Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 19, 2021 - Viva & Barnes

02:00:12

Ep. 79: Nunes Defamation; Mohamed Noor; Canada Election; Vaccine Lawsuits & MORE! Viva & Barnes

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I've gone live.
	Why was there such a delay in the time that I hit live?
	And then the time that it went live, there was more than a four-second delay, and I've been counting.
	It's four seconds from the moment I hit live to the time it goes live.
	So we have a bona fide F this week, people.
	It is only fitting that it happens on the eve of the Canadian election.
	Let's get the real Fs out of the way now, before tomorrow.
	Okay.
	I'm not tired.
	You're tired.
	Now, hold on one second.
	Let's see what we've got here.
	Viva, you are late again.
	It's one o 'clock in Denmark right now, and it is not polite to make us wait for you.
	Well, being up at one o 'clock on a Sunday evening is far too late.
	I don't know how old you are, Jan.
	But I hope you're not going to be late for school or cranky tomorrow.
	People!
	Sorry.
	It is the eve of the Canadian elections.
	I think I've given it everything I had.
	I think I left nothing on the table.
	I think I put out the message.
	I think that I put out my message, attended the debates, did interviews, podcasts, printed up 250 posters, man, hung them up myself, 15,000 flyers that we delivered out.
	I think I did as much as I could.
	So we'll see what happens tomorrow.
	Pedro Cruz says, Hi Viva, running for municipal elections on the 26th with the first Liberal Party in Portugal.
	Less but better state, no mandates.
	In a city ruled by Portuguese Communist Party for the last 20 years.
	Best of luck tomorrow.
	Pedro, remember what they said?
	Napoleon Dynamite, vote for Pedro.
	Good luck, man.
	This has been one heck of a learning curve.
	And it's been a great experience.
	So I'm happy I did it.
	I don't think I could have done anything more.
	To do what I could do in my district.
	I just hope I had the impact that I wanted to have nationally and to make it easier for other candidates in other ridings that are more competitive than 50-plus percent liberal Westmount NDG to get elected.
	Because we need people in the House.
	Now, actually, I forget.
	The vote is tomorrow, so everyone get out there and vote and nobody be defeatist.
	I am realistic about my chances in Westmount.
	And the reason why I say that I'm realistic, I don't want anyone thinking I'm blowing smoke up their butts, and I don't want anybody thinking I'm being defeatist.
	Miracles don't happen by sitting on your hands.
	So get off, get out, and vote, because no miracle has happened through inaction, with the exception, perhaps, I wanted to make this joke, but it requires some explanation, some nuance.
	Only one miracle has ever happened through inaction, and that might have been, it's a, what's the word, immaculate conception joke.
	And I was going to make that joke on Twitter, but I don't want anyone thinking I'm being glib about religion.
	I was thinking, no miracles have ever happened through inaction.
	I thought of that one example exception.
	We're voting tomorrow, people.
	And it is going to be a swell, a ground swell, a grassroots ground swell of support for the PPC.
	And it has to be.
	Because if there isn't, it's not clear what the future of Canada is going to look like.
	Now, I say I'm realistic about my chances in Westbound NDG.
	There's 76,000 eligible voters.
	Last election in 2019, 51,000 voted.
	53% went to Mark Garnell, the Liberal.
	So that is almost double what the Liberals are polling at nationwide.
	They're about 30%.
	So for there to be an upset in my district, I would have to get more than 30% of the vote.
	It would have to be something of a split.
	And the Liberals would have to get...
	Less than the national polling average, whereas in this district, they typically get one and a half to two times that.
	So I'm realistic.
	But that does not mean that anyone should be defeatist.
	The more numbers we get, we get 10,000 votes out there.
	That officially means they no longer get to ignore us.
	Everywhere else in the country, there are competitive ridings where if people submit to defeatism, it will have a self-fulfilling prophecy.
	So tomorrow's the big day.
	Get out and vote.
	Now, with that said, let me just get a few super chats because I got to give you my rant of the day.
	That wasn't it.
	Regardless of what happens, I will lose family and friends from this she-election.
	Either they will laugh hysterically or screech Bloody Mary.
	We'll see what happens.
	And I don't know which way they're going to go based on that.
	I know what I want out of this election.
	Viva, need more moire for that shirt.
