Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 29, 2021 - Viva & Barnes

02:06:20

Ep. 76: Tim Pool; Biden Loses; Nirvana; Candace Owens; Apple, #MeToo & MORE! Viva & Barnes!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good evening, everybody.
	And there's an interesting thing tonight that I have to figure out how to navigate because I'm still doing all of these streams on my laptop.
	Rumble now has something called Rumble Rants, which is exactly like Super Chats, except Rumble only takes 20% as opposed to YouTube's 30%, which some people might still think is too much, but which means that I have to pay attention now in as much as I can to...
	Chats or Rumble rants coming in through Rumble.
	And I don't know how I'm going to make it work on my small screen here, but with that said, everyone, let me just maximize one screen, see what's going on.
	How is everybody doing?
	It's another Sunday.
	It's another week of insanity.
	The world has been going increasingly more and more crazy as time goes on.
	And I was sort of like just reminiscing about, you know, the streams we started doing.
	About two years ago now.
	And at one point I said, I don't want the channel to turn into COVID lawsuits because, you know, this should blow over in a couple of months.
	Here we are, going on two years later, and we went from two weeks to flatten the curve to two months to lockdown in our houses, to curfews, to not being able to have people into our houses, to...
	What was there?
	Forced masks, forced vaccination.
	Now we're in the realm of vaccine passports.
	And I tell you, when the government starts to fall like dominoes, they fall fast.
	It's like that momentum thing that we saw on the internet, like a small domino pushing into a bigger one and a bigger one.
	And then once it starts happening somewhere, it starts happening everywhere real fast, exponentially fast.
	And check this out now.
	I can see some chats on Rumble.
	Rumble Rants says, Chris Rumble, which I imagine is Chris Pavlovsky, said, Chris Rumble, first rant, 50 bucks.
	T Villers says, damn it, I wanted to be first, 100 bucks.
	And now I got to go back to the Super Chats on YouTube and see what I've missed here.
	I need new screens.
	I might need a producer.
	We might need a producer.
	Early is on time.
	On time is late.
	Late is don't show up.
	Therefore, you are late.
	I like it.
	I like the expression.
	This is amazing.
	This is totally amazing.
	We are simultaneously broadcasting on Rumble.
	Rumble now has Rumble Rants, which is the equivalent of Super Chats.
	It's going to mean some insanity on my side.
	I might have to figure out how to do this.
	Did I miss something?
	Viva has been a politician for a few days and already bought a Tesla.
	No, no, no.
	It was not my Tesla.
	The Tesla's gone back.
	Gone back to doing vlogs in my Subaru, which I love.
	I just like the fact that the Tesla has air conditioning that is electric.
	It was beautiful.
	It was beautiful.
	Can you and Barnes discuss the legal or political consequences of the Biden administration leaving Americans behind?
	We're going to talk about that tonight.
	We're going to talk about a lot tonight.
	But first things first, disclaimers.
	Then I'm going to go into my rant right after I welcome the new member, MEC.
	And first of all, Chris Pawlowski, Rumble, thank you.
	You're making it glorious to be on Rumble.
	It already was great.
	It's just getting better.
	And the world needs the Rumble.
	So thank you very much for everything that you're doing there.
	And it's amazing.
	So we are live on Rumble.
	We're live on YouTube.
	We've been doing gangbuster numbers, by the way, both on YouTube.
	We've been doing almost half as many on Rumble as on YouTube.
	So like 4,500 on Rumble and close to 8,500, 9,000 on YouTube.
	It's amazing.
	And people love Rumble.
	People have certain issues with Rumble because you have to, I think, log in with an email address or something.
	But whatever.
	Everyone's going to have a problem with something.
	Okay, disclaimers.
	Viva on Tim Pool IRL.
	Make it happen, Team Pudge.
	I can get on Tim Pool.
	Tim Pool's invited me.
	It just has to be in person, which I understand and I'm trying to work on a way to do.
	Now that I can travel more freely, which was never the reason for which I did what I did, I can think about it.
	But if I'm going to go to the States, I want to do the holy trifecta of podcasts.
	Ruben, Tim Pool, Joe Rogan, before September 20th elections, so that the world can see, first of all, what is going on in Canada.
	And can see that there are sane political parties in Canada who are actually trying to make Canada, Canada, and not Canada, other countries that impose things like vaccine passports, two classes of citizens, discrimination based on medical status, etc., etc.
	So, working my way into the rant of the week.
	First disclaimers, YouTube takes 30% of Super Chats, Rumble takes 20% of Rumble Rants.
	I may not get to all of them.
	I do not know yet how to pull up a Rumble rant so it's visible on the stream.
	I'll figure it out, but I'm going to read them out loud.
	So if you don't like that, and if you're going to be miffed, if I don't get to your super chat, don't give it.
	I don't like people feeling miffed.
	No legal advice.
	No medical advice.
	For obvious reasons.
	And what else?
	Oh yeah, be nice and don't be rude.
	Okay.
	Rant.
	Vaccine passports.
	So I've been doing a couple of Aviva on the street rants these days because...
	Quebec is implementing the passport.
	A vaccine passport, which involves an app that restaurants download, an app that the user downloads, and you go into a restaurant, a non-essential service for the time being.
	And if you get scanned and your QR code says that you are fully protected, you gain entry into this place of business.
	I have not downloaded the app.
	I will not download the app, and we'll see what problems that cause, because I will not support this.
	But Quebec announced that they're going to do it.
	British Columbia then says they're going to do it.
	And it's always for your protection.
	Despite the fact that we know the transmissibility of the virus, even among the fully vaccinated, the argument is going to be that viral loads are presumably lower in the fully vaccinated, so therefore potentially maybe less likely to transmit or whatever.
	But we know that the fully vaccinated can carry and transmit and contract the virus.
	So what sense does the vaccine passport make?
	Some say none.
	Some say it's a pure question of compliance with government control.
	Others say it's just another way for the government to effectively monitor every aspect of your life, and this is only going to escalate into different areas of life.
	Quebec announces it, British Columbia, I think Nova Scotia, pretty sure Alberta, and then Justin Trudeau on his re-election campaign, giving speeches where he is frothing at the mouth like a raging lunatic.
	And I'm not saying this to be hyperbolic.
	Where he is like, I don't know what the word is, but it's terrifying.
	Screaming, if you don't want to get vaccinated, that's your choice, but don't think you can get on an airplane or a train and put the unvaccinated at risk.
	And saying it in a way that it is truly terrifying in that it is trying to stir up the passions of people against other people.
	Now, I think it's having the exact opposite effect, and I hope I'm right based on what I'm seeing on the social medias.
	But he comes out, says that.
	Then he comes out the other day while campaigning in Ontario and says he's setting up a $1 billion, like B-I-L-L-I-O-N, $1 billion COVID vaccine passport app.
	Fund.
	Sorry, a fund.
	A COVID vaccine passport fund.
	$1 billion.
	He's setting it up.
	It's like a child who spends their parents' money and then thinks it's their money because they have access to the parents' wallet.
	Or something along those lines.
	He's spending taxpayer dollars to create a $1 billion COVID vaccine passport app fund.
	How this can possibly cost a billion dollars, Lord knows.
	But he's doing it to keep us safe.
	And he says, and I hope that other premiers have stepped up.
	Legault, the guy in British Columbia, Alberta, they've stepped up.
	As if stepping up to violate our constitutional rights is what it means to step up now.
	They stepped up, and he hopes that Doug Ford in Ontario also steps up.
	And then I presume what happens, as what happens when money corrupts everything, Doug Ford's sitting there saying, well, there's a $1 billion COVID vaccine passport app fund.
	I want some of that.
	Give me some of that $1 billion so that I can, you know, waste it on a fund and contract out to the people I know who can make it and waste money here and there and, you know, sift a little off the top.
	I want some of that billion dollars.
	Overnight, Doug Ford, who also, like Justin Trudeau, was against the vaccine passport app in the beginning, once they start spending taxpayer dollars wasting it on this nonsense, Doug Ford jumps right on board.
	It's enraging.
	It's enraging, and the people on the street seem to be getting it.
	Because if anybody's seen some of the social media posts of Justin Trudeau campaigning, he is getting heckled everywhere.
	He can't do his public speeches on the street anymore because he's getting heckled so hard.
	If you'll notice, he can only do his campaign messaging from the privacy of his bus, from the seclusion of areas where he's closed it off for his followers.
	He cannot walk the streets without getting heckled.
	And some people are calling this violence, you know, swearing at a prime minister.
	It's not my thing.
	I don't like people doing it.
	But people are going to express themselves.
	And to the extent they do it peacefully and peacefully.
	Even if it's not polite, and even if it's rude, they are expressing their frustration, and they are expressing it, boy howdy, because he cannot walk the streets without getting heckled.
	Okay, let's see.
	There are sane political parties in Canada.
	The problem is, none of them are in power.
	Canada is currently ruled by an authoritarian...
	I don't know what an FOP is.
	Okay, now, hold on.
	Now I've got to go back to Rumble rants and read some of these Rumble rants.
	We've got Square Hoop 1 says, Hooray for Rumble!
	Spudboy999 says, are you ready to rumble?
	We got, baby, I'm a...
	Baby, I'm a simple kind of man.
	Says, the rants, I mean.
	Let's get ready to rumble from...
	This is amazing.
	This is amazing.
	From Kitchen Greek.
	My local PPC candidate is asking everyone to change their Wi-Fi name to vote for PPC.
	I don't know what that would do.
	Okay, now I'm going to do my best, everyone, to keep up with the rumble rants and the super chats and Robert and follow the conversation.
	It may not be possible.
	I'm going to do my best.
	On the menu for tonight, because I see Roberts in the house.
	A lot.
	Let me see what we had on the menu.
	Okay, we got vaccine mandates.
	Federal immigration laws are racist.
	You won't believe these decisions.
	Nirvana lawsuit.
	Candace Owens.
	Grubhub.
	We're going to do a January 6th Ashley Babbitt update.
	Afghanistan stuff.
	Don't chew on my...
	Sorry, dog was chewing on my cable.
	So we've got a lot on the menu.
	And with that said, let me just get these screens in order.
	Get this screen down here.
	There might officially be too much for me to do single-handedly tonight.
	Okay, I'm bringing Robert in when I figure out how to do this now.
	I have to bring up major screen, add to stream.
	Robert, how you doing?
	Good, good.
	Okay, so there's multitasking and then there's multitasking up the wazoo.
	I think I'm up the wazoo right now, but I'm going to see how well I can do this.
	Just recommended The Rape of the Mind by Dr. Just Mirloo to my local public library.
	We'll see what happens.
	Robert, look, the world keeps getting more and more extreme in what's going on.
	Are you following what's going on in Canada with Justin Trudeau's re-election bid here?
	Different forms of bribery and extortion, I think.
	Well, let's simply put, that is the way some can see it.
	Bribery for the province's extortion to submit to these unscientific measures and it's vaccine passports.
	Vaccine passports and compelled face masking of kids as young as grade one, which, you know, they're fighting in the States.
	What is the state?
	What's going on now with...
	The mask mandates in Florida.
	There was an issue that DeSantis said it's not going to happen.
	Then local schools said it is going to happen.
	Where are they standing on that now?
	So you have a lot of school boards that want to impose mask mandates on school children, despite a lot of the controversial questions that have arisen about their efficacy and their side effects.
	That has, of course, led to lawsuits like the class action suit we described in New Jersey.
	Go into more detail on the medical scientific debate part of that at vivobarneslaw.locals.com because here on YouTube, they don't want any medical discussion about masks or about COVID or about vaccines.
	But the legal aspects are still very much in dispute.
	And what happened in Florida is the ACLU is filing suits claiming that somehow to help disabled kids, you need a forced mask on everybody.
	That's not exactly clear how that's supposed to work, but that's where the ACLU is these days.
	They're now advocating for the state to take away more of your rights in the name of civil liberties.
	They really do need to change their name.
	When I grew up, I grew up with the ACLU being called the Anti-Christian Liberties Union and the American Commie-Loving Union and all that kind of thing.
	But now, unfortunately, they've actually reverted to some of those ideological roots.
	But my understanding is the suit that was filed in Tallahassee.
	I believe in Leon County.
	And the judge, who's a very liberal Democratic judge, my understanding, said that the governor in the state of Florida does not have the prerogative to tell local school boards whether or not they can mandate masks, which is extraordinary because local governments are just an underling of the state government.
	They are a created entity of the state.
	It's not like the states created the United States.
	That's a whole different dynamic.
	But what you get is these local judges who, for political reasons often, prefer what the local government is doing to the state government, and they're pretending that the local governments formed the state government rather than the other way around.
	And so he said that somehow the governor doesn't, and the state of Florida can't tell its own subconstituent parts what to do.
	And these are- That's going to go up on appeal, because in other courts in Florida, they've already overturned mask mandates in other contexts.
	And these are public schools, right?
	It would be different, I presume, with private schools that can set their own- Not to a certain degree.
	I mean, well, I think the state of Florida just said no mask mandates, period, in any school.
	As my understanding, it might have been focused on public schools.
	Now, they can withdraw resources and things like that to public schools that they can't to private schools.
	But my understanding is this particular dispute concerned public schools.
	No, it is.
