying to limit.
	They didn't make that finding.
	It was just someone morally agitated by this.
	So the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said that violates the First Amendment rights of the expressive dancers.
	So the latex clubs are back in business.
	And that's going to be the argument that...
	It's the government basically trying to impose the regulations on the private enterprise who are saying, this is how we and our employees want to express themselves.
	But as relates to the fans only, only fans, whichever way it goes, I think it's only fans.
	As relates to the only fans turning against the platform to say, well, this violates our First Amendment.
	Well, that's when the only fans platform is going to say, private enterprise, we don't have to respect your First Amendment.
	And they would be protected by Section 230.
	So they can't be sued on that grounds.
	But yeah, I found it interesting in the context of you can force kids and other people to wear a mask because somehow being able to smile in a school is not expressive protected content, according to our government leaders.
	But getting to be naked in just a different way is.
	It's like...
	Kind of interesting what's considered, what these days our courts have been protecting and what they haven't said.
	It might say something about some of our judges, maybe.
	No comment, but the face masks in terms of setting aside the efficacy, the actual preventative stuff, in terms of negatively impacting special needs kids, developmental disabilities, and also just in...
	Non-disabled kids, the ability to learn language.
	Because part of learning language is not just hearing words, it's seeing how the mouth moves.
	And yeah, no, all of that goes by the wayside for whatever the risk is to compel these masks day in and day out for young people who are developing.
	Who knows what long-term impact that's going to have or compromising ability to learn, speak, write and learn different languages.
	But whatever you do, don't interfere with the judge's favorite local club.
	Now, alright, Robert, now let me just go to our list and see what we have next on the list.
	I was trying to find the person who I was thinking about on Instagram, but it's probably better off I can't find it.
	What do we do here?
	We got...
	We're doing good.
	FTC sues Facebook.
	Yes, so they did file...
	FTC filed an amended complaint this week against Facebook.
	And just detailed the scope and scale of their monopoly and how Facebook saw mobile as a threat to their existing monopoly that was then mostly on the online platform.
	And so they basically manipulated their contracts with vendors and app developers to continue to have monopoly power.
	In their existing economic space and additional economic spaces.
	And so the FTC is doubling down and going after Facebook on monopoly grounds.
	It's a very well-crafted, well-drafted amended complaint.
	But the original complaint was dismissed, correct?
	I'm not sure if the FTC's original complaint was dismissed.
	I thought that was a different one that got dismissed.
	Either way, this is the amended complaint that got filed.
	Okay.
	And I mean, look, we've discussed the argument of...
	Is this one based on antitrust?
	Yes.
	Oh, yes.
	So we've gone over this.
	I mean, one of the issues with the original...
	There's so many I'm getting mixed up between what the dismissal was and if it's the same case, but one of the issues was what field?
	What area of tech does Facebook have a monopoly in?
	But I guess when we're talking about antitrust, the question is, setting aside the issue of monopoly, the question is whether or not Facebook...
	Is using their power to stifle competition in unrelated fields of big tech, correct?
	Yeah, both.
	I mean, both allegations are present.
	My view of monopoly law, and we'll be talking with Matt Stoller's big antitrust guy on the left, but a big antitrust guy later in September.
	The nature of the case is both, is that this is monopolistic practices.
	My view of monopoly includes that space, not just using your monopoly to violate other economic spaces, if you will, but both allegations are present.
	And it's a well-crafted, well-drafted suit.
	It details how they did it, why they did it, and it's really written in a very accessible way that I thought was a smart, savvy way to write a complaint.
	And it shows they're going right after big tech no matter what.
	In the same capacity, Google, Lost a motion to dismiss this week against, like people may remember when Google was promising you could go to private browsing and that then they wouldn't be stealing your information.
	I mean, the FTC complaint mentions this.
	They said Facebook really makes their money off surveillance advertising, secret surveillance advertising.
	So that was good phraseology.
	And Google just doubled down on that because people caught on to this.
	And so they said, oh, you can use a private browser.
	And in fact, they built in backdoors.
	To even more monetize your information when you went to a private browser to sell it to people that might be trying to sell you privacy.
	And so a court denied their motion to dismiss the complaint, saying there was clearly specific allegations that they had done more than what they had claimed they were doing.
	And that case will now also go to discovery about what exactly Google's been up to at stealing people's private information directly against what they promised the citizen person they were doing.
	The basis of the lawsuit, what was the basis of the dismissal?
	Was it, I want to say, Section 230?
	No, it was whether or not there are sufficient factual allegations that constitute a claim for invasion of privacy and breach of contract and other consumer protection law claims.