	I don't know what that is.
	But is this...
	I wore the striped shirt because the other one was a little too wrinkly.
	And I don't know if it's creating illusions that are making people nauseous.
	Captain Yolo says, may the force be with you in NDG Westminster.
	Thank you very much.
	Oh, yeah.
	That's not my...
	My good arm is this one.
	My bowling arm is three quarters of an inch bigger than my left arm.
	Okay, here's my rant of the week, people.
	I...
	Did an interview last Wednesday with someone named Sean Henry from CBC Daybreak.
	It was a long-format interview, and I'm extremely grateful they gave me the opportunity to do the interview.
	We did the interview on Wednesday, and I think it's the interview that I am most proud of in terms of the type of questions asked and my method of responding to them.
	I'm not saying this to be cocky, arrogant, smug, whatever.
	I felt very proud of that interview because I think it did a great...
	We did the interview Wednesday.
	It aired Thursday.
	And CBC Daybreak has a website where they post segments as well.
	And I noticed all the segments of the week were up there, or what I think are all the segments of the week were up there.
	And on the 16th, the segment that aired that morning at 7.10, which I missed, and I didn't get to hear it until today, was supposed to be aired.
	It didn't get published on the 16th, so I thought maybe there's a lag.
	Then on the 17th...
	There's an update, and the update on the Technopark sinkhole story is updated to CBC Daybreak on the 17th.
	So I email internally.
	I say, guys, if you don't put it up, can you send me the link so I can share it around?
	Because I want people to hear the message before the election.
	Crickets, I call in a few friends' favors to see anybody who has contacts there.
	I send an email, which I think put out a little guilt, a little shame, suggesting that I feel, Perhaps wrongly, that there's a delay to publish this, and it's not going to come out within a useful time, given that the rationale for the interview was to get the PPC's voice out there.
	It aired live, or it aired during their segment at 7.10 in the morning, but anybody who missed that couldn't hear it, and I wanted to get it out there.
	So I sent an email.
	I said, I feel bad for having these thoughts, but I'm telling you I have these thoughts, that it feels like there might be something of a...
	No effort to make this get accessible to the public so it can be shared and viewed before the election.
	No word yesterday.
	And then today, boom, it goes up on the website.
	So I don't know who said it, that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
	So I don't know if they were going to upload it anyhow.
	I don't know if my email was the requisite pressure to get them to upload it.
	That being said...
	They upload it at 3 o 'clock on a Sunday afternoon when the vote is on Monday.
	And I want that thing to be blasted around left, right, and center because I think that needs to be heard.
	And I had the discussion with someone and he said, look, you sound like a conspiracy theorist.
	You're a whiny baby.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	And I said, I don't care if it's conspiracy or incompetence.
	It illustrates the problem with being financed to the tune of $1 billion by the federal government.
	Assuming it was deliberate, assuming they made a concerted, deliberate effort to delay the publication of this interview to the last minute so that everyone who missed it Thursday morning would not get to see it until or if Sunday afternoon.
	That's assuming they even would have published it without my pressure.
	If it was a concerted effort, you can understand why, and I explained as much in the interview, in that you don't expect the very media agencies whom this party is calling to defund to go out there and promote the message so that people can hear it.
	So, if it's intentional, you can see how it is the necessary or the natural result from being subsidized to the tune of a billion dollars.
	You don't exactly want to promote the message that risks cutting off your billion dollar funding.
	If it's not intentional, and it's just a result of laziness or negligence, that is also the problem of getting...
	Spoon-fed a billion dollars from the government.
	If the CBC had to go out there and fight for their traffic, fight for their views the way we do on YouTube so that you can get the traffic, the views for the ad revenue.
	Or if they had to go out there and fight for the traffic so they can command a premium for their advertising on their website because they do have advertising on their website.
	I don't have sponsors.
	I don't have ads.
	I just get the views for the videos.
	I hear someone coming down in the middle of my Intro.
	If they had to go out there and fight for their advertiser dollars, instead of just relying on a big fat billion dollar check from the government, they might have been more meticulous in getting that out there on Thursday, so they could have been driving traffic to their website Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, because it's a story about the most surging political party in the Canadian elections.
	In the election season, four days before the vote, that kind of story generates more traffic than an update on the Technopark sinkhole.