	And I'm having this discussion with our school that, you know...
	There's nothing we can do for grades one to six, but there are some places that are insisting that five-year-old kindergarten kids wear masks during the day.
	And at some point, I will vote with my dollar, and at some point, I am going to make more of a stink than I've been making, you know, for the last two years.
	Because, like we've discussed it, Robert.
	Would your little one keep a mask on all day?
	He doesn't strike me as the, okay, just defer to authority kind of kid.
	He might, just for other reasons, you know, when you're kids, you want to have band-aids.
	When you're kids, you want to have bruise.
	You know, you want to be hurt.
	You want to go to the hospital.
	You don't understand why you don't want that.
	So either way, it'll be a problem because if he doesn't want to put it on, it'll be a problem.
	And if he does, I don't want him thinking that this is somehow normal for a five-year-old.
	And, you know, I've been having the discussion.
	And we've had the discussion.
	In order for this mask mandate to make sense, it's not a question of symptomatic confirmed cases.
	It's not a question of symptomatic unconfirmed cases.
	It's not even a question of asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic cases in general.
	It is a case of asymptomatic, pre-symptomatic transmission among children, to children and then to others.
	And when you ask this question, what is the rate of transmission among asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic children in schools?
	Nobody knows.
	And then the argument just reverts to, well, it can't do any harm.
	And that's where I have the problem, because there are studies, albeit not very numerous and not very highlighted, showing that it does cause problems.
	And so I've had this discussion with someone.
	I said, even assuming the masks themselves are not potentially toxic, because we had that problem with, I think it was 500,000 masks in thousands of, in a bunch of schools that affected thousands of kids in Quebec.
	Assume the masks are good.
	Then assume that the hygiene of the masks are proper, because there are issues about improper hygiene with the masks causing problem.
	Assuming those two things, you get past those two checkboxes, then the issue is developmental issues in kids, in developing kids who need to see mouths to learn language, who need to see faces to develop psychologically normally.
	So we're trading off those potential risks for the unknown, unidentified, unsubstantiated risk of transmission among pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic kids.
	And I'm the heretic for insisting that it doesn't make sense.
	And until it does can be demonstrably justified.
	I wouldn't subject my kid to the unknowns.
	I guess that's my rant.
	I mean, I don't know where people get off justifying it for children when they haven't quantified in any meaningful sense the risk and identified it.
	And when they realize that that's what it is, I don't know how they justify it.
	And once again, a lot of these mandates by school boards don't go through the local city council or the county commission.
	They don't go through the legislative branch.
	They don't go through the democratic process.
	They don't get parental approval.
	They don't get public referral, public petition approval.
	None of that is often present.
	And so there's the issues about whether they can override the governor.
	A local portion of the government can override the governor.
	The second issue is whether or not they can do this without going through their own internal legislative process.
	And then the third is whether it meets constitutional scrutiny, given that it's an intrusion on kids.
	And, I mean, if you can't require certain clothing standards, unless you show clear evidence in support of them for school purposes, you can't control kids cursing people out off campus.
	And I agree with that decision, but like the Supreme Court held.
	How is it you're supposed to be able to stick a mask on their face in a way that limits their expressiveness and limits their learning capability, both of those being well-established by studies, without showing more medical data than they've shown?
	And so it's like whatever people think about masks, the question is what did they cite as the evidentiary foundation?
	What was their fact-finding process?
	And here we repeatedly find they often haven't done any or it's very limited.
	And so all three are major legal issues with masks, and the legal battle just continues.
	And right now what we're seeing is where there's been resistance to a lot of these lockdowns and mask mandates and vaccine mandates, people are finding somebody else in the political power structure to push back, whether it's the local government, the judiciary, the federal government, state government, whatever it is, they find where they have power and they fight back with that power.
	And so we're going to continue to see legal battles ongoing until the Supreme Court really sets clarity to this down the road.
	All right, now I'm going to try to read some rumble rants.
	The browser scrolls down very quickly.
	We got one that says, let me just get to it and see if I can't keep it there.
	Kitchener Creek says, my local PPC candidate is asking everyone to, it keeps scrolling up.
	Everyone to change their wife.
	Okay, sorry, I read that one already.
	I'm not going to be able to do this, people.
	Sorry.
	Okay.
	Robert, let's start with the simple ones, then we'll get into...
	No, you know what?
	Let's start with what I know everyone wants to talk about.
	Afghanistan updates.
	I guess let's bring everyone up to speed on the most recent updates, if we can, of what happened in Afghanistan in the last week.
	I mean, I say it's more of the same, but even more disastrous in that now, I think Saki now recognizes that a lot of Americans were stranded.
	They're talking about...
	Planeloads of people to get them out of there to secure access to the airports after the bombing.
	What's the latest and what is the sentiment of what's going on in the United States with Biden?
	Well, I think this week was the worst single incident of soldiers dying overseas in a decade, if I understand correctly.
	So the bombing that rocked Kabul airport.
	Which killed apparently at least 13 U.S. soldiers, including a lot of young men.
	And then anybody who complained about it within the military structure was summarily fired or dismissed.
	And all of this is going on while they're demanding soldiers take the vaccine that those that have either medical or religious or personal objections to.
	So it's been an extraordinary week if you're in the U.S. military.
	You experience one of the worst tragedies.
	In the history of the military in modern times, you get threatened if you speak out with termination or forced resignation or the like.
	If you simply point out that what's happened in Afghanistan has been a disaster and a debacle from a foreign policy perspective, from a humanitarian perspective and from a military perspective.
	And then you're also being forced to take an experimental drug for the first time in a long time.
	When soldiers have been the victim of government experimentation, non-consensual experimentation, for the last century, dating back to World War I. And so it's a disturbing time to be in the U.S. military, frankly.
	I mean, this is probably one of the worst weeks of a typical soldier's life, in terms of what they witnessed and what they experienced.
	And so Afghanistan is sort of the tip of the spear for that.
	There's talk that they'll try to create a legal safe zone, that the United Nations may try to pass that at the request of France and others to create a safe exit methodology in Afghanistan that's united.
	For people who don't know, there is legal history for this.
	Not only the way Berlin was broken up after World War II, that ultimately didn't turn out so great, but how it originally started out, the American quarter, Russian quarter, etc.
	But similar, you can go all the way back to Shanghai.
	Shanghai, at one point, there's a cool movie on it with John Cusack and some others that features Shanghai building up to World War II, where you had a French quarter, an American quarter, a Chinese quarter, and I forget what the, maybe the fourth one was, Japanese quarter, I'm not sure.
	But it was divvied up into quarters.
	It was a very international city.
	So the idea is, take some part of Kabul, make it safe for refugees.
	Make it the sole place where refugees can come and then have a safe travel mechanism either to Kabul Airport or to Bagram Airport out and that this all be under UN protection rather than US protection.
	And that's apparently the route they're trying to take.
	And hopefully that works.
	There are Americans still behind the lines.
	Tomorrow is the...
	I'm sorry, Tuesday, I believe, is the deadline that the US is...
	Says, you know, they're out and whoever's left behind, it's on them, apparently.
	And so this has been, you know, this week was a massive, and then apparently we did drone bombing and the rest.
	The legality of that, you can raise questions about.
	I mean, in all fair and loving war, well, almost nothing's legal really, in war at least, more often than not.
	But there's very rarely legal remedies for that.
	And then from an immigration perspective, there's going to be a massive number of asylum requests.
	Apparently coming.
	Like 50,000 or more.
	They're going to relocate Afghanis without identification in some cases, without verification in some cases, without vetting in some cases.
	And at least the last time there was a massive wave of war-torn refugees into Europe, it led to an onset of terror incidents.
	It led to an onset of crime incidents.
	It led to a lot of social dysfunction.
	It helped bring about Brexit in England.
	It helped bring about the rise of Le Pen in France.
	So, the legal immigration consequences, whether they can create some legal Casablanca-type safe zone exit from Kabul and Afghanistan, all of that will be major legal issues moving forward for this complete disaster of a policy.
	Now, two things.
	I mean, this is a question, Robert.
	Maybe you know the answer, maybe you don't.
	I mean, they left back, whether or not it was...
	There's an argument as to how you quantify what they left back.
	It wasn't...
	$80 billion or something.
	It was $80 billion that they had spent training the Afghan army, but they left an atrocious amount of military weapons, Blackhawks.
	I read somewhere that now the Taliban has something like the fourth largest fleet.
	I think it might have been a Blackhawk helicopters in the world.
	Would it not have been a better thing from a totally disastrous point of view, nonetheless, to just destroy all of the weaponry instead of leaving it there in the hands of the Taliban?
	Or was the idea that the Afghan army Was going to be able to maintain it and fend off the Taliban.
	That's why there were so many more weapons than soldiers.
	All that weapon was for the Afghan army.
	So what happened is the Afghan army just turned around and either gave it or sold it to the Taliban for the most part.
	And they've been negotiating this for months, by the way.
	The stories have been leaking out everywhere.
	Even an MSNBC reporter shot down other MSNBC commentators saying everybody knew this for months.
	And so the, but that's what, all that military was, the soldiers, all that weaponry was not left behind.
	It was left, it was given to the Afghan army and the Afghan political structure and the Afghan police force.
	And what it was is that just collapsed overnight because those had been 20 years of grifters.
	You know, the Julian Assange's criticism, others' criticism has turned out to be absolutely correct about what was going on in Afghanistan in the last 20 years.
	Is it a totally implausible strategy to think now maybe the best thing to do is actually, if you're going to drone strike, instead of drone strike humans, just blow up as much of what you left over there as possible so it can't be used by the Taliban?
	Yeah, but that would make them sideways with the Taliban.
	And they're trying to be friends with the Taliban.
	So technically they're only hitting the ISIS camps that the Taliban says they're not part of.
	There's disputes about...
	Exactly how distant the Taliban is from the new ISIS unit.
	It's called ISIS-K.
	This just keeps getting worse.
	These are people that are being held captive at Bagram and other places.
	Why those people were just left for the Afghan police and military to keep safe.
	You could see where that was coming.
	We created ISIS the first time around with what we did in Abu Ghraib.
	Robert, the more I think about it, I get goosebumps of rage because I understand now living through real time how you create insurrectionists, but rather militias.
	But this is creating and funding and...
	I mean, I just pulled up a chat that they have more Blackhawks in Australia.
	Whether or not they get to use them, it doesn't even matter if they can fly them.
	They can sell them to someone who can, and they're going to get whatever they're worth.
	But this, I mean, it's criminal.
	It seems criminal.
	I don't know any other way to put it, that you have now effectively armed what you have previously identified as a terrorist regime, treated as such, fought for the last 20 years.
	Now you've trained them, I guess, to some extent, because the people who are trained are certainly going to You know, go to the Taliban as opposed to the alternative, which is death, I presume.
	They have all this equipment, and you've effectively armed what you've identified as a terrorist regime, and now you're trying to make friends with them.
	And I think it was Posobiec who might have floated the idea that there's a theory that they might have allowed the bombing of Kabul airport because it then compels the rest of the world to negotiate with Taliban, thus legitimizing them as a government of sorts.
	And I can foresee it in the reasonable future being that the Western world is going to say, yes, now we have to treat the Taliban like a legitimate government and negotiate with them.
	And they're going to have effectively, in a way, used terror to get themselves in as a form of government.
	What do you think of Posobiec's idea if it was his?
	I forget.
	I mean, it's hard to know for sure, but you can't rule anything out at this point.
	Whatever you can say, the debacles continue to compound.
	All right.
	Now, so that's the heavy stuff.
	I did read somewhere that they were actually hiring private convoys or envoys.
	I forget what the word is, but they were hiring private detail to go pull people out of Afghanistan.
	I don't know if that's true.
	I don't know if you know any more of that than I do.
	Yeah, and the State Department's been trying to interfere with it.
	Yeah, okay.
	I mean, it seems deliberate.
	People say this seems deliberate.
	We can't argue intentions, but at some point, you know, never attribute malice to that.
	I don't know if we discussed it, but I know that you're going to have thoughts about it.
	The other ugly subject matter of the evening, Ashley Babbitt and the police officer now who has been identified, went on Lester Holt, did...
	I've only seen highlights.
	An interview that is, it explains and illustrates why mainstream media is fake news and the enemy of the people.
	In that Lester Holt conducting this interview, this is like Friends saying we're going to stage something and make it look like it's a hardcore interview and we're really trying to get at the truth.
	They've identified the police officer, Michael Byrd.
	It's public knowledge.
	He's identified himself.
	This was four days after a report came out from Capitol Police effectively exonerating him from having done what he did.
	He goes on, Lester Holt says, I saved countless lives by what I did.
	Robert, I mean, what is the internal review at the Capitol Police?
	What mechanism do they use to determine whether or not this officer should face any discipline?
	I mean, what they're supposed to do is follow Capitol Police procedures and other procedures for use of force.
	And they did not, in my view.
	As many commentators pointed out, that what he admitted...
	I mean, there was some doubt as long as maybe he saw or thought he saw a weapon.
	But he put all those issues to rest.
	Not only that, people showed the photos that he pulled his gun when he was still inside in ways that could go off towards a range of people.
	It was just complete recklessness.
	This is the same guy.