	And so it was on those grounds.
	And Google's defense was...
	They were really trying to claim the factual record wasn't what the factual record was.
	And the court fortunately saw through it, saw their culpability, saw their responsibility, and is now putting them on a path of accountability.
	And so it's, I mean, big tech is facing claims from the government.
	Twitter lost a big one.
	That same case is going to be brought in other circumstances against Facebook and against Google.
	That's part one.
	And then they're facing major government cases that are accelerating rather than decelerating.
	And they're facing expanded private suits for all of their privacy breaches.
	So while they have the Trump suits going on.
	So they're in a legally precarious position right now.
	I'm just responding to Ray Kay.
	Ray Kay, you know what?
	I'll delete my response.
	Check out our sidebar with the Duran.
	We go over this in detail.
	Yeah, no, no.
	This, to me, looks like it's just going to end up the same way.
	The YouTube advertising to children, they're going to pay a massive fine.
	It's going to represent a day's worth of profit, and it'll be a cost of doing business.
	They'll either make their money or they'll be smarter the next time they try to break the law.
	Speaking of being smarter the next time you break the law, turns out Michael Moore...
	For his movie, where he had it towards the end, he had this big scene with Obama going to Flint and about the water crisis and had this African-American man talking about filming it and showing it.
	It turns out he stole that whole part, apparently, because Michael Moore got sued this week for stealing that copyright and leave it to a white liberal to make a bunch of profits stealing from a black man.
	Doing the actual labor.
	Allegations only, Robert.
	Nothing has been proven.
	Of course.
	The nature of the...
	Who's calling me?
	Hold on a second.
	Decline.
	The nature of the allegations are that it was copyright-protected work used without authorization and credit doesn't matter.
	It was used for commercial purposes without the requisite authorization and, I mean...
	And didn't give the guy any the money.
	I mean, you have this great footage that's really going to help sell your film.
	You make millions of dollars off the film.
	And then you stiff the guy.
	And not only that, you stiff the black guy?
	When you're a white liberal?
	About Flint, which was part about disproportionately poisoning the water of the black community in Flint?
	Like I said, leave it to a liberal.
	He's a Manhattan liberal these days.
	He used to make good films when he lived in Flint.
	Now, not too much.
	What did he just do on Twitter?
	What did he just do on Twitter that I gave him a relatively hard time for?
	I'm losing my mind.
	Oh no, it was comparing.
	It was comparing the Taliban to January 6th.
	I'm sorry.
	I'm not going to swear.
	This guy posts on Twitter.
	The Taliban has their...
	You know, they're rebels.
	I forget what he called them.
	And America has their own.
	And then he posts a picture of the Taliban with a picture of some of the January 6th rioters.
	And I'm calling them rioters because in one picture from Afghanistan, you have people holding weapons, actual weapons that are not just the American flag.
	And then the picture of the January 6th insurrectionists.
	Dudes in the Capitol building holding American flags but dressed in the Wolverine.
	Anybody who compares things that cannot be compared is guilty of the sin of trying to compare things that cannot be compared.
	But yeah, that's Michael Moore.
	So, meanwhile, he's making money.
	He's making money off the backs of the minorities that he then claims are exploited and marginalized and in furtherance of the systemic racism in America.
	All allegations.
	We'll see how it pans out.
	I want to look at that lawsuit in more detail because I want to see exactly what the allegations are in terms of the unauthorized use of copyrighted material.
	Okay, what else?
	There was a clarification from the Second Circuit en banc.
	It was kind of indirectly related to the stop-and-frisk policy New York City had.
	Smart cops got around that, but now they don't stop and frisk you just for any random cause.
	They try to find you on a traffic violation, stop you, and then they frisk you.
	The original panel was bothered by this and said that they considered that the cop needed more than reasonable suspicion.
	To do the pat-down at a traffic stop.
	Because what happened is they pulled somebody over at a traffic stop.
	Well, here's the other thing.
	They knew the whole thing was pretextual.
	The cops saw him.
	It's the famous high-crime neighborhood.
	That's always the big exception.
	Oh, it's a high-crime neighborhood, so magically you can pull anyone over.
	But the cop sees a person.
	He suspects the person has drugs or a gun on him.
	Based on what, if I may ask?
	Smell of marijuana?
	No, no.
	He couldn't smell them.
	He was too far away.
	I mean, it was basically, it sure seemed like it was profiling.
	I'll put it that way.
	He said the way he did his pants made him think so.
	And it's like, hmm.