	And so one way or the other, intentional or negligence, it's the necessary result of being spoon-fed a billion dollars from the government because on the one hand, you look to protect that money by stifling and suppressing the exposure of the story, or you just don't really need to work that hard to get the money because you don't need advertising revenue when the government's spoon-feeding you a billion dollars.
	That's my rant.
	Let me get some of these super chats.
	That's my rant.
	And that is the risk and the problem of subsidizing the media.
	It makes people lazy and it makes them feel and ultimately makes them not have to work for their money because the government is giving it to them.
	And it might explain why interest in this programming is weaning because they no longer need to worry about being competitive when they can get spoon-fed a billion dollars just like that.
	Okay, now I've lost a lot of Super Chats.
	Okay, I can't bring them up.
	Sorry, hold on.
	I'm just going to read them here.
	May the force be with you.
	We got to that one.
	7111-2905 says, non-practicing lawyer from the Netherlands here where it's one o 'clock.
	Thank you for your sane voices and for tomorrow.
	Adieu to you personal and Canada.
	Thank you very much.
	$20 Super Chat.
	Thank you very much.
	We've got Ian Hall.
	$50 Super Chat says, good luck, Viva.
	If you win, use for celebration, booze.
	If you lose, consolation, booze.
	It will not be a loss if we get a sizable chunk of votes so they know we exist and we get seats in elsewhere across the Canada and obviously Maxime wins in his writing.
	We got Theophrastus says, for a bottle of wine to celebrate if you win or three or four beers if you cry, you've already won my admiration.
	However, that and a dime gets you a cup of coffee.
	Thank you, Theophrastus.
	And we got, oh, that's been up for a while.
	Hold on.
	Okay, let me bring this one up here.
	Sorry about that.
	I seem to have lost myself.
	Good luck in tomorrow's election, Viva.
	I wish you all the best.
	What is your biggest takeaway from your run for office thus far?
	It's been the systemic chicanery that the media plays.
	It's hilarious.
	I mean, it is hilarious that we got deterred, economically deterred and jerked around from running an ad in one publication because they obviously didn't want to run the ad for the People's Party and found good ways to get around it.
	And the overt media suppression.
	of the PPC until it could no longer be suppressed.
	Because when you go from 1.6% of the vote last election in your second election to polling at 10-12%, surpassing the Bloc, Quebecois, and the Green Party who have been around for decades, yet all of a sudden you can't really ignore the story and purport to be even partisan responsible media.
	Viva, can you and Robert discuss the current submarine brouhaha with Australia, France, and the US?
	I know nothing about it.
	I've been out of loop with things a little bit.
	Okay, well, now it's a good time.
	I don't see Robert yet, but I'm sure he's in there somewhere coming in soon.
	Standard disclaimers.
	Rant over.
	Standard disclaimers.
	No legal advice.
	No medical advice.
	No contradicting the official narrative on the election advice.
	What else?
	Superchats, 30% goes to YouTube.
	So if you don't like that, the more effective way to support Robert and I in the channel, Rumble.
	We are simul-streaming on Rumble.
	And let me just go see if I do not have any Rumble rants there.
	We are simul-streaming on Rumble, where Rumble takes 20% of the Rumble rants, which is better for the creator.
	And it's also better for you if you want to support a company that supports free speech with minimal censorship.
	I don't know.
	I'm minimal.
	Without supporting censorship.
	Superchats are not a right of entry to the conversation.
	Be respectful.
	If I bring up a superchat, it's not an endorsement of the message.
	Why am I adding?
	I'm adding disclaimers here.
	So until Robert gets in here, let me just see a couple of more.
	Oh, let me see.
	I want to also bring up some chats that are not.
	Here, Tom Fortheist says, PPC isn't splitting the conservative vote.
	There is no way I would vote for O'Toole.
	The vote-splitting argument...
	Is a non-argument at this point because there is no difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives.
	So who are you splitting a vote with?
	The Liberals who want vaccine mandates, vaccine passports, carbon tax, Paris Accord, and lockdowns?
	Or the Conservative who wants vaccine passports, carbon tax, Paris Accord, and lockdowns?
	You're not splitting a vote.
	I know right now from my experience.
	The PPC is splitting the vote from the Liberals.
	Maybe the NDP, the New Democratic Party, are splitting the votes with the Liberals.