	Who left a gun in a bathroom once in the Capitol.
	So, I mean, this is someone who was not exercising care and caution and prudence with his weapon and had a history of it, but he admits she wasn't armed and he knew she was not armed and he shot her to kill anyway.
	And that's deeply...
	That admission did not help his civil case, nor did it help excuse...
	The failure of the Capitol Police to meaningfully inquire and investigate and prosecute, though that is the history of the Capitol Police.
	Mostly they're a cover-up unit for congressional corruption and bad acts in Congress.
	That's who they really are.
	And if anybody doesn't know, Michael Byrd, the lawyer, the police officer, or the Capitol Police officer in question, I think it was two years ago.
	Left his Glock in the bathroom of Capitol Hill.
	Public.
	Public bathroom.
	I know.
	I know nothing about weapons.
	I know that apparently the Glock is a unique firearm and that it doesn't have a safety, so trigger activates a shot every time.
	He left it in the bathroom.
	He did not report it.
	It was another police officer that reported it.
	And Lester Holt, you know, grilling him on this, call it a lapse of judgment.
	You know, grills them on it, asks them about it, and he says, I assume responsibility, accept responsibility, and they move on.
	And if anybody hasn't seen the interview, it will turn your stomach, because bear in mind, this is a situation of a police officer shooting to death, an unarmed woman, which he says, I didn't see any weapon, he doesn't identify whether or not he clearly gave her any instructions, did what he did.
	And is passing himself off as the victim because he claims to have gotten death threats as a result of what he did.
	And then Lester Holt actually drops the race card, proactively suggesting it because it didn't even come from an answer that Michael Byrd was giving him.
	And this is what the mainstream media does to get to the truth of this incident.
	It is stomach-turning.
	It's revolting.
	But the only thing I'm thinking the entire time this is going on, fine, he was never going to face any consequences disciplinary-wise, but the civil lawsuits are still ongoing, and he did not do himself any favors with this interview.
	I mean, he said things that are going to be used against him in that civil suit?
	Oh, of course.
	Of course.
	No question about that.
	It's going to be highlighted.
	He did not follow protocol and procedure.
	The question is whether it's wrongful death.
	Lower standard than intentional homicide.
	It's a civil case, not a criminal case.
	So preponderance of the evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt.
	There is no presumption of innocence in a civil case.
	That's a criminal case.
	And so here he is saying, I got a chance to shoot her.
	I did.
	I knew she was unarmed at the time.
	I didn't give her a warning beforehand.
	Because if he did, he would have said he did.
	So now we know those other facts we didn't know before.
	Is it the guy that has a history of being reckless with weapons?
	Is it the guy that was being reckless with weapons on the day, on January 6th, prior to this incident?
	And did he give a warning and did he see a weapon?
	And now we know all the answers to all of those are adverse to him and they come from his own lips.
	So it also shows what a ridiculous thing was.
	Contrast this case to Derek Chauvin and George Floyd.
	What's the difference?
	I mean, apparently it would have been just fine for Derek Chauvin to do what he did if he was black, Floyd was white, and he shot him first.
	Because I don't see any other meaningful difference.
	I think I'm getting in trouble for apparently having not gotten information on the Glock firearm correctly.
	Read the chat.
	I know nothing, and I prefaced it.
	So I should not have said anything, but that's what I understood was said in the interview.
	So I was not actually expecting...
	I have no idea.
	All right.
	So I say that for anyone who's lost despair in the disciplinary aspect, disciplinary side of all this, he's still facing the civil suit, and I was watching, and it didn't look good.
	And if I'm Ashley Babbitt's family's lawyer, taking notes and amending pleadings as this goes forward.
	I mean, the only thing he's got going for him is that the case will likely be prosecuted in the District of Columbia.
	So if it's in D.C. as a venue...
	That you got a jury pool that doesn't care and is all for summary executions of the wrong people politically.
	Leaving a gun in the bathroom sounds like he was part of a fair...
	It is right out of The Godfather.
	Alright, so we got the two heavy, ugly subjects out of the way because they do not instill confidence.
	In the administration, in the system, and you cannot blame anybody for feeling that way because I feel that way watching this.
	Let's get to some of the more, I call them lighthearted, let's get to some of the lesser serious items.
	We'll start with Candace Owens and Kimberly Klasick.
	So, for anybody who doesn't know, as I did not prior to reading the lawsuit, there was a beef between an up-and-coming Republican aspiring congresswoman, Kimberly Klasick.
	And Candace Owens.
	So apparently, you know, Kimberly ran one of the most viral campaigns when she was running for election, did not succeed, raised something like $8 million in campaign funds.
	Apparently $4 million of that dollars went to one advertising or consulting agency, which raised some eyebrows.
	And apparently, Candace Owens, for whatever the reason, Robert, we might get into what might have been the underlying motivation.
	But Candace Owens didn't like her, had said some things on a Facebook live stream to the effect that, Her boyfriend or her former husband ran a strip club, and she was a madame at that strip club, which we have diverging opinions on.
	Not you and I, but people on the internet have different understandings of what that definition means.
	She fraudulently misappropriated some of the campaign funds.
	She did illegal drugs.
	A bunch of things.
	Candace Owens went off on Kimberly Klasick, and Kimberly Klasick is now suing, alleging that she lost a book deal, damaged its reputation, etc., etc., defamation.
	That's pretty much it.
	It's another one of those defamation cases.
	The question is going to be actual malice.
	The question is going to be whether or not this lawsuit has a leg to stand on.
	First of all, Robert, do you have any theories as to why there was this beef between the two of them?
	It seems like they should be on the same side, no?
	Yeah, I mean, I think it reflects a bifurcation.
	There's two interpretations.
	One is that either way, it appears Candace Owens is gatekeeping at times.
	I personally am not a fan of that.
	Outside of really extraordinary circumstances.
	If you're dealing with people that are definitely bad actors, okay.
	But if it's anything short of that, I think that's a risky position to put yourself in.
	But I think the defenders of what Candace Owens did...
	Believe that she is trying to make sure money gets spent in the best way by donors, is looking out for donors' interests, and that she believes donors' interests were misspent on behalf of an almost impossible-to-win candidate.
	And that's one interpretation.
	That's what her defenders would say.
	Her critics would say this is about her wanting to be the only black female conservative big voice in the room and taking out anybody who tries to compete with her in that space.
	That's what the critics would say.
	You can read it however you want to.
	There's arguments on both sides.
	There's evidence for both sides.
	However, I think in terms of the lawsuit, I thought, as you pointed out, it's one of the worst introductions to a defamation suit I've ever seen.
	As a general rule, to defeat what is strong, attack what is weak.
	If you want to forfeit what is strong, remind everybody what's weak in your case.
	And that's what they do right out of the gate.
	She conditioned her statements by saying she had no idea if they were true, hadn't investigated them, hadn't researched them.
	She was just going to give her personal opinion of them based on rumors and innuendo.
	She admitted this right up front.
	And they decided to put it right in the front part of the lawsuit.
	So they killed their case almost out of the gate.
	They prefaced, I mean, it wasn't even prefaced.
	The intro paragraph said that Candace Owens prefaced everything she said by saying, I'm not an investigative journalist.
	I have no proof to substantiate my claims.
	They are unprovable, effectively, but nonetheless went on to make statements of fact, which to me, but when you preface that, it means that you're fundamentally not making a statement of fact.
	Everyone's going to know, okay, you have no proof for any of this.
	It's pure conjecture.
	And they start the lawsuit like this.
	I think they ended it before they started it.
	I agree.
	It would be like if I said, Popat kind of looks like the kind of guy that likes to diddle goats.
	But I don't have any evidence of that, and that's purely based on just crazy opinion.
	That's not really defamation.
	Defamation is if you don't have those caveats in your statement.
	And so I don't think they have a defamation claim.
	They have a disagreement, functionally, a political opinion disagreement.
	But if they were going to sue, I would not have included those caveats in the statement.
	Because what could have happened is somebody could have only heard the part of Candace Owens' statement that did not have that conditional component to it.
	And then, you know, if they were smart, that's what they would have sued on.
	They would have sued, people may have only heard this claim, and these claims are patently false.
	And, I mean, they would be deaf.
	I mean, it's not like Candace Owens held back.
	I mean, she accused her of a bunch of things that no question, or apparently Popat doesn't understand the distinction here.
	There's things that are defamatory that might not be legally actionable under our First Amendment interpretation.
	That doesn't change the fact that they're defamatory.
	Something is defamatory if a statement puts your reputation in a tarnished light.
	That's it.
	Just look up the definition of defamatory.
	Whether or not you have a constitutionally cognizable defamation legal cause of action requires that it be defamatory plus.
	Defamatory plus.
	A factual assertion rather than an opinion, actual malice if you're a public figure, so on and so forth.
	But that's our constitutional constriction on the cause of action of defamation.
	It's not part of the definition of defamation itself.
	These statements were clearly defamatory.
	The question is whether they're constitutionally cognizable, given that Kim Klasick is a public figure, and given that Candace Owens made clear her statements were not factual, but were opinion for which she had no foundation.
	Yep.
	All right.
	Well, we'll see where it goes.
	I said it was a bad way to start the suit.
	We'll see what Candace raises.
	I mean, she's going to come in with a motion to dismiss.
	Sure as sugar?
	No.
	It is in Baltimore, so it's not like Canis Owens is going to have a lot of...
	I mean, neither one of them are necessarily going to have a sympathetic jury pool in that context, but Canis Owens might have less sympathy than otherwise.
	And Robert, can Babbitt family reasonably seek change of venue out of D.C. for civil suit?
	I know we've discussed this, but it's worth addressing again.
	Richard Barris, People's Pundit, did a big detailed poll.
	People should get this information.
	I know he is getting it to Matt Brainerd, who's getting it to people, but should get this information, Julie Kelly, American Greatness, other people, Darren Beatty.
	Get it to anybody that's involved or connected to the January 6th defendants, because all the lawyers should use what Richard Barris found, People's Pundit found, which was that the D.C. jury poll is absurdly contaminated.
	That he asked, do you think these defendants are already guilty?
	Number one, do you presume them guilty?
	And number two, do you presume them guilty of severe, serious crimes they haven't even been accused of?
	And over 90% of the D.C. jury pool concluded that January 6th defendants, and this is how it's relevant, clearly pertinent to the Babbitt case, that over 90% of them presumed that they're guilty and believed they were guilty of death penalty level.
	Crimes of sedition and insurrection, which they have not even been accused of.
	By contrast, that number is less than half in almost any other jury pool in America.
	So that's as strong a ground as you can possibly have to change venue.
	And I think that, I mean, if Babbitt can, I would file the suit.
	I wouldn't file in the District of Columbia if I could find a legal basis not to.
	But even if I filed it, I would ask for our jury pool to be brought in from outside of D.C. because clear D.C. jury...
	Cannot be fair in the Ashley Babbitt case, just like it cannot be impartial, constitutionally impartial in the January 6th cases.
	All right.
	And I missed a big super chat from Django Fett, who said, how big was the blowback that led to jurors refusing to convict, which eventually led to the First Amendment of the Constitution?
	I don't know what that...
	Oh, I mean, that goes way back, so I'm not sure which case he's referring to, but I assume he's referring to pre-constitutional history questions.
	The jurors used to be able to decide the law and the facts.
	Our courts came up, fictionalized the fake doctrine to pretend that the juries weren't supposed to decide the law.
	They came up with that on their own.
	They're like, eh, we don't think jurors should have the law.
	Because the great Patrick Henry case, give me liberty or give me death, a closing argument case, was because jurors controlled the law, because they found the defendant guilty.
	They also controlled sentencing.
	They just sentenced him to $1 to make their point about the tobacco tax.
	So my view is jurors should control all of it.
	But what he's referring to is that certain protections that were in place made clear the necessity of the First Amendment at the time of the...
	I assume is what he's referencing.
	All right.
	Okay, so that does it with Candace Owens.
	We'll see where it goes.
	I'm predicting a motion to dismiss.
	I think it's a bad lawsuit.
	It's a curious lawsuit.
	I don't know.
	I mean, I know she was using it as a sort of a bouncing path.
	I mean, I'm not as critical of her as other people are.
	A lot of people run in these hard-to-win places on both sides.
	And historically, it helps people down-ballot and up-ballot.
	So focusing on whether you can win against Elon Omar is, in my view, a mistake.
	For example, Take your district, your race, right?
	People say, ah, you know, why waste time?
	You're in an overwhelmingly liberal pro-Trudeau district.
	You know, if you get 3% of the vote, you've tripled the amount of PPC support.
	You know what I mean?
	But it's because people don't understand how elections really work in the broader context.
	They don't understand how it impacts the court of public opinion.
	And in America...
	The reason why Democrats run a candidate everywhere, even in districts they're going to lose by 60 points, is because they understand putting somebody out there engages members of the public in the ideas that you care about.
	Number one.
	Number two, it increases turnout participation that will matter up-ballot and down-ballot for state house, state senate, city council, county commission, and then up-ballot governor, attorney general, secretary of state, secretary of agriculture, senator, president.
	So I disagree with these critics out there, particularly when you're trying to break through on the Republican side.
	You're trying to break into the African-American community to break the Democratic lock on that vote.
	And I thought she ran very good video ads.