	My guess is what happens is probably the cop does that 10 times.
	Doesn't arrest nine of the ten.
	Those nine of the ten just go home.
	They're not going to sue anybody.
	And the one of the ten he catches is the one who makes a big legal stink about it.
	So he sees this, thinks, oh, I bet he's got something on him.
	Follows him.
	Pulls him over on some sort of rickety-dink traffic citation.
	Pulls him over, tells him to get out of the car and does a full pat-down.
	And when he does the pat-down, finds drugs and a gun on him.
	And so the guy gets charged.
	He moves to suppress.
	And the argument of the defense lawyers was, look, the cops are just taking stop and frisk and just adding a little traffic stop.
	Does that magically make stop and frisk now legal again?
	And so the original panel judges said this is a problem, that he needed more than a low level of reasonable suspicion, what's called a Terry stop, reasonable suspicion.
	That was back when you could ask somebody who looks like they're casing a bank.
	Whether you can go up and ask them their identity and why they're there.
	Not a full-scale frisk.
	That then got escalated into, if you have reasonable suspicion that they're up to something criminal, maybe you can frisk them.
	Maybe, maybe not.
	So now they've solved that problem with traffic stops.
	And so the Court of Appeals initially said, the three-judge panel split decision, said, hey, you guys are clearly trying to circumvent things.
	It's clear it was pretextual.
	So we're going to say that that was an illegal pat-down.
	The Second Circuit en banc came in and reversed it and said, it doesn't matter whether the whole thing is pretextual.
	All that matters is would an objective cop have any reasonable suspicion that the person had either guns or drugs on him?
	Once he's made a traffic stop, because the probable cause would be needed for a seizure, but the probable cause is satisfied for the seizure by the traffic stop.
	And so then all you need is reasonable suspicion for the search.
	And that can be, it doesn't matter whether the cop had reasonable suspicion.
	It doesn't matter whether the defendant thought he had reasonable suspicion or whether he behaved in a suspicious manner.
	All that matters is whether an objective cop under the circumstances could have.
	Reasonable suspicion.
	Not only that, it only has to be could have.
	He doesn't have to rule out other innocent explanations.
	He doesn't actually have to have had the reasonable suspicion.
	It's whether or not he could have.
	And therefore, I could have had it.
	I don't really have it, but I could have had it under these circumstances.
	So let me go ahead.
	It's the amazing thing, because it becomes one of those questions of the unpopular defendant where, yeah, I presumed the weapon was illegally owned.
	It was not a legal carry.
	Yeah, yeah, because he was a felon.
	So he was convicted of felony with a firearm.
	Yeah, and that's the interesting thing.
	At some point, this is where people have to accept the idea that even guilty people who are breaking the law still have to benefit from constitutional rights.
	Lest you just end up living in a world where cops can stop whomever whenever they want and you have no constitutional rights.
	You end up looking like Australia right now.
	I don't share these videos because I don't like sharing videos that I can't confirm the context when they're highly edited or spliced.
	But my goodness, the stuff coming out of Australia right now.
	I saw a report.
	The guy you interviewed.
	The Aussie you interviewed before.
	Avi Amini.
	He had live footage.
	I think he got shot while he was doing the footage.
	Pepper spray, rubber bullets.
	Nuts.
	And Avi Amini, when I watch the full eight-minute report, it's edited, but it's true.
	It's legit.
	And it's nuts.
	People go watch.
	His name is Avi Amini, but I forget what his handle is.
	It's Aussie Amini Mani.
	Works for Rebel News.
	Guy's got...
	You know, courage to go out in those streets when literally pepper gas and rubber bullets are flying by his head.
	But no, there's other stuff, like I saw it on Sky News, where they're talking about a rugby player who was driving to a friend's house, violating the lockdown orders, and got caught again going in the wrong direction.
	Is it Australia where they're shooting dogs?
	Oh, my good God.
	I said that I was going to bring up my dog.
	I'm not bringing up my dog for this bit, Robert.
	But yes, in Australia.
	We've talked about this before, the political permission slip to commit atrocities when you can cloak your atrocity and benevolence.
	Apparently they're investigating it, but apparently a dog rescue, and they didn't just, the city council didn't just euthanize the dogs, they...
	They shot the dogs to prevent a rescue agency from coming to pick them up in violation of COVID protocol.
	And when you hear the justification, it's an absolute atrocity.
	I mean, yes, there's worse atrocities.
	This is disgusting.
	And when you hear their explanation, they say they still stand by it.
	We had to do it to protect the local Aboriginal communities.
	This is what they're saying.