	But the vote splitting is among the three parties at this point because they're all the same party, just a variation in degree.
	Now, my wife brought me down a shirt, and I don't know if that's because people were complaining about the nausea that this shirt is causing.
	I'll change it when Robert gets in, and I'll bring myself on a screen.
	Unless I get changed on camera, which might not be...
	Might not be right for now.
	Good luck, Mr. Fry.
	Canada needs you.
	Well, I hope they got what they needed from me because I'm going to go fishing on Tuesday.
	No, Tuesday I cannot go fishing.
	I have to go take down the signs.
	I've got an amazing idea for a fundraiser that is going to involve good recycling of the signs.
	So stay tuned for that.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	Don't eat that.
	Don't eat that.
	Dogs chewing on the plugs.
	We can say hi to Winston.
	Look at this thing.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	What do you say?
	You want to say hi to the world?
	Right on cue, I tell ya.
	Okay, we got a good show tonight, people.
	Hold on, I see a super chat and I know who it's from based on the avatar.
	Raymond Shamus, I have confiscated YouTube's 30%.
	And we got, oh poo, I forgot about YouTube's cut.
	So that's a half bottle.
	Don't worry, we're gonna have something of a shindig get together.
	Thank you all for the support for the entire team who's been helping me for the last five weeks.
	Okay, big night.
	Vax.
	Update.
	Mandate.
	Lawsuits.
	No legal advice.
	No medical advice.
	New member in the house.
	Bezigniz says, became a member.
	And that, I know that.
	That is the replicons from Transformers.
	Alright, I'm smart.
	I know certain things.
	Do you have plans of doing a post-election stream on Tuesday?
	Yes.
	100%.
	I was going to do a live stream on Monday, but I'm going to have people over and not everybody wants to be online.
	Okay, Robert is in.
	Robert's got something.
	Hey, how are ya?
	How are you doing?
	Good, good.
	Before anybody asks, let's just get to it.
	What brand?
	And explain to us the features of that fine, unlit cigar, because this is YouTube.
	Oh yeah, it's the Brickhouse Cigar.
	It is built like a brickhouse, I guess that's why it's called that?
	I presume so.
	Robert, so you are still in trial now?
	Yeah, closing arguments tomorrow.
	And for anybody who's in, how does it go?
	How is it going?
	Same old?
	Yeah, I mean, it's always interesting when you have the federal criminal justice system.
	It's always an education.
	So there's some folks down here that are seeing a federal criminal trial for either the first or second time.
	A law clerk that's assisting me.
	Actually, two law clerks that are assisting me.
	And it's always a wake-up call.
	I mean, what the criminal justice system does well in America is keep most people out of it and unaware of it.
	Because if you witness it in person, it isn't necessarily the most confidence-boosting thing that you can ever experience.
	Because it's not always designed in the ways that it's written about in the books.
	But yeah, we'll find out.
	We'll do the closing argument, wait for the jury verdict, and then I'll head back home.
	We've got a lot of vaccine cases coming up.
	Oh yeah, so look, I figure we just have to go through those because they're the ones that I find the more difficult ones to follow, and I know that everybody is interested in them.
	And it'll lead us into another one of Biden's outrageous policies about requiring vaccination of Americans, but not of undocumented migrants.
	So let's start.
	What is the latest on the vaccine mandate lawsuits?
	So the one that I'm currently involved with is the suit against the FDA, challenging the biologic license in part because they...
	Basically did a bait and switch.
	That's our accusation in the suit, which is that they said that the vaccine that had been fully approved with a biologic license was widely available when it wasn't.
	And instead, and this is particularly impactful for soldiers because members of the military and Department of Defense have been ordered to take the fully approved vaccine.
	The problem is the fully approved vaccine is not actually available.
	And so we talked to the FDA this week and scheduled a range of briefings that will be taking place over the next four to five weeks.
	And gathered declarations from dozens of military soldier members with one horror story after the other of what they've experienced in the military during this time period.
	A lot of misinformation by leaders of the Department of Defense about what's going on.
	And just so that YouTube and other people don't misinterpret.
	Horrible experiences, not in terms of VAERSs, but rather in terms of compulsion, threats, and the like.
	Exactly.