	I mean, she ran against one of the most well-established.
	Black Democrats in the country, at least of all Baltimore.
	And Baltimore has a strong political machine.
	So getting over 20% was an achievement.
	So I think the criticisms that people have have been unfair.
	And God bless Candace Owens.
	She doesn't lack for money.
	So I don't think it's necessary.
	Some of these criticisms are necessary or productive.
	Tend to agree as well.
	I mean, specifically, you say silly things, whether or not they are not cognizable or actionable suits is one question, but what good does it do to anybody?
	The infighting looks, it looks like, it looks catty, it looks superficial and childish, and, you know, it doesn't do anybody any good.
	When they're technically on the same team, if it's not clear-cut, corruption, black and white, yada yada, nobody has a perfectly clean history.
	Some have dirtier histories than others, but reading the lawsuit, it didn't seem like it was necessary.
	That being said, I think the lawsuit is going to fail.
	And speaking of lawsuits that are going to fail, the guy on the Nirvana cover album suing Nirvana, everyone in the band, the estate of Kurt Cobain, Geffen Records, all of you, suing them on the basis that the cover album for Nevermind, which features a naked four-month-old boy...
	Underwater with a superimposed fishhook through a dollar bill and it was intended to illustrate the materialistic aspect of society, babies chasing money.
	Well, this baby now has turned 30 years old and has sued under a federal statute, not that it changes much, which is based on the idea that if anyone participates in the creation, promotion, diffusion of CP, cheese pizza, They can be held to liquidated damages on behalf of the victim for $150,000 per defendant, I presume.
	So, his name is Eldon.
	His last name is Eldon.
	I think it's...
	Someone help me.
	It's Eldon.
	Something Eldon.
	He's reached the age of 30. He has sued on the basis that that album cover qualifies as CP because the imposition or the superimposition of the dollar bill creates a connotation of sex worker to the...
	To the image that he is, therefore, that it is what it is, and therefore he gets to sue under this provision of law.
	The biggest issue that I saw right off the bat, I didn't know the statute of limitations was 10 years in the United States from majorityhood or adulthood.
	But apparently, even by the simplest reading of the law, this lawsuit had to have been filed within 10 years of reaching 18, and this guy's 30 now.
	But setting all that aside, Robert...
	Okay, first of all...
	The criteria to recognize that cover album as CP, what would it require?
	I have no idea what the threshold is in the United States.
	Could that ever be recognized as what he wants it to be recognized as?
	Not in my view.
	I mean, the law is pretty clear, and there's First Amendment restrictions on the interpretation of the law.
	We discussed this when we talked about Scalia made critical points about this in the Cuties context.
	I mean, Scalia's comments predated, obviously, the Cuties film, but made the point about what is and isn't.
	It has to be legally clear for a range of reasons.
	And this just isn't the definition.
	I mean, the reality is, first of all, you have the fact that 99.9% of the people who saw that image didn't think that at all.
	That was Kurt Cobain's point back at the time.
	He's like, anybody who looks at that image and sees something sexual is a closeted pedo and needs to be examined.
	But the other thing is, I guess that photo turned out accurate.
	Because that kid does like to chase money.
	Well, there's so many things wrong with the lawsuit.
	A few people say they don't care.
	I can appreciate people think that this guy is just chasing money.
	I can appreciate other people saying...
	Because, you know, I did...
	We had a Twitter...
	Someone was asking Eliza Blue on Twitter what she thinks of it.
	And I do know people are going to have different impressions as to when someone can come to grips with the fact that they feel that they were a victim of something.
	But this guy, other than the fact that this is prescribed by law, it had to be done within 10 years of turning 18. There would be some argument that he implicitly gave up any claim by virtue of the fact that he recreated this image himself every five years as the anniversary.
	Apparently the suing was timely, but the lawsuit seems doomed.
	He was suing a band member who was not part of the band when that album was released.
	They had no longer been part of the band as of the time it was released.
	So you're going to see some people out there who are going to think...
	Or maybe realistically, that this is just attention grab, money grab.
	Others might give them a little more benefit, but the lawsuit is...
	I'm not wrong.
	The lawsuit is destined to fail immediately.
	Okay.
	Well, that's good.
	We'll move on, because I don't think people actually do care about this all that much.
	Based on the interest in the video as well, I thought people would be more interested in it, but maybe it's just people have had enough of opportunistic lawsuits for things that, you know...
	Someone said the real Banjooga...
	It would be the ultimate irony if it turned out to not be him on the cover album.
	And I think it's also just Nirvana has faded with time.
	It's more our generation remembers it more than some others.
	All right, and we got on Rumble, it says, Z-O-M-G, this is awesome, me, LOL, says 20 bucks.
	Rumble also don't care about the Nirvana kid.
	Okay, let's get to the stuff that I know people are going to care about.
	Biden losing yet again in court.
	I guess we'll start with the CDC eviction moratorium.
	Okay, Robert, so we covered it many times.
	You called it.
	People say it was an easy call, but it doesn't matter.
	You make the easy calls.
	You make the hard calls.
	You make the calls that people don't even know are coming.
	The Supreme Court came down six to three.
	It was the three dissenting were Breyer's...
	The three Democratic appointees.
	Sotomayor and Kagan.
	And Kagan.
	Okay.
	Even Roberts flipped his opinion because he initially didn't join the...
	It was four justices initially that said this is obviously illegal, not authorized by statute.
	Kavanaugh salvaged it by saying, yes, it's illegal, but hey, it's almost about to expire, so let's wait.
	But Roberts didn't join them.
	Now, because of the outrage, because of how it made the court look like it was inept and incompetent and a joke, Roberts flipped sides and joined them so that only the three liberals were left dissenting, and 6-3 said, no, clearly Congress never gave this authority.
	Congress will have to try to give them this authority.
	Maybe they have it.
	Maybe Congress has the authority.
	Maybe they don't.
	I don't believe under the Interstate Commerce Clause they have the authority to regulate.
	Intrastate landlord-tenant relationships myself.
	But I don't think they have the constitutional authority.
	But it'd be like part of the way Robert salvaged the case is by limiting the analysis to a statutory analysis without doing a constitutional analysis because it was sufficient to do the statutory analysis.
	That's also probably why he joined the case because an internal rule in the Supreme Court is the Chief Justice, if he's part of the majority, he assigns whoever it is going to write the decision.
	Or he is the final author on the decision.
	So Roberts does this all the time, where he'll deliberately join a particular side he doesn't even agree with, so he can control what is said in the decision itself.
	But it was a foreclosed, in my view, always.
	But the D.C. Circuit said just the opposite.
	They said, oh, clearly this will be upheld.
	And clearly, of course, it was not.
	I'm more interested in the dissent than I am in the majority decision, because the majority decision is just obvious.
	They say the CDC, Does not have this authority.
	You are depriving people of private property.
	You're basically nationalizing rental ownership to the state.
	None of it made any sense whatsoever.
	It couldn't be justified under any criteria of law if Congress wanted to do it.
	Instead of sitting on the steps of Congress complaining, they should have been in Congress trying to pass a law.
	And if it doesn't pass, that's where it ends.
	So, I mean, that was the majority decision.
	It's constitutional law 101.
	I'm just fascinated by the dissent because I thought the dissent at one point was purely procedural in that they say, well, we're dissenting because we don't want to make a decision.
	Now we want to hear the full briefing on the file, although I don't even know what that would look like.
	But they went one step further and said that this could be justified because the balance of the inconvenience or the balance of the risk or harm.
	Ways in favor of the people who are getting kicked out of their apartments and not in favor of the landlords who are just losing a little bit of money.
	If you can steelman the dissent, how do you steelman the dissent?
	Well, you ignore the statutory issues, you ignore the constitutional issues, and you just disguise your political biases as an equity-balancing injunctive analysis.
	So you say, well, we're only here to decide whether a preliminary injunction should issue.
	That requires we look at the balance of the equities, and we say that the balance of the equities are imbalanced in favor of not giving the injunction based on our political beliefs that we'll disguise as factual realities.
	And now that happens all the time.
	Courts do this frequently.
	Now, the argument is that the problem is connecting it to the CDC's rationale.
	Because it's one thing to say, you know what, we don't want a lot of people evicted.
	That's one thing.
	That eviction is more consequential than money.
	You could make that claim.
	But it's another thing to say that's the role of the CDC.
	What they would have to say is this eviction will cause a massive spike in COVID.
	And you had people like Breyer.
	Using charts, because this is what more and more judges do.
	They go to the internet and look up what they want to look up, and they found charts that were outdated.
	So Breyer cited a chart saying, look at this surge.
	And one, I was like, okay, that has nothing to do with evictions.
	You're showing no correlation.
	Two, he failed to include all the data that showed the surge going the other way.
	And he obviously didn't even know.
	That the chart he was showing was based on PCR testing, which has its own controversy in terms of accuracy and efficacy.
	But yeah, the argument would be that the CDC is right factually, that this will lead to a massive spike in COVID, which they've never fully said.
	They just said maybe, and it could.
	And you say that emergency health concern means that we shouldn't get involved on an injunctive basis right now.
	And, well, let's wait to do the statutory and constitutional argument later.
	They're mostly saying that because the fact that the dissent did not go to great lengths to say this was statutorily authorized or constitutionally unquestionable tells you that even the dissent knows that this is not something that's authorized by law.
	This is not something that's likely approvable.
	They're just saying, it sounds like a good policy, so let's pretend otherwise.
	And for those people who might critique me politically or critique us politically, I said the same thing when Trump did it.
	I said, this is politically smart and unconstitutional and illegal.
	The same logic that Trump had is what the three liberals had.
	Hey, this might be a popular policy, so let's keep it around.
	Someone's saying, is this not eminent domain, Brad Thorne, and why is no one talking about it?
	So I just Googled it.
	Eminent domain is taking.
	But explain what eminent domain is.
	So this is, in my view, it's a regulatory taking, what they call regulatory taking, which is by regulation when the government...
	Does an action that effectively prevents you from effectively using your property.
	It's still a debate.
	I mean, true eminent domain, they actually take your property.
	This is not conventional eminent domain.
	This is, in my view, regulatory taking because the language eminent domain isn't in the Fifth Amendment.
	It's if the government takes your property, they have to give you just compensation, period.
	And this is clearly taking property, in my view.
	And it's taking a core right of the property, which is to be able to rent it or not rent it to whom you want.
	But it's unlikely that the courts are going to acknowledge this as a regulatory taking.
	So it is likely that the landlords will never be compensated for their laws.
	And I mean, yeah, I was just questioning what the dissenting said we should wait for a full briefing on the file.
	What does a full briefing look like?
	Because it seems to me there's not really much...
	I don't know what left...
	There isn't anymore.
	They're just saying, hey, we think this is a good policy.
	It's probably bad law, but let's wait a little longer.
	That's all they're really...
	That's what waiting for a full briefing is.
	It's wait a little longer because we think the politics are good, even if the law is bad.
	And, you know, if I had...
	If they were smart, they would have proposed a compromise and said, we'll acknowledge this as a regulatory taking.
	That way all the landlords will be compensated by the government at the end of this in exchange for continuing and allowing the eviction moratorium to continue.
	They weren't willing to do that because they don't want to give it a regulatory taking either.
	They want the government to take property without having to pay you for it.
	Yep.
	And why couldn't Congress have gotten this passed if indeed it was something that they think they had the support to do?
	How long does it take to get this passed by Congress if they wanted to?
	Oh, it was up in August, and they just couldn't get support for it.
	That was their problem.
	They wanted to vote for it, because they know that it's not that popular.
	It's popular, but not so overwhelmingly popular as to be sustainable over time.
	Especially not without compensation.
	Again, this would be different if they told the landlords, we'll pay the rent instead.
	They're not doing that.
	I read somewhere that some of the landlords were getting 80% of property value or fair market value, but not 100%.
	It wasn't zero, so they...
	It also depends on the landlords.
	Big landlords are getting paid, smaller landlords are not.
	So there's a big, big gap between who they are, as a general rule.
	And someone in the chat said this is a great way to wipe out the small landlords and allow for the mass acquiring of residential units by...
	I don't know.
	Hedge funds.
	It's already happening.
	The number one buyer driving up prices in homes is not consumers.
	It's hedge funds.
	They're buying up properties and they plan on renting them out.
	It's not like they're going to live in all of them.
	I believe the name was Blackrock.
	And what I did notice going door to door, by the way, even in my own area, I noticed a lot of places were being rented by people who were not from, based on the fact they said they were not eligible voters, people not from around here.
	And it's very interesting to see houses in my particular neighborhood.
	As you get higher up in Westmount, the houses get bigger and more expensive.
	To see people who are not residents renting out those places and the residents whom I've known for my whole life.
	Not living there anymore.
	It's a very interesting dynamic as to what we see going on with home ownership.
	Alright, so that's a done deal.
	Actually, practically speaking now, what happens to the landlords?
	They get to evict and they're going to get screwed if they haven't gotten paid?
	Yeah, they get to start evicting.
	But it depends on where they're at because there's some city governments and state governments that have their own eviction moratoriums in place.
	Well, and I was thinking, comparing it to Quebec law, Quebec law, you don't just get to evict a tenant, you have to take him to the, we call it the Régis du Logement, which is like the, I don't know, the rental board.