	They had to do this to protect communities.
	They had to kill two dogs.
	Or more than one dog to prevent a rescue agency from coming to get them because it would have been such an existential threat to the entire communities that this was necessary.
	I don't use the word psychopathic.
	It's psychopathic in the sense that these people now think they can justify this based on the fear.
	But for the fact that social media is what it is, this would have disappeared.
	What I genuinely don't like, because I fear that there might be some truth to it, is people saying, This is how it starts, and first this happens, and then it escalates to non-animals.
	But horrendous.
	Aussie police beat up a guy over not wearing a mask, and it turned out he had an exemption from wearing the mask.
	Now he's going to have another...
	If it's the one I saw where they first hit him with a car and then kicked him, he'll have another medical exemption.
	It's atrocious.
	I don't know how this happens.
	I don't know how this happens, Robert.
	I try to stay optimistic, and I try to stay...
	Have faith in the future.
	Let me just bring this super chat down.
	But what's going on in Australia, unless it's just totally exaggerated silo information, which it isn't, it's nuts.
	Because I hear the reporting on the news and Ezra Levant from Rebel Media posted a full bit where the reporter says it's becoming increasingly hard for people who are doing the wrong things to hide.
	Well, I'm sure that that's what they say in North Korea as well.
	I mean, that is the new form of government.
	Is nuts.
	Yeah, the dog shooting, I don't often refer to hell, but there's a special place in hell for whoever did that, and may they find it.
	But may they also just be found guilty in the court of law and be punished accordingly, because that's indefensible.
	Indefensible.
	Somebody forgot to tell Australia they're no longer a penal colony.
	Well, it looks like the police have become...
	It looks like the law enforcement has become the criminals.
	It's just...
	Terrible.
	Thomas Caldwell, and this is the second time I've heard this, Count Dracula said that the Scottish government is voting to make the temporary powers permanent like lockdowns, etc.
	Expect Canada and the U.S. to follow suit.
	It's just insane.
	It's insane.
	But again, once they had this power, why wouldn't they continue to want to have it forever?
	That's why it's going to be up to the courts first and the court of public opinion corollary to it to put people back into their position of restraint.
	And the thing is, you can't make any hyperbolic comparisons to historical examples where things like this started this way and escalated.
	But my goodness, Mark Twain had it right when he said history doesn't repeat, but it tends to rhyme.
	Because things are rhyming a lot now.
	I took a screenshot of a few super chats that I want to get to.
	Please ask Barnes.
	This is from Gene Fuccarino.
	Please ask Barnes if FDA approval of the COVID vaccines tomorrow, a reaction to his lawsuit.
	We talked about it, but do you think it's a reaction to the lawsuits?
	I mean, it accelerates.
	It removes certain legal claims, but not most legal claims.
	Okay.
	Now, this name is Domenhall.
	Domenhanhall.
	What the heck's my problem?
	Domenhallhall1989 says, Can you ask Robert his opinion on Biden banning Russian imports of ammo as a sanction?
	Russian imported ammo accounts for up to 45% of ammo sold in the U.S. Seems more like a...
	Punishing gun owners than Russia.
	I didn't know about this.
	What do you have to say about that?
	Yeah, I mean, it's clearly...
	They're trying to expand sanction power to such a degree that they can do whatever they want to go after ulterior agendas.
	So, you know, I mean, it's not going to work in the way they think it does.
	So I think it's counterproductive long term.
	But it's clear everything with a common theme in the immigration cases, the vaccine cases, the mask cases, the lockdown cases, these other cases is a government that thinks it can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, under any pretext it cares for without going through the legislative process, without going through the judicial process, without going through the scientific process.
	And it's a disease.
	It's an infection we've let loose.
	There's a protest organizer in Australia who will be in jail for months for doing things that are legal in some first world countries.
	I know people that are asking me for immigration lawyer advice to come into the country from Australia and New Zealand.
	Places like that.
	They're being told not to talk to their neighbor.
	The Prime Minister, I forget which one it was, Australia or New Zealand.
	Now is not the time for talking.
	We have one active case.
	Now is not the time for talking.
	Why can't they just exercise that themselves?
	They just quit talking, quit issuing orders, then maybe we'll all be okay.
	Someone had the conspiratorial but not indefensible thought that...
	Don't talk in person.
	Take everything to social media text messages where we can survey everything that you're saying in private and it will have a documented history of it.
	And soon, it will be able to get your social media DMs to arrest you for inciting an insurrection.
	And don't buy from your local store.
	Buy it from Jeff Bezos on Amazon.