	People ask, for example, all soldiers have the right under the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, which applies to all federal employees, to a religious accommodation, and that religious accommodation can only be denied on strict scrutiny.
	The military would have to show that they could not comply with that religious accommodation for necessary reasons, and there's no less tailored means to meet their means.
	They can't meet that test, nor has anyone in the military claimed so far they can meet that test, and yet they're being given, you know, Different information on different days at different times from different commanding officers.
	So that's one problem.
	The other problem is they have been told whether or not their natural infection, their prior infection, gives them effective immunity such that it should be a medical exemption.
	In that same context, they have been given different information at different times by different places.
	That is a part of another suit pending in federal court in Colorado.
	And so you have both of those issues are fully pending.
	And you have a lot of soldiers who have some basic questions, and they're often not getting their questions answered in a basic way.
	And so that's what that suit is part of, as well as the parallel suit.
	There may be more suits coming in that respect.
	There's some administrative...
	Hurdles that you usually have to bring as a soldier in order to bring suit, but they're not being given the full administrative remedies they're typically afforded.
	So that too is becoming a problem.
	And this goes up against what happened this week at the FDA.
	Where the FDA Advisory Committee vote, and it's important to note, the same FDA Advisory Committee was not given the option to comment on the advice about the biologic license itself.
	They were excluded from the FDA process.
	It wasn't long after that that two high-ranking FDA vaccine officials suddenly decided they wanted to resign.
	Then this week, the FDA Advisory Committee does get involved on the booster shots.
	And presentations were made, and I encourage people to go, you probably can't find them on YouTube, but find some of where those, I think it's actually on the government's own site, where people made a lot of detailed presentations about that.
	And I went into it a little bit on bourbon with Barnes, and we'll do it a little bit more later this week after this trial ends for that detail, which involves some interesting facts about the vaccine, which we won't go into here, but we'll be at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Now, Robert, I saw a tweet that I'm not sure was real.
	Did the FDA Twitter account actually put out a tweet to the effect of, don't take horse medicine, y 'all know better?
	Did you see that?
	Yes, they did.
	Yes, they did.
	I mean, that's the marketing part of the FDA.
	Putting out something that the actual FDA would never put out because that's obvious nonsense.
	Ivermectin is a drug used for multiple purposes, including has been prescribed for humans for about 80 years, 90 years maybe almost.
	Very safe for human beings to use.
	There's a debate about whether or not it's effective in terms of COVID-19.
	Joe Rogan was in the middle of that controversy because he took it based on doctor's advice.
	And because there is another ivermectin also used for horses, The media tried to pretend the two are the same, which is patently ludicrous.
	There's penicillin for animals.
	There's various forms of aspirin for animals.
	Are we supposed to not take those anymore?
	There was a show on CJAD, the Montreal Government Propagandist Network, where someone was talking about why you don't take animal medicines as a substitute for humans, because sometimes they're cheaper.
	When we had Barney, that dog, our last step with him was to give him doggy Prozac.
	And it was effectively the same human aspect of Prozac in a dog pill format.
	It was like $35 a month for pills, but the human version is $15 for a pill.
	But they ran with that story to the point where they actually had doctors come on and say, don't take animal drugs, as if this was one and not, like I have the chat up here, not a Nobel Prize medicine that has a use.
	It's just questionable whether or not arguable, whether or not it has a use for this particular crisis.
	I couldn't believe it.
	You have to double-check these things because it looks like a meme.
	It looks like someone just trying to make a joke about the FDA.
	But we're living in a time where the B headlines have become reality.
	So someone had asked in the chat...
	So just to mention, the FDA Advisory Committee voted 16 to 2 against approving booster shots for anybody under the age of 65 unless they're immunocompromised.
	And that was a direct refutation and rebuttal of what the Biden administration was demanding.
	So it raises serious questions.
	And the next stage is whether they do more biologic license.
	And in particular, approval for children, given some of the presentations that took place there.
	Some doctors presented some very disturbing information about the issues related to this particular drug.
	So again, we'll discuss that in more detail at beaverbornslaw.locals.com, but it raises some serious questions.
	But if the FDA is 16 to 2, we're just citing facts, not opinion, came to that conclusion or recommendation, what does that say of what's going on in Israel now?
	Are they up to their fourth?
	Second booster after the first two shots?
	That's what they're talking about, yes.