	All that has to be done here.
	Usually two weeks, you have to go through a judicial process, you can't do self-help, none of that.
	In Quebec, it's one step worse, is that the tenant can wait until they get a judgment, and they can...
	Pay everything they owe, right up until judgment, and not get evicted.
	That's true in many parts of the states.
	It's an absolute screw-up.
	Some of these people owe a year's rent.
	Their whole thing was living there free while they were buying a boat.
	They'll just be looking for a new place.
	That's all.
	They're going to abscond.
	The landlord is going to be left holding a nice empty bag filled with a little bit of SHIT, and it's going to be wonderful.
	Okay, on the issue of one screwy decision, let's get to the other one, Robert.
	Immigration laws being racist.
	Now, it's a massive decision, and it's a massive judgment.
	I skimmed through it, and you're going to have to go into the details, because the bottom line I took away from it is that you have immigration laws in the United States that are now at least one judge.
	I believe it's a Barack Obama appointee, and I had the reflex of just reading it.
	What's sent like a hissy fit of a decision, where they're basically saying that immigration laws that are specifically designed to target illegal immigrants are discriminatory and therefore not applicable to the very illegal immigrants who crossed the border, who were subject to the law and now subject to the consequences of the law.
	You have to explain the law to us, you have to explain the history to this, and then you have to explain the judgment insofar as it can be explained.
	Well, it's one of the most commonly used criminal laws to deport people that have committed crimes or violated the law to get here.
	So if this case was upheld across the country, you couldn't criminally enforce the basic immigration law pretty much at all.
	So its consequences potentially are extraordinary.
	Now, she's right historically, but wrong in terms of its current application in my view.
	I've been in front of that judge before.
	She tried to kick me out of a case once.
	Didn't know what she was doing.
	She thought she had the power to do whatever she wanted.
	I don't like a lawyer.
	He's out of here.
	And I was like, no, you can't really do that.
	And I had to explain it to her.
	And it was amazing watching the brain slowly process things and get back in.
	So not a shock that this is the judge.
	Now, what's historically true is if you go back far enough, all of our immigration laws have a lot of racism attached to them.
	I mean, one of our anti-exclusion immigration bills was called the Chinese Exclusion Law.
	So, yeah.
	So, I mean, it was clearly, I mean, there was no...
	That's why I found it when people are going nuts over Trump and Muslim exclusion, I'm like...
	We kind of have a long history of this, and the Supreme Court used to say this is constitutional, actually.
	The law in question at one point, I think it was called, the judgment referred to it as the wetback law, and I also did not know what that term meant and had to Google it, but was it in fact called the wetback law, or was she just...
	Internally, yeah.
	And there are other ones.
	You go to the 1920s, and all you've got to go through is a congressional record littered with racial prejudice.
	Remember, this was the eugenics era.
	This is the same people who are preaching, they stick a needle in your arm.
	You know, they were all against the lower races coming into the country.
	And it was mostly then.
	It wasn't mostly anti-Asian.
	It wasn't mostly anti-Latino.
	It was overwhelmingly anti-European, Southern European and Central European and Eastern European.
	And it was anti-Semitic, too.
	But there was a lot of, they hated the Italians, they hated the Greeks, they hated the Irish.
	I mean, that's why the whole Kennedy family still has kind of a grievance against the WASP.
	I mean, that goes back centuries of Irish WASP competition and political competition in Boston, where they were subject to, I mean, the most famous, you know, racial exclusion sign in America was, no Irish need apply.
	I mean, that was the most commonly used one across the broadest geographic landscape.
	So no question that all those immigration laws back then had that history attached to them.
	What did not make sense is saying, because they thought this about immigration in the 1920s, I'm not going to allow you to enforce immigration laws in 2020, a century later.
	These immigration laws don't have any racism attached to them at all.
	They have no racial prejudice in their history, in their heritage, nor necessarily even in their application.
	They apply it strictly to...
	Canadians as they do to Mexicans, as they do to people coming from any part of the world.
	So I thought that was the part of saying this old history means we can't do anything now and immigration makes no sense to me.
	Now, the law itself basically says if you've committed a crime, was it coming in beforehand or once here?
	Or did it make a difference?
	My understanding was it was once here.
	But it depends on the law.
	There's some laws that allow you to deport someone who's committed a crime elsewhere, but usually it's applicable to crimes committed here as an automatic right of deportation.
	And to say, you know what, a lot of the people who invented this law a century ago, they're racist, so now we're going to pretend it's racist to deport people who've committed a crime after they're here, often after they're here illegally?
	The whole issue is the law, it's the law by design was intended to target that very demographic is illegal immigrants who commit a crime.
	And therefore, by the rationale of the judge itself.
	That's exactly right.
	That's what she was saying.
	Because there was racism a century ago, you can never have any law that has this application, which is the primary enforcement mechanism to deport the most dangerous illegal immigrants in the country.
	That's why it has huge political consequences.
	The chance it gets upheld are extremely low.
	But the fact that you have any federal judge willing to go that far shows where some of the judges are going.
	The experts that the judge referred to that were presented to the court to explain the history of the evolution of the legislation.
	I mean, it's incredible that you could then, you could basically suspend application of a law that is intended to protect and by the most obvious terms of the law.
	Because of historical or experts who testified to the origins of the law.
	For anybody who doesn't know, in Canada, it's called the Indians Act now because they changed the name.
	The name at the time was the Law on the Savages.
	In French, it was La Loi sur les Sauvages.
	And they changed the name because they thought that was too offensive.
	And now they still call it the Indian Act because...
	Everyone thought that when they came here, they saw the natives in Canada.
	They thought they had found the route to India, so they called them Indians.
	And the law still called that.
	But the idea of invalidating a law which is intended to protect borders and allow for the deportation of illegal entries who have committed crimes, I mean, where does the lunacy end?
	What is going to be the practical impact?
	Is the law suspended effectively until it gets appealed, or how does that work?
	I don't think the law has been suspended.
	That's not my understanding.
	The law will continue to be enforced until the Court of Appeals validates it.
	Even the Ninth Circuit, I can't see going this far.
	Even if they did, this would be the kind of case the Supreme Court would take up and overturn.
	What do we move on to now?
	Do we want to go on to the sanctions against Linwood and Sidney Powell?
	Sure.
	Okay, so for those who don't know, I mean, we've covered it before.
	We've covered it a lot.
	They got into trouble for the things that they said, the manner in which they conducted their files.
	They faced disciplinary actions, and apparently they have now been sanctioned.
	Robert, what are the sanctions against Sidney Powell and Linwood?
	So, I mean, I think that not a surprise in general.
	I still think the court's motivation is political, not professional, not ethical.
	I think it's politics that's driving this.
	I don't think she would do the same thing to other people in other political situations.
	And my guess is if somebody researched her record, you won't find her ever doing this to someone who shares her politics, particularly not governmental lawyers, who have done the same thing and worse repeatedly, I'm sure, in her courtroom.
	But with that caveat, some of us warned from the inception that the way they were handling these cases was going to subject them to precisely this risk, and they had poorly I mean, the surprise to me was whacking everybody for everything.
	So even younger lawyers who just had their name on the file, and every federal court knows that many lawyers' names are added to a filing or to a case file for a range of reasons, and it does not mean...
	That they think they're reading and reviewing and researching every single thing that ever gets filed in the court.
	I'm going to use this against judges, by the way, because when we seek legal fees in civil rights cases for all the lawyers on the file, you know what the courts say?
	The courts say, you shouldn't have had three lawyers looking at that.
	You should have only had one lawyer looking at that.
	Well, if you're going to sanction lawyers because they didn't look at it...
	Then you, by golly, are going to write that check from the government the next time.
	I'm not going to listen to that argument again.
	But it shows you what hypocrites so many of these judges are.
	It's how politically motivated they are.
	When the government's got to write a check, it's unethical to have two lawyers on the file look at a case, but it's unethical to not have them look at it when they want to sanction it.
	So I thought that was really, I mean, to whack a bunch of these smaller lawyers who are just sticking their name on the file.
	Just political vindictiveness.
	That's how that whole opinion read.
	Well, that's the thing because I saw a lot of names I didn't recognize.
	I'd never heard of before.
	And what drives me nuts, I'm reading the decision and it's just they are retrying everything that the lawyers did and they're effectively coming to conclusions in this disciplinary file that, unless I'm mistaken, the courts never came to on their own.
	It just, it seems like a trial within a trial on a trial that never had a judgment.
	And I mean, it seemed overbroad, but it just also, again, seemed like a lashing.
	It just seemed like they were looking to come to conclusions that had never been come to before, but that you could never contradict because you never came to conclusions in other files that could even allow you to contradict what the judge was coming to in this case to justify the sanctions.
	But I saw names that I'd never seen before.
	Yeah, exactly.
	I mean, so she whacked everybody, whoever had their name, as if they're all equally jointly liable.
	So I thought that was very excessive.
	Her other big mistake, in my view, was they all requested an evidentiary hearing, and she denied it.
	If she's so right so that she can be self-righteous about what was true, why is she so scared of an evidentiary hearing?
	Why is another judge in the election context that's so confident the facts couldn't possibly support?
	The claims so scared to have that person put under cross-examination, no less, where the judge could be part of the cross-examination.
	It speaks volumes that the judge thinks that in an evidentiary hearing, the judge's arguments would look weaker, would look poor, that at least some portion of those claims would end up being credible, that the judge would end up being looking like the one who's political, who's being incredulous, who's abusing power, the things she accused the lawyers of being.
	But all that being said, Sidney Powell made basic mistakes in the file.
	Lin Wood made basic mistakes in the file.
	One minute Lin Wood is saying, I'm the hero.
	I'm responsible for all of this.
	And the next minute he's saying, oh, I had nothing to do with this.
	I wasn't involved.
	Well, which is it, Lin?
	I mean, that's setting yourself up for the problems.
	And then what the judge did is they're going to have to pay all the fees and costs of the other side.
	Now, they're going to appeal all this, of course.
	But the other is she referred them to the real reason for this.
	Was to get them referred, to get them suspended and disbarred as lawyers.
	And then the third objective was to make a bunch of political arguments in the court of public opinion.
	Because if you Google lawsuit this week, of the top 20 articles, over half of them are this case.
	Was this really the most important legal news of the week?
	In a case in which what happened in Afghanistan, what happened in all these other cases?
	No.
	But according to the media, it was because that's who the judge wrote this opinion for.
	And it allows them to distract also from the failed narrative attempt with the January 6th.
	Now you go back to the...
	I mean, I forget who else they're talking about the big lie again and the elections issue, and this is what they're citing.
	But yeah, the judgment...
	I'm using the word hissy fit multiple times tonight.
	The judgment read another like a hissy fit, where you just want to...
	You want to demonize to the nth degree the lawyers involved in a file.
	For what, by and large, disagree with them all you want.
	There may have been some mistakes, you know, the affidavits or other issues about filing a pleading on behalf of someone who was not your client.
	Big issues.
	But ordinarily, it would be forgivable if you wanted to forgive.
	This was unforgivable because you want to make an example.
	And it was conveniently timed in that it allows to sort of distract from the failed narrative with the January 6th, which people are still going with.
	But so, what ultimate sanctions, by the way, were they disbarred in, they were only disbarred in.
	Yeah, the judge doesn't have that authority.
	So she referred them for suspension and disbarment proceedings and ethical investigation, both in Michigan, because when you file a pro hoc admission, you're subject to that court's discipline, and in their court of licensure, in Sidney Powell's case, D.C., I'm sorry, Texas, and Lynn Wood's case, Georgia.
	Linwood already faces ethics investigations in Georgia anyway.
	But she also did it for all those younger lawyers who don't have big defenses.
	Some of them were working with Sidney Powell and left.
	That, I thought, was just being really vindictive and punitive and showed the scale and scope of it.
	If the judge had been smart, she would have given him an evidentiary hearing.
	She would have limited her sanctions to the lawyers who particularly signed off on things, not everyone who didn't.
	And she would have focused on a couple of egregious screw-ups that Powell and Wood made, and nothing more.
	And then she would have been on very firm ground from appellate review, very firm ground from political review, and in a much better position.
	It would still have always been politically motivated.
	Find me the case where that judge has ever sanctioned a prosecutor for committing violations in her court.
	This is, after all, this may be a good transition, this is the same courthouse, or right, it's the same court system.
	She's in the, I think, Eastern District as opposed to the Western District of Michigan, where they're going after the Whitmer kidnapping cases, and that got even crazier this week.
	Robert, update us.
	I'll chime in in a second.
	Some of us have been saying this.
	It's the kind of thing you could guess from a hush-hush.
	At avivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	That's a playlist available to folks.
	That's also where people can get the vaccine mandate lawsuit updates and all the rest.
	But the one theory is that often behind these so-called right-wing troll accounts and right-wing social media accounts that seem to behave in counterproductive ways, there might be a famous name out there that might be associated with this, but you can draw your own inferences.
	Is that often they're feds.
	They're either rats, they're informants, or they're actually feds.
	This is many of the accusations lingering in the January 6th cases.
	Well, it came out this week, according to no less a source than BuzzFeed on the left.