	Oh, there's one briefcase, a big undercover reporting win because it's going to impact James O 'Keefe out of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
	It's another ag case.
	There was an 8th Circuit win in Iowa a week or so ago, a big win in the 10th Circuit this week, which made clear that you cannot criminalize undercover reporting and that the very act of creating content for the purposes of reporting, including recordings, is as First Amendment protected as publishing.
	And that's which raises major questions about some of the California prosecutions of the people who exposed Planned Parenthood and other organizations have been targeted there.
	Also, there are people that continue to come after James O 'Keefe and Project Veritas.
	This is additional support for O 'Keefe's position.
	This is another court of appeals establishing that undercover reporting, including recording, is First Amendment protected activity.
	I remember way back in the 90s, undercover reporting.
	was all you saw on TV.
	They had it in their briefcases.
	They had it in their hats.
	It meant back in the day when reporters did reporting.
	TY says, Barnes, DOJ is getting video and photographs from Antifa Sedition Hunters on Twitter.
	How can they really get that info in evidence?
	Past authentication.
	I don't know anything about that.
	Yeah, I mean, the way you authenticate something is, it depends on where they get it from, but usually it can be self-authenticating in certain circumstances, but otherwise that can be tricky.
	If their source of materials is an unreliable source, then that can be an issue.
	Okay, well, I think we've gotten to all the questions.
	One person said we've got to get Maxime Bernier on Michael Malice.
	I'm going to try to make that happen right after we get off here.
	That would be great.
	I think, sorry, let me just bring this down here.
	Keep Owen Schreier free.
	Yeah, we've talked about that.
	I mean, even for what they're charging him with, it doesn't sound serious.
	It just sounds like a distraction and a headline grabber.
	Robert, someone said, look, a lot of the cases this week have been encouraging.
	So, you know, it's been finally a good week of good law.
	What do we want to end this up?
	First of all, who do we have on Wednesday?
	Be Wednesday morning, Michaelia Peterson.
	Okay.
	Jordan Peterson's daughter.
	My wife might kill me, but it's going to happen, and I'm going to have to suspend what we were doing Wednesday morning.
	What time is it Wednesday morning?
	I want to say 9 a.m., but I'm not absolutely certain of that.
	So stay tuned, people.
	It's going to be a different time.
	Well, 9 a.m., I think my time.
	Might be noon, your time.
	Okay, awesome.
	Lauren's a nice tie you have on.
	Thank you.
	So we've got Michaela Peterson Wednesday.
	Might have a special guest on Friday.
	Okay, excellent.
	So stay tuned, everybody.
	But Robert, let's like, encouraging Week in Law.
	What are the big issues facing the states now that people need some...
	Encouragement on...
	Well, yeah, there'll be two pieces of news this week.
	A lot of big vaccine mandate cases and FDA approval vaccine cases.
	All that's going to start to get filed all across the country.
	Firemen's unions are talking about filing it in Dayton, Ohio and in other parts of the country already in Hawaii have been filed.
	So I'm going to be filing many of them so that fight has just begun and we'll see whether the courts are willing to step up to the plate or not to try to protect people's jobs.
	I don't know whether it'll be public knowledge or not, but all of the vaccine cases and all of the election, any election audit reports that come out, I'll be breaking down and discussing at...
	All right, people.
	And with that said, this was intense.
	We were up to 14,000 live between YouTube and Rumble, and that's amazing.
	That's amazing.
	It's fantastic.
	It keeps getting better, and Rumble keeps becoming more and more viable.
	They're working on additional options to further bolster their platform, but keep it in mind.
	And college football starts this week.
	Well, I'll add that to the list of things I'm not going to be watching, but I will get it all from you, Robert.
	Hold on.
	You're still doing weekly live with Richard Barris, so you're going to be talking about football and stuff like that?
	Oh, no.
	That's separate.
	That's at the Sports Picks site that I'm doing on, and with Sports Wars on YouTube.
	That's where we'll be doing some football commentary.
	College, pro, you name it.
	But college is my favorite sport.
	College football is my favorite sport.
	The last part where everybody still pretty much loves America, for example.
	Nothing like the further indoctrination to turn that ship around.
	Everybody in the chat, thank you very much.
	If you want to post highlights from this, post highlights.
	Get some smaller, shorter messages out there.
	My highlights are going to be coming as of tomorrow.
	Catch us Wednesday.
	Live chat on Locals coming up right now.
	So with that said, everyone, enjoy what's left of the weekend, and we'll see you soon.
	Robert, stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.

▲