	And what's happening in Israel is probably disturbing some people at the FDA, which is that there's a continued rise and continued problem with COVID cases, which were supposed to have disappeared under the original presumptions about this vaccine to efficacy.
	Now, someone had asked, back to the legal front, Delta Tango says, any recommendations for actions to take if my religious waiver through the military is denied?
	There's two things.
	One, find out what the internal appeals process is.
	I don't do military law, and I'm aware of military lawyers advising that you need to exhaust your administrative remedies within the military infrastructure.
	So find out what those are and assert those, and then you would have grounds to sue because the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act is very robust.
	For example, I mean, I've been getting lots of communications and haven't had a chance to go through them this week because of the trial.
	Because when I'm in trial, I'm sort of in a cocoon.
	But just glancing through them, a lot of federal employees are reaching out, and they're being also told, for example, there's a letter that went out to a lot of federal employees that mentioned religious accommodations, but not in detail.
	And when you click on the link, for some reason the link doesn't work in the letter.
	So, you know, I mean, I think there's this great effort to undermine religious accommodations and religious freedoms.
	A New York federal court this week is the third court, third federal court, to intervene and enjoin a vaccine mandate for, in this case, nurses, on the grounds that it failed to allow religious accommodations.
	So, actually, it's a good segue because it's part and parcel of the same conversation.
	So this was a court of appeal decision, short decision.
	A district court decision.
	Sorry.
	Correction, everybody.
	Don't cite false information.
	A district court striking down the mandate, the ultimate basis was because it did not provide for any religious...
	Definitely not any religious accommodation.
	That was its primary focus.
	That was the legal violation, the Title VII and constitutional violation.
	It varies depending on who is doing it.
	It's Title VII if it's a private employer or local state government.
	It can also be a state law violation, and it can also be a federal law violation depending on the circumstances.
	And if it's a governmental defendant, it can also be a constitutional violation for the rights protected under the First Amendment.
	Federal employees have the most robust protection.
	And some state employees, like in state individuals, students, for example, in the Louisiana case, that was the Louisiana version of the Federal Religious Restoration Act, Rights and Restoration Act.
	And similar to that, those claims are also now being brought all across the country, including in particular in the state of Washington, And what they unmasked were internal correspondence within the governor's office where they basically made clear their goal was to deny as many religious accommodations as possible.
	And they're basically interrogating people's religious beliefs as if they're the Spanish Inquisition.
	And that is grounds, of course, to violation of state law in Washington, a violation of federal law.
	And that case also was launched this past week.
	Yeah, it is amazing because when they're talking about legitimate excuses, and our PM here is using the same language, it's not just medical or religious exemptions, it's legitimate medical or religious exemptions.
	And Lord knows what that means because they're going to dissect it down to the, if people have a religious objection, like the candidate who was escorted off stage during our debates, If her basis is, well, you know, the fetal aspect of the research, well, they're going to say, well, there's no fetal particles in this, so your religious objection is dismissed.
	I mean, you're getting into the assessment of the legitimacy of religious freedoms, which were central to Western society.
	And then you get into the medical conditions where, all right, you might...
	Have a heart condition, so you can pass, but you, shingles is not so bad, so you're going to have to take it, or we're not going to recognize your medical exemption.
	It becomes endless, inquisition-type assessments of your true beliefs by the government, which should have no business doing it.
	So the government strikes it down.
	They're going to go to appeal, and it seems that the appeals court, the Supreme Court, has been pretty good on the religious side of things during this pandemic.
	Yeah, at least so far, Liam, because there are also two flu vaccines that mandates that were struck down previously on religious accommodation grounds.
	So to my knowledge, right now it's five for five on religious accommodations winning in court.
	There's proceedings now on religious accommodations pending in federal court in Maine, pending in state court in Washington.
	There may be more cases also pending in California soon, or maybe some already have been.
	So I think the religious accommodation area is an area where a lot of people are going to lose, and that's a good transition into another vaccine mandate suit I will be bringing this week or early next week, which is against Tyson Foods, which Tyson Foods decided to agree.
	At first, they were not going to acknowledge religious accommodations.
	Then they were going to do the Spanish Inquisition style.
	Say, somehow you can't object to this religiously if you haven't objected to pass drugs religiously, which is nonsense.