	So BuzzFeed is politically opposed to the defendants in the Whitmer cases, but they keep exposing that this is insane misconduct.
	An FBI agent was the one...
	There was a company owned by an FBI agent was running fake troll accounts on social media, fake right-wing accounts that was actually complicit in this whole scam.
	Robert, I'm telling you this now.
	When we see that BuzzFeed is exposing it...
	I swear to you, I don't think they're exposing it.
	I think they're trying to normalize it to get people to say, oh, this is totally acceptable conduct to capture those pesky right-wing extremists.
	We have to create them.
	They're normalizing the entrapment, and this is just the next level.
	They're reporting on it, only to make people accept it as being normal, par for the course, in FBI.
	Conduct, not misconduct.
	So go ahead.
	The other side of that is the left has often accused the feds for the last 20 years of doing this to people on the left or doing this to people they call terrorists.
	So that might be a sincere reason why there's journalists on the left bothered by the Whitmer case because they can look past the politics of it.
	And see, this is a method of operation that we've seen before.
	And now it's an opportunity for us to show to the right what we were complaining about during the Bush era that continued often in the Obama era with the FBI, is they were often doing these entrapment plots, calling them terrorism plots that they broke up.
	And if you dug in, you'd find some 17-year-old kid that they gave the whole idea to.
	And so that the smart journalists on the left are recognizing this is an opportunity.
	To build political bridges to show there's a systemic, systematic problem with the way the FBI investigates these cases.
	But I mean, the deeper you dive down the rabbit hole, it gets worse and worse and worse for the FBI.
	From a cynical perspective, maybe BuzzFeed appreciates that there's people who want to read this, so it's good for clicks if they actually finally report honest news.
	Or my cynical perspective, they're just trying to synthesize.
	But yeah, it keeps getting worse in a way that is beyond comprehension.
	Just to recap for everybody, it started off with, you know, there were informants guiding this mission.
	There were many informants, upwards of 12, maybe more, paid informants who had leadership roles.
	There were FBI agents who themselves, you know, were guilty of things like grievous bodily harm to their spouses.
	Other issues driving this plot.
	And at the end of the day, you have a bunch of people who have never done anything wrong, from what it seems, who were egged into this by the FBI, conveniently timed, conveniently placed kidnapping plot.
	And now you literally have next level...
	It's not even entrapment anymore.
	It's framing innocent people, effectively, or it's just framing a crime.
	It is...
	It's going to be amazing.
	I mean, we're going to see.
	I think that one guy, Ty Garbin, who now, I think he was sentenced to, did he get sentenced to six years?
	Sentenced a lot.
	Yeah, six years.
	I mean, it was still less than the feds asked for.
	But what an insane sentence.
	That kid clearly shouldn't have pled.
	You know, he pled early.
	Maybe he's got some collateral exposure we don't know about, but to a crime that appears to have entirely been of the FBI making, and it just keeps getting worse and worse and worse.
	The FBI involved in the social media accounts, running front companies, involved in side hobbies, involved in other criminal conduct while orchestrating this whole thing, paying off people, instructing people to delete emails and destroy evidence.
	I mean, I don't know if you could have a worse case than this case is turning out to be in terms of FBI misconduct and malfeasance.
	No, no, it's phenomenal.
	And again, the one that you call, the easy calls are easy to say.
	The harder calls are, you deserve credit.
	Call this one early.
	Robert, what do we move on to?
	I'm going to go to my list, but if you know off the end.
	Well, you know, another potential kind of claim.
	We have all the different vaccine mandate suits that we can get to, but one transition is there's a debate on Twitter to some degree.
	The person was not willing to debate me.
	He subtweeted me that deal.
	Mr. Little Pope Hat is one of these portentous, pretentious, pretend.
	Legal, great minds.
	The guy's the biggest, maybe the biggest snob and the most, anybody that's like that arrogant and contemptuous down deep has a deep insecurity problem.
	And so, but he was suggesting that it was absurd the idea that Alex Berenson has, because Alex Berenson, the former New York Times reporter, popular novelist.
	That's in Twitter.
	Yes.
	Yeah, that's what happened.
	So this week, for putting out, he's been constantly harassed by big tech.
	He apparently has been permanently suspended from Twitter from putting out a tweet that basically was indistinguishable from various medical reports and even CDC quotes.
	So there's part one of him being deplatformed, but the way that Twitter is going about deplatforming people, same as Facebook, same as Instagram, similar to the Robert Kennedy case.
	They are deplatforming them and using the deplatforming to defame them by what they publicly say about the deplatforming.
	So what Twitter did is they didn't just deplatform him.
	They said that his tweets, his comments, this particular comment was misleading.
	And the question is, is that actionable defamation?
	And people like Popat, mostly because he hates anyone who's a dissident.
	He would be a happy Pravda guy back in the day.
	Suggested that it was an LOL suit to even suggest such a lawsuit could even be filed.
	Now, he's no genius in defamation anyway.
	Maybe he might want to look up the statute of limitations in some states about the Covington kids' cases in case he's forgot.
	Because I haven't.
	So those are things that can be revisited upon occasion.
	But in my view, when you say, it's one thing to say to have a pure opinion, but when you say that somebody said something specific, factually, and then you say that what they just said is misleading, to me, the legal question is, could a reasonable juror see that as a factual statement?
	And in my view, in fact, the most reasonable interpretation is that Twitter was saying that Alex Berenson made factually false statements in his tweet.
	That's a classic defamation claim, and no Section 230 immunity applies.
	Especially of a journalist, because it's not like any, I won't say any nobody, but it's not like anybody who's not known for being a journalist.
	It's the Project Veritas argument.
	When you call a journalist...
	Misinformation, or when you say that they're providing misleading information, it's more defamatory than if you say a random non-journalist who just makes a tweet.
	Misinformation, okay, their reputation, their livelihood was not based on them providing accurate information.
	The only problem, Robert, we're going to go back to the Candace Owens Facebook lawsuit, where they're going to say, that just means read with more scrutiny.
	They're not making any factual statement.
	They're just saying, you need to read tweets from Alex Berenson.
	With more scrutiny than had that warning not come with it.
	So we have two diverging precedents here.
	Project Veritas is able to sue on their suit.
	Candace Owens was dismissed for now.
	But how do you reconcile these two diverging questions of law, tangents of law?
	I mean, I think that what the court did in the Candace Owens case was projecting its own viewpoints rather than doing the legal analysis.
	Which is the legal analysis is, could a reasonable juror possibly see this as a factual statement?
	And when that's the legal analysis, I mean, here's something I think you could also, like the venue issues, prove with polling.
	I think if you ask people, most people would say, oh, that statement means that Alex Berenson made a factually false statement.
	That Twitter is letting us know that Alex Berenson's statement in these five sentences here.
	Twitter's trying to play the game of making a statement of opinion that most people will interpret as a factual statement and that they can pretend to the courts is not.
	That's the game they're playing.
	They could have chosen a different language.
	They could have said, we disagree with this statement.
	Look at this other counter source.
	Well, that would be non-controversial.
	But then they wouldn't have grounds to use deplatforming because what they're doing is they're not just deplatforming anymore.
	They're using their deplatforming to defame people.
	Right now, look up anything with Robert Kennedy Jr.
	We say, Robert Kennedy Jr., deplatformed from Instagram for giving misleading vaccine information.
	So we can see in real life what's happening with this.
	Well, this is the more diluted, this is the light version of what they did to Alex Jones.
	They deplatformed, not only so they can delegitimize or...
	I forget the word you used, but it's effectively so they can deperson and they can actually undermine anything that the person says above and beyond the individual violating tweet.
	And it is effectively so they can dehumanize anybody who disagrees with what they want to argue is the proper narrative.
	And it is, I mean, Robert, I hope you're right that this prevails in due course, but seeing what happened with Candace Owens.
	And if anybody doesn't know, it's over the top where the judge in the Candace Owens Facebook lawsuit says that when the fact checkers themselves said hoax alert, it was not a statement of fact.
	It was an indication that you had to read her tweets with more scrutiny, with more cynicism and skepticism.
	They weren't calling her a hoax.
	They weren't saying it was fake.
	They were just saying, flies go up.
	But your Twitter went further than that.
	They didn't say misleading alert.
	They said, this tweet is misleading.
	And now we know how that's being interpreted by the press, unlike the Candace Owens case.
	We can know and cite Robert Kennedy's examples where they also deplatformed him based on lying about him, and now that lie is being repeated as if it was a factual finding by social media.
	And so I think Alex Berenson has a basis to sue.
	It's going to be depending on what judge he gets as to whether they'll entertain it.
	But I think legally, he's in the right.
	What is his history as a journalist?
	I don't know it offhand.
	He was New York Times?
	Over a decade for the New York Times.
	And one of the people he covered aggressively was Big Pharma.
	So it's not like he's Newsmax OAN.
	This guy's...
	I won't say he's left-wing, but he's definitely not right-wing.
	He's overtly liberal and has always been liberal.
	And he hasn't hid that fact at all from anybody.
	He's just a harsh critic of lockdown, public health interventions, mask mandates, and vaccine mandates because he just follows the data and he knows that Big Pharma's got a long history of lying when it comes to this.
	Now, I may have to run upstairs for five seconds.
	I'm going to set this question up and then Robert field it and I'm going to come back down.
	I'm going to hear what you're saying through the floor.
	There's been a story circulating that a mother was denied custody.
	Of her child because she refused to get a vaccine out of Chicago.
	You and I have...
	No, they're in the house.
	That's fine.
	Okay, I don't need to go upstairs.
	So this story has been going around.
	Everyone's saying that a mother was denied custody of her kids by a judge who...
	What's the word?
	Of his own volition.
	There's a legal term for it.
	Asked if she was vaccinated.
	She said no.
	And then he allegedly...
	Gave custody to the father because she was not vaccinated.
	And until such time as she was vaccinated, I read the story.
	I said, just based on the reporting, there has to be more to it.
	There has to be some details that the mother's not necessarily reporting, that the father's not reporting.
	Do you know any more details about this story than I do?
	And what do we think of it?
	Apparently the story is true.
	So they tracked down the lawyers for both sides.
	And the lawyers for both sides confirmed it.
	And the father's lawyer said, we didn't request it.
	But we agree with it.
	Of course they agree with it.
	All is fair in love and divorce.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	So when I first read it, I thought there's got to be some caveats.
	But once I saw that they vetted it with the actual other lawyers, the lawyer for the other side, and he confirmed it, then I was like, okay, then that must be what happened.
	And you know the most disgusting thing is, you know, in divorce, it's bitter and nasty.
	So whatever one party gets that's in their favor, even if it's totally unjust.
	They might be less likely to abandon that even in morality.
	But hypothetically, even the father, even assume the father says of good conscience, I want to split custody because I disagree with this.
	Once a judge issues that order, can the father even willingly defy that order without himself being in contempt?
	Well, as a practical matter, who's going to enforce it?
	There's no guardian ad litem.
	Then the only complaining party, theoretically, is the father.
	Because, I mean, in terms of termination of parental rights, there was some interpretation out there that that's what happened.
	That did not happen.
	This is a custody battle between two parents.
	And the court gave sole custody.
	That's a different legal analysis than termination of parental rights or transferring kids to state custody.
	Those require a much higher level of scrutiny than does what happens between parents, because the theory is you're choosing one parent over the other.
	You're not choosing the state over the parent.
	That being said, this is a reflection of family courts.
	Getting divorced from the constitutional constraints on their actions.
	They've grown accustomed to being the substitute parents for kids and the substitute therapist for couples, neither of which is their role, their privilege or their prerogative or their responsibility.
	I remember the very first time I raised a constitutional objection was as a kid lawyer in a family court.
	And I said, Your Honor, there's serious constitutional problems with that.
	And I'll never forget the judge.
	It was Constitution?
	Constitution?
	We're in family court, Mr. Barnes.
	What does the Constitution have to do with it?
	I mean, that's an honest quote, an honest-to-God quote.
	I should have framed it, got the transcript, put it up.
	Meet judges in America.
	God bless them.
	And I was like, I was shocked because I was still naive back then, still idealistic about how courts operate.
	And I was like, well, you know, the Constitution governs family relationships too, Judge.
	And that's true here.
	And the court has clearly kind of forgotten that.
	And it shows you how biased courts are.
	I mean, the biggest hurdle with these vaccine mandate lawsuits is going to be judicial bias and prejudice.
	Because you have about three-quarters of the country that opposes some aspects of these vaccine mandates, but of the quarter that favors it, they're almost all judge-type personalities.
	If you did a poll of judges, you'd find 80% to 90% support.
	They were the ones who loved eugenics.
	They had a long history of this kind of nastiness.
	Judges were happy to lock up the Japanese during World War II.
	Based solely on their ancestry.
	Stripped them of their property, their businesses, their religion, their schools, their community.
	They even separated their family members.
	Similar dynamic.
	They're like, oh, we've got to do it.
	Whatever the government, whatever the military says.
	Public threat.
	It's for the greater good.
	These Japanese Americans, they pose a great threat to the American citizens.
	Despite the fact that they are, in fact, also American citizens.
	Many of them for multiple generations.
	Many of them are best allies in World War II.
	Just horrendous.
	It was not only more constitutionally offensive and odious, it was morally horrendous and actually empirically bad policy.