	And it realized they might lose that, seeing that being lost in other court cases.
	They said, okay, we'll recognize your religious accommodation, but we're going to put you on a one-year unpaid leave.
	And by the way, your job might be gone in the interim.
	Which is constructive termination, in my view, and clear discrimination based on religious assertions of rights.
	So similar to the Trader Joe's case we talked about last week, I anticipate many different class action cases coming against Tyson Foods, one part of which would be this discrimination against people asserting religious rights.
	Robert, we've talked about it, and I think Nate has a video coming out on this, so I don't want to spoil the surprise, but we are talking about these radical decisions.
	Which only apply to the unvaccinated, because obviously the amount of people who are vaccinated, there's a lot, doesn't apply to them.
	It applies to unvaccinated asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic, and you have been, this is again not your opinion, but highlighting and dropping the facts, as we say, in terms of these statistics of asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic spread.
	So they are going into all of this hoopla, this excessive, I'll call it oppressive measures, only targeting The unvaccinated, asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic, who may spread in the fear that they're going to come into the workplace and then infect others who are presumably vaccinated as well.
	And the risks of this are astronomical.
	I mean, do the courts take that actual risk into consideration when assessing these measures?
	They're supposed to.
	I mean, particularly for like, for example, under the Federal Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, if they're going to say they're going to deny religious accommodations, they have to meet strict scrutiny.
	And part of that is...
	Is this a severe problem, a compelling problem, that the vaccine mandate is narrowly tailored to?
	And quite clearly, when this mostly only deals with pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic risk, the answer is no, they can't meet that.
	And to my knowledge, anytime any of these mandates have had to face evidentiary tests under strict scrutiny, they have all failed, whether it's mask mandates, lockdowns, or vaccine mandates.
	The federal court in Louisiana did take that into consideration and noted, You could just do a simple test.
	Why in the world do you need to have all these mandates?
	You don't even need to have social distancing and masking, you know, a test.
	Now, in my view, symptomatic conditions, it should be the only real.
	That solves 99% of the perceived problem, at least.
	So far, it's good to see courts are responding.
	To the issue of religious freedom, hopefully they'll start to dig in deeper, because a lot of the courts themselves have been in a paranoid state of mind, issuing variations of mandates themselves over their own paranoia, because they don't understand the data any better than some of the governmental actors or employers do.
	Well, I guess that'll be a good intro to the segue, what happened in Canada the other day, where in all of the madness in the courts, and like you've mentioned, Try contesting the mask mandates in a court where they're requiring masks behind plexiglass.
	In Canada, out of Quebec the other day, we'll see if it goes to appeal, but some dude is standing trial for fraud because apparently, allegedly, he defrauded the city of $10 million for computer contracts.
	Well, on the eve of his trial, he made a motion to suspend on the basis that he insisted or demanded that all the jury members be fully vaccinated.
	So he made a motion demanding this.
	The judge, I'm going to mention his name because I think it's finally a judge who's using some common sense here, Mario Longpre, says, no, nothing in the, I forget the name of the act, Judicial Act, requires that jury members be vaccinated.
	It violates charter rights under the Canadian Charter, it violates privacy rights under the Civil Code, and above all else...
	It ensures that you're not having a representation, a fair representation of your jury members, a jury of your peers, if you're having an ideological determination as to who can get on the jury and who will not get on the jury.
	And some might say that the individual who was being tried is probably less afraid of COVID than he is about a life or at least a decade behind bars.
	And this was the last ditch effort to try to delay the trial or frustrate the trial.
	But finally, the judge came down and said, in the context of jury duty, at the very least, I think?
	nice to see the exceptional exclusions come down.
	We'll see if it gets appealed.
	I think it would have to because it's setting a precedent that can be expanded upon later in terms of the charter violations and civil rights violations.
	But finally, a judge with some common sense, which These days seems to equate into cojones to actually just say, no, this doesn't make sense.
	But I mean, in the States, any judges rendering judgments along the same lines coming in with common sense?
	The only case where that has arisen so far that I'm aware of, though it may be the case in California, they may be doing it secretly, systematically, but that's subject to separate inquiry.
	The federal court in California in the Theranos case of Elizabeth Holmes, by agreement of the parties, didn't have any unvaccinated people in the jury pool.