	Well, the reason why I was skeptical, one article was just saying what the mother said, and then some articles started talking about the lawyers, but the reason why I lost a little bit of skepticism, I do remember from about a year and a half ago, or a year ago, early on, that a doctor mother...
	had a kid taken from her because she was actively working in the ICUs in the hospitals where COVID positive patients were.
	So maybe it's not totally implausible.
	But now, yes, more stories come on.
	Judges adding it to terms of release, judges adding it to probation terms, judges saying you go to prison or get vaccinated if you've been sentenced to a crime.
	The sad disgrace of the Seventh Circuit that said it's no different, taking a vaccine is no different than doing a history assignment or paying a tuition fee.
	So this is the bias and prejudice of the courts.
	Now also the courts have an age bias here.
	Overwhelmingly, they are in the vulnerable population from COVID.
	They're not from the vulnerable population from the vaccine.
	And now you have a circumstance where judges have a personal professional risk in opposing vaccine mandates because the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and the Eastern District of Virginia have now issued vaccine mandates.
	So, I mean, it's insanity.
	Insanity at multiple levels.
	But I think what this judge did here was clearly unconstitutional.
	Because in order to use this as a basis, one, I think it's unconstitutional conditions doctrine.
	And I went through that in a lawsuit discussed at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	One of the more recent Michigan lawsuits goes into the unconstitutional conditions doctrine.
	But basically, you cannot, by hook or by crook, by direct or indirect method, Punish someone for asserting their constitutional rights.
	And I believe you have a constitutional right to bodily autonomy.
	I mean, put it this way.
	What would the left have done if a judge said, you know what, you've previously had an abortion.
	I'm not going to let you have custody over your child.
	Would that be okay with the left?
	The same people cheering this decision?
	Do they not realize the consequence of this?
	Your exercise of a constitutional right should never, ever be grounds to deprive you of custody of your child, period.
	I don't think anybody's thinking about it.
	I haven't met anybody who...
	I haven't discussed it with anybody who could agree with this, but we're just all within this frenzy of COVID, but...
	Well, look at the front page of the Toronto newspaper.
	Robert, I swear to you, I didn't retweet that because I thought it was fake.
	I thought it was a montage and I was not going to retweet it until I saw the Toronto Star apologize for their front page, which is effectively, you want to talk about dog whistles and violence through silence and whatever.
	That cover page was nothing shy of a call to violence of the unvaccinated.
	And it's over the top.
	The world has gone mad.
	But when you talk about depriving a mother, a parent, it doesn't matter who it was, of parental authority or guardianship or custody because they won't get vaccinated for COVID.
	We're not even one step.
	That's precedent for depriving parental authority or custody for not getting a flu vaccine.
	I can't think of any less.
	For any single medical choice you make.
	The legal standard is supposed to be this.
	Before you make any decision about a parent's relationship with a child, the court must find clear and convincing evidence that the basis for that decision is voluntary, volitional parental conduct that poses an imminent risk to the child's health and safety.
	That could not be found here factually.
	Now, I'm sure this judge believes it.
	Because if you gave this judge a COVID literacy test, they would fail?
	Like every judge in America would fail, for the most part?
	No doubt he would say the new Delta variant poses risks for long COVID for kids.
	In Florida, there were, what, 156 kids admitted to hospital in a population of 20 million.
	I might have gotten the number wrong, but statistically...
	Tiny, tiny, tiny percentage.
	It might be higher than California.
	Well, less than the flu.
	The COVID has been less impactful on children than the flu.
	But you're right.
	I mean, it could extend to the flu.
	It could extend to everything.
	And this is also an extension of judges saying if you don't allow your child to go through a gender transition treatment, we'll take away the custody based on that.
	It's the judge replacing parents about medical choices.
	And I know we had the stream with Michaela Peterson.
	We didn't really get into the issues with her dad, but he brought it up with Bill C-16 way back in the day.
	Compelled speech.
	We are on the way to the courts actually stripping the parents of parental rights if they exercise their parental rights in a way that the courts don't agree with in the absence of any compelling, urgent, and dire need.
	This is not a Jehovah's Witness parent refusing a blood transfusion for a kid who's going to pass away if they don't get a blood transfusion.
	This is now the judge stripping a mother, apparently, of custody because she won't get vaccinated for a virus which, even if she were to get it, even if it were to be transmitted to her kid, would have a virtually nil chance of any meaningful, long-lasting potential death or whatever.
	But the judge, in his mind, is saying, well, it's, you know...
	It's for the greater good.
	That kid can get it and then give it to me and I'll die.
	And this is where I think they actually go in their heart of hearts.
	It is, like you say, fundamentally selfishly motivated reasoning.
	But someone asked, can the mother appeal?
	How does it work with these?
	Interim custodial orders.
	Are they susceptible?
	I mean, they're tough to appeal.
	So you can try to go back to the court to have the court set it aside, establish the standard, or move to stay the court's judgment pending it.
	Then you can file an emergency.
	But they almost never get involved in family cases.
	Judges have grown accustomed to getting away with whatever they want in family law.
	And it's sad and disturbing.
	Credit to the mother.
	Or her counsel or both for getting this into the court of public opinion because it's where things are going.
	And this is a question that 80% of the country would disagree with the judge.
	If you ask people, as Richard Barris, People's Pundit, went through a bunch of questions, and when you get to what they're doing, fake polling.
	So that dimwit David Pakman is quoting fake polling on his YouTube channel.
	Allison Morrow did a debrief of it with Richard Barris, where he actually, because they'll ask a question like, is it a good idea to make sure people are safe before they go into a restaurant and sit next to you?
	If you phrase the question that way, you can get 60% support.
	If, on the other hand, you ask, is it okay that somebody gets fired if they don't get the vaccine?
	Is it okay that some kid can't go to school or college because they didn't get the vaccine?
	Is it okay to not allow people to enter grocery stores or restaurants or bars if they haven't been vaccinated?
	Or, in this case, is it okay for somebody's kid to be taken away from them because they're not vaccinated?
	All of a sudden, 80%, anywhere from 65% to 80% of the country totally opposes those policies because they're not willing to do that.
	But if they're able to do so in this context, they'll be able to do it in any context.
	Because here you have a disease that poses very little...
	I won't get into the detail.
	Detail will be at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	You can go check the statistics yourself in terms of risk for children.
	Under 18. Sorry, Robert.
	Go ahead.
	So, yeah, but it is a good transition in the other vaccine mandate lawsuits that were filed.
	Again, all of that has been detailed, will be detailed again this week at vivabarneslaw.locals.com, all the medical components, the scientific components.
	But on the legal aspects, a lawsuit filed against Rutgers on grounds that Rutgers is violating state and federal law as well as constitutional principles in mandating the vaccine.
	Lawsuit 1 in Louisiana because a federal court determined that Louisiana has its own version of the federal religious freedoms.
	And so the federal court said that the vaccine mandate and the social distancing mandate and the masking mandate could not meet strict scrutiny.
	It was very interesting, by the way, that Canada appears to have the same strict scrutiny type analysis to its supposed exception that's present here.
	Yeah, our courts don't seem to apply it.
	Neither are a lot of ours right now.
	No, but I've asked this before.
	We use the word mandate.
	We are using it reflexively.
	I dare say, without question, who mandates, who has mandated anybody to do anything?
	Now, a mask mandate, a democratically elected government does not have, I mean, am I wrong?
	They don't have a mandate just to do anything because they were democratically elected.
	So how are we using the term mandate to effectively bypass any meaningful legislative process?
	It's extraordinary.
	I mean, there's multiple issues.
	One is whether they have the constitutional authority to mandate in the first place.
	The second is whether or not it meets constitutional scrutiny, even if they have the constitutional authority.
	And the third is whether it's gone through the constitutional tripartite method of government we're supposed to have with checks and balances.
	And so far, it fails all three of those tests.
	But the problem is one of those checks and balances, the judiciary, is only sporadically stepping up to the plate.
	Supreme Court stepped up on CDC eviction moratorium this week.
	They've stepped up on churches in past weeks.
	And a federal court in Louisiana said it's a violation of your religious rights to punish you for your assertion of a religious exemption to a vaccine mandate by requiring you go through mask mandates and go through social distancing and mark yourself with a yellow star like we're in a prior era.
	And the, you know, I think Mark Dice could probably do one of his little surveys on the ground and probably get a bunch of liberals to say, if you think that people have been unvaccinated, it's probably a good idea that they wear something to let you know, like maybe a yellow star.
	You'll probably get a bunch of people to stay in the air.
	They actually gave away a golden star to people who got vaccinated.
	It was intended to be a thank you, well done star in kindergarten.
	It didn't go over well.
	And people get offended by the analogy.
	Skip the golden star analogy.
	How about just a QR code that says, check, you can enter?
	We've replaced the hyperbolic inflammatory icons with QR codes, and somehow that's more palatable.
	But the QR code...
	To designate which humans can enter and which cannot based on medical status irregardless or irrespective of medical conditions that preclude them from getting it or religious exemptions, the QR code is going to go down in history as similar if not identical to that.
	We'll talk in 20 years.
	And of course, a lot of this medical information is already being hacked in other contexts.
	I think they did in Canada, actually.
	Yeah, no, no.
	They were hacking it.
	And the hackers, anybody who doesn't know this, hackers revealed that this allegedly secure system for the QR code could be hacked easily.
	And all that anybody needed to know is your full name, which is very easy to get, and where you got vaccinated, which is typically also very easy to know because it's in geographic locations.
	You could falsify the QR code.
	You could falsify everything.
	And the government...
	Is now talking about getting the authorities on the hackers who revealed the weakness to prosecute them criminally as opposed to thanking them in theory for, you know, having exposed the weaknesses.
	But we're to believe that this stupid app is going to work properly as of September 2nd.
	And the government, now we might know why the government's setting aside a $1 billion COVID vaccine passport fund.
	Because they piss away money because they're incompetent, corrupt scoundrels who have no problem blowing other people's money on unconstitutional crap.
	Sorry, that was actually as far as off I'm going to go.
	But yeah.
	Yeah, more suits filed.
	Another suit was filed in Maine on behalf of nurses because they weren't being allowed to assert a religious objection.
	Suing on grounds that violated the First Amendment, right to religious expression.
	Suing on the grounds that violated the Civil Rights Bill.
	people forget the Civil Rights Act of 1964, includes prohibition of discrimination on a religious basis, filed a suit in Michigan on behalf of those people who had prior infections, saying that there's absolutely no reason for them to have to also go through a vaccinated treatment and showing the factual and legal issues, arguing unconstitutional conditions, violation of the right to bodily autonomy, as to...
	The lawsuit that was filed on behalf of the military in Colorado.
	That is still viable because...
	And so all of those suits were filed.
	I've already covered them at vivabarneslaw.locals.com in detail.
	We'll be covering the additional ones being filed this week.
	Suits likely coming all across the nation.
	There was also a class action filed in Florida on the grounds the vaccine mandate there was going to leave the city without essential infrastructure employees.
	That they already had shortages, and the shortages would be so bad, they might not be able to run their utilities in Gainesville because of how many employees they would lose.
	And Robert, we have the problem here.
	I went to the hospital last week, and...
	I was talking to a nurse and a doctor, like, yeah, we have a shortage of staff.
	We have problems maintaining the infrastructure we have, treating the people we have.
	They're imposing a vaccine passport that is going to cause even more people to leave, you know, federal and provincial.
	And it's like the government thrives off exacerbating the problems with unconstitutional measures.
	And by the way, in British Columbia, at the very least, there were no medical exemptions and there were no religious exemptions to the vaccine passport.
	We get what we elect.
	And if people want to continue down this path, they know exactly who to vote for.
	Now, I want to read one Super Chat from Rumble, which is Chris Rumble says, Rumble Ranfy is 20% better than our competitors Viva and Barnes make more when you tip here.
	Chris, thank you very much.
	And Rumble, thank you very much.
	Viva, angry, viva smash.
	And that's a good transition.
	The other big argument, because it impacts all these lawsuits pending, is there was confusion this week about exactly what the FDA actually did.
	So on Monday, the FDA issued a biologic license approval to biotech for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine that they said was medically interchangeable with the existing emergency use authorized vaccine.
	But then they did something weird.
	They then also continued and extended the emergency use authorization for the Pfizer vaccine and for the Moderna vaccine and I believe the J&J vaccine.
	And that confused people because under the emergency use authorization law, you have to revoke emergency use authorization the moment you have an FDA-approved biologic license for treatment of that disease.
	So everybody's like, what the heck is this?
	So you had to dig in, and it was basically, it reminded me of an old Huey Long story of high papalorum and low papahiro.
	So Huey Long told the story that there was a snake oil salesman that traveled Louisiana, and he had one product that cured half of your illnesses, and he had another product that cured the other half of your illnesses.
	And one was called high papalorum, and the other was called low papahiro.
	And somebody asked this salesman, well, how do you make those?
	And he said, oh, you make this one from the bark off the tree.
	You make it from tree bark.
	They're like, well, how do you make the other one?
	Oh, you make that one from tree bark, too.
	And they're like, well, what in the world is the difference?
	Oh, big difference, the snake oil salesman described.
	J.P. Rockefeller's granddaddy was a snake oil salesman, by the way, literally.
	And he's involved in a lot of this stuff these days, if you dig in the Rockefeller Foundation.
	But basically, he said, well, this one here, the high papillorum, you make by skinning the bark off the tree from the bottom up.
	He goes, the other one, totally different.
	Low papillorum, you make from skinning the bark off the tree from the top down.
	And Huey Long applied it to the political context of the day.
	He said, the only difference when I got to Washington between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party is one of them wants to skin you from the ankle up and the other wants to skin you from the ear down.
	But this is basically what the FDA has done.
	They're saying, yeah, we've approved this vaccine over here, but it's not widely available.
	You're like, what are you talking about?
	It's the same one that's out.
	You just said it's medically interchangeable with the one they're giving right now.
	And they're like, well, no, but it doesn't have the label on it, you see.
	It doesn't have the label.
	And if you know FDA, so it's literally low Papa Hiram, high Papa lower.
	Yeah, they're the same, but they're totally different.
	Now, legally, they are very different because legally.
	One of them isn't subject to emergency use authorization informed consent rules.
	The FDA approved vaccine doesn't have the same clear legal requirements that an emergency use authorization does.
	Also, for Pfizer's purposes, there is clearly no liability for the emergency use authorized vaccine.
	It's not clear if there's no liability for the approved one.
	So Pfizer doesn't want their approved one out.
	They want the emergency use authorized one out.
	Or they just want to suck and blow at the same time and they want to carve the tree from both ends and make the most of it and not be held to any sort of liability.
	And Moderna and J&J don't want the only one to be out is Pfizer's.
	So the game the FDA played was the military and employers for mandates.
	They want to pretend.
	That what they're mandating is the FDA-approved one, so they don't have to deal with the Emergency Use Authorization Statute and whether that limits informed consent as a precondition.
	I personally think informed consent is required across the board.
	It's just legally, there's a stronger argument with EUA than there is with biological licensed ones.
	But to me, the argument should be identical.
	But that's the legal.
	So they played it.
	It was a bait.
	And switch.
	They made it look like that they had approved the FDA one and that the FDA had approved one and that that's the one that would be mandated.
	But the one being mandated right now cannot be that one because according to the FDA, that one's not widely available at the moment.
	All right.
	I'm going to have to go back and listen to this to make sure I understood it because it sounds...
	It sounds like a chicanery.
	If I do say so myself, I was reading your tweets on it earlier.
	Yeah.
	But Robert, we might get destroyed by the chat if we don't deal with the Tim Pool lawsuit real quick before we wind up.
	But now, so everybody knows, the vlog is going to come out right after this because I broke down the lawsuit or the plea.
	And I think it's hilarious, but there's something I don't understand in it.
	Oh, 30,000 foot overview.
	You'll get it from the vlog, everybody who has not.
	Subverse is suing two former, one shareholder, one former director.
	Misappropriation of funds.
	Apparently they took assets from the company.
	They tried to vote Tim Pool out in an unlawful director's meeting.
	Chicanery, buffoonery, non-sensory.
	But they filed their plea.
	And the one thing I don't understand, they are pro se litigants.
	They're representing themselves.
	Their plea had two different filings.
	One looked to be...
	The standard form you would find online for pro se litigants, and it looked like they then took that sort of layout and decided to also file a procedural document, also their plea.
	It seems that they filed two pleas, two defenses, which are complementary or add-on to one another, but filed under two separate documents.
	One was the pro se sort of online form, and the other one was what they think is a legal form.
	Their defense, in a nutshell...
	They didn't steal anything because they always wanted to give it back.
	They did hold this meeting where they tried to vote Tim Pool out, but Tim Pool firing them was a reprisal for them having filed an SEC FBI complaint.
	And what else was there?
	14 affirmative grounds of defense, which seemed to be things that they thought they had to make up because they saw the lines in the pro form.
	First question first for anyone who's going to watch the vlog after this.
	Why were there two different forms or do you know what's going on there?
	I don't.
	Did they have a lawyer?
	It does not look like they have a lawyer.
	They look like pro se both ways.
	That makes sense.
	Tim's going to have some fun with that.
	So it's clear Tim Poole is legally in the right, factually in the right.
	Now, he probably would have been well advised to listen to his fans because his fans pointed out all the way back, by the way, these two people seem to be nuts, Tim.
	You should stay away from them.
	And unfortunately, it may have taken them a little while to figure that out.
	But he did figure it out.
	And we're getting to see some crazy, what happens when kids get to play lawyer?
	Well, this is the worst thing about pro-state litigants.
	First of all, I'll actually just read Cleopatra's chat here before I lose it.
	Can the military revolt against Biden and take things into their own hands, hopefully getting our hostages out of Afghanistan?
	Robert said Biden cannot be tried by military tribunal, so what can be done?
	CV overshadowing Biden's mistakes big time.
	Well, I see.
	You're going to discuss this on Locals, and Cleopatra, you're there, so to be continued.
	Like I said in the intro of my video, you're all going to see it.
	Pro se litigants can be very effective.
	They can also be extremely destructive.
	And we are in the case where these pro se litigants are going to be very destructive for themselves, but also for Tim Pool, because they're not burning their own money to screw around in the court.
	So maybe at some point they're going to get sanctioned by the court.
	They're going to have their claims dismissed.
	They're going to have a judgment rendered against them, assuming they're not judgment-proof.
	In the meantime, they're going to cost Tim Pool or Subverse a lot of money.
	But it is...
	What's an affirmative defense in law as a legal concept?
	I think I understand it.
	I don't think I understand the way they're using it in this lawsuit.
	I mean, it is a pattern in the States that because if you don't raise it, you waive it, of having a kitchen sink approach, and you often see every conceivable affirmative defense listed.
	I don't...
	There's some courts that are trying to discipline that by saying, don't include affirmative defense you don't have a factual basis for at the time.
	But a lot of courts...
	You're more likely to be punished for not raising it than foolishly raising it.
	And so that's where you see a default rule.
	This was, I don't want to judge it.
	I think it was foolishly raised.
	I mean, they raised affirmative defenses with no other supporting allegations other than, we're raising good faith.
	We're raising...
	Everyone will see it when they watch the video.
	They're going to portray themselves as the victims.
	They found out the secret dark truth of Tim Pool, and now he's trying to suppress it from the world.
	The former skateboarder turned podcaster is secretly a CIA spook.
	It's going to be crazy stuff that they allege against him.
	The only question is whether or not they're going to have any money to pay off any judgment, because I don't see them winning.
	Probably not.
	I bet in their minds, they're talking to each other, that this is going to make them rich.
	Famous and rich.
	Because that's these kids' mindsets.
	They are not all there.
	One of the defenses that they raised was basically in the detailed breakdown of their defense.
	We have the stuff.
	We wanted to give it back to them.
	But the plaintiff, through acts and omissions, made it impossible for us to return the assets that he alleges we stole.
	I mean, okay, great.
	You've simplified the debate, at the very least, to some extent.
	Okay, so that's good.
	Everyone stick around.
	For the Tim Pool breakdown of the lawsuit, you're going to see it.
	Maybe one day you're going to see me on Tim Pool.
	We'll see if we can do this.
	Robert, maybe you and I are going to meet in person one of these days sooner than later, hopefully.
	But what do we have coming up for the next week that people should look out for on the legal front?
	So yeah, I mean, there'll be a lot more, and no sidebar this week, because I'm in trial in California.
	But I'll continue to update all the vaccine mandate-related lawsuits, of which there are many coming.
	Against cities, against counties, against states, on behalf of unions, on behalf of employees, on behalf of customers, on behalf of vendors, Ticket seat holders to the Las Vegas Raiders, potentially on behalf of college football players against some big universities.
	So there's going to be a multiplication of suits all across the nation, a wide range of individuals and lawyers and groups bringing those claims.
	There's going to be support by the Free America Law Center to support these claims.
	I'll be putting that out there.
	So to help crowdfund to mitigate some of the costs, because some of the people can't afford it, of course, they're getting fired.
	They're demanding pregnant women, 7-8 month pregnant women, take the vaccine.
	I'll go into detail here why that's not a good idea.
	Things like that.
	We'll go into it on locals.
	I've had the discussion with doctors.
	You're always going to have the diverging arguments are going to be vaccine may have risks, but also pregnant women contracting COVID could have risks on the unborn.
	Those are going to be the interplay always.
	The only question is, at the end of the day, is individual choice ever going to be respected or is it going to be criminalized?
	And in some of these cases, as the FDA admitted in the fact sheet, there's limits on what they even know in terms of what the risks are of one or the other.
	But yeah, we'll be discussing that and more.
	No Rittenhouse updates this week.
	VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com is where we'll have more of that information.
	There's a live chat going on there.
	I probably won't be there for very long after the show because I'm going to be traveling to California.
	Robert, you couldn't attend the Michaela Peterson sidebar and people were disappointed but also encouraged because they appreciate how busy your schedule is and they appreciate what you're doing.
	I say for the greater good.
	I'll say for the legal good because Ultimately, the legal good is for the question of rights, which is necessarily for the greater good.
	But people appreciate you're busy.
	We all love it.
	Someone said, do a sidebar with my wife next week.
	It could be done.
	It could be very interesting.
	We'll separate floors and make it look professional.
	Okay, so Robert, that's good for the week into it.
	Are you allowed to discuss which file you have the trial in?
	Oh, it's a basic civil case.
	But there's big legal issues, not in this case, but another case I'll be raising.
	I'm going to see how this case unfolds.
	But all of these rules that courts are imposing, like mask mandates and social distancing for jurors, they have no idea what the impact on a fair, impartial jury that is, or an impartial trial that is.
	And I have serious concerns about it.
	I mean, when you have a criminal defendant wearing a mask the whole trial, and that's how the juror sees them, and what happens when the juror is sitting in the back corner?
	Rather than the jury box.
	Why do we have a jury box if it doesn't matter that they have close access to a witness?
	So there's major...
	And what happens to people who don't want to participate in the jury trial because they perceive certain risks?
	And that's a disproportionate demographic group.
	That now is no longer part of the cross-section of a community that a jury trial is supposed to be a part of.
	So I'm going to be raising these issues in a criminal case I have coming up in a couple of weeks.
	And I'll see what happens in this case in California.
	I mean, I don't know if people saw the Elizabeth Holmes Theranos case is starting in California in federal court.
	The state court case involving the famous guy, Durst.
	I mean, they're having the witnesses wear masks.
	And I was watching that, and you have this, so you have a criminally accused guy wearing a weird mask that looks like a serial killer mask.
	How does that not affect the jury?
	It's madness.
	Alright, now everyone wants to see Winston.
	Winston took him to the vet this week.
	We're treating some allergies, which look to be better.
	His testicles haven't descended.
	I forget the word for it, but it's a condition now.
	His balls are up in his abdomen.
	Doing what they're supposed to do, they just never descended.
	So we might have to have him fixed sooner than later.
	And what else?
	I'm supposed to give him a bath.
	So maybe tonight after the stream.
	But Robert, okay.
	Leave us with...
	I mean, we've got some good news this week.
	We've got some bad news.
	Give us some words of optimism because I think some of us...
	Two good pieces of news was the Supreme Court stepping up to the plate, making it clear the CDC does not have dictatorial authority over the government, especially when Congress hasn't been given it in the eviction moratorium context.
	And then the big win, the first court to strike down any vaccine mandate, mask mandate, or social distancing mandate in this precise context in a federal court.
	By just pointing out that testing is an adequate alternative to any of those other items and that it discriminates against the religious if they've asserted a religious exception to it.
	And a lot of lawyers fighting back in a lot of places and a lot of ordinary people fighting back in a lot of places that is making a real difference.
	So people continue to educate the court of public opinion, assert their rights where they can afford to do so, and it's already showing very positive consequences for limiting.
	This incursion on constitutional liberties that we've been witnessing for a year and a half.
	All right.
	And are you changing your odds on the California recall, Robert?
	Same, same.
	Because, I mean, the risks that are present are clearly present.
	You know, there might be some interesting...
	When people get pulled over with 300 extra ballots sitting in their trunk.
	You know that there's going to be some interesting voting tendencies maybe in California.
	So Larry Elder's got to win outside, or the recall has got to win outside what I call the margin of fraud.
	That's still a 50-50 proposition at best in California.
	All right.
	And with that said, so we're going to wind it down.
	But first of all, I want to thank Chris Pawlowski for creating Rumble, for giving Rumble now the features that are competing with YouTube in a meaningful way.
	That are better for the creators, better for the supporters.
	So Chris, Pavlosky, Rumble, thank you.
	Everyone in the chat here, thank you.
	Thank you all for the support.
	Thank you all for the encouragement, the kind words, even the hate.
	The hate keeps us honest and the hate keeps us self-reflective.
	So I actually do still love the hate.
	But that's where it's at.
	Wednesday, we'll try to figure something out.
	Maybe I'll do a sidebar with my wife.
	It'll be a fun, lighthearted thing.
	But that is it.
	Thank you all for the support.
	Thank you for the chats.
	Thank you for sharing this around.
	Snippets, share it.
	Let everyone know what's going on in the world.
	Robert, stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.
	Everyone else, enjoy what's left of the weekend.

▲