	Because it was by agreement of the parties, it's a little bit less of it.
	It's like who would appeal it?
	Because they've kind of weighed the issue by doing so, though there's always an argument that a fair cross-section of the jury is a constitutional requirement that's unwaivable.
	So we'll see how that might develop.
	But it didn't surprise me because California has some of the craziest rules and interpretations of a lot of this.
	Well, I mean, I imagine they could have just added it as a jury questionnaire to exclude anybody.
	So if they both agree to the question, they will both not strike or strike based on that consideration.
	Yes.
	Now, the other big suit filed this week concerning the vaccine mandate is the one you referenced, which is the Arizona, state of Arizona, the attorney general who's running for the United States Senate there against Blake Masters.
	I think Blake Masters is the better candidate, but we'll leave that for another discussion.
	But he finally woke up a little bit on the issue of vaccine mandates, and so he filed suit.
	Against the Biden administration on equal protection grounds, detailing not only the incredible discriminatory disparity between the Biden administration's treatment of legally what are known as illegally illegal aliens.
	That's the legal termination, the political determination, undocumented, whatever.
	But legally, that's what they're called in the law, illegal aliens.
	That illegal aliens being released in the United States by the Biden administration.
	And there's been a massive surge, the biggest surge, I think, maybe ever at the border since Biden was elected.
	And that often up to 20 to 30 percent of those tested are testing positive for COVID.
	And the Biden administration is releasing them into the local population without requiring any vaccine.
	It is, Robert.
	I'm just going to take this chat down, but it's shocking.
	I mean, it's shocking, and I don't understand how this is a nonpartisan issue.
	You have the looming threat.
	of lockdowns, mask mandates, vaccination mandates, termination of employment if you don't comply, and then simultaneously you have the Biden administration allowing whatever the term is, people from down south to cross the border who are potentially and by all accounts in large proportions carrying the virus that is responsible for all of these issues being implemented.
	I don't know how there's not Actual rage.
	I saw that there were some protests in the streets of New York today, which, you know, good for New Yorkers finally for maybe waking up a little bit.
	But they are actually allowing, if not actively implementing, policies which are exacerbating the crisis which they are using, invoking, to come down with a fist of fury, iron hammer, bad analogies, draconian measures to strip citizens of their rights to even gain a livelihood.
	So, I mean, that's just the rant.
	I don't understand how people don't, you know, go nuts over this.
	But coming out of Arizona, it's an equal rights lawsuit, equal rights protection lawsuit, on the basis that the government is discriminating against American citizens by imposing harsher restrictions on them than they are unlawful, you know, border crossers coming in from the South.
	Have you ever seen a lawsuit like this before, where the equal protections violation is alleged against the citizens, where the comparative bracket is not citizen?
	Not to my knowledge.
	I think this administration has set new precedent in that respect.
	I mean, at least I guess you could say you're not an unfortunate, innocent Afghani who gets drone-bombed by the president just to make up for a bad news week.
	That information was also confirmed this week.
	Yeah, well, and let's get to one glib confirmation after another.
	Jen Psaki comes in and says, ask the question directly.
	Are you saying the vaccine mandates apply to American citizens but not to border crossers?
	And she said, that's correct.
	Moving on to another question.
	I mean, this is in your face at some point.
	I think we're at that point.
	We've been there for a while.
	The drone bombing, Robert.
	I mean, so now that has been confirmed.
	It was a father, his seven kids coming out to see him.
	What they said was the secondary explosion, which confirmed explosives.
	Has now been confirmed to have been a propane tank in a house next to them.
	I mean, you tell me, how is it possible for an administration to get something so wrong?
	I know fog of war, you know, poop happens.
	But how does this happen?
	Well, put it this way, if Trump was president, the media would be outraged and Congress would be outraged for weeks and impeachment proceedings would have already begun.
	So it gives you a sense of the conflict, the contradiction between the two.
	I think this is an impeachable act.
	Because it appears it was a rushed execution of innocent people without going through basic due diligence in order to cover up for a bad news week.
	And that's just embarrassing.
	I mean, one could argue the vaccine mandate in part was to change the news stories from the disaster and debacle of Afghanistan.
	And it comes with a joint chief of staff head who, it turns out, was conspiring with the Chinese to undermine the president of the United States.
	So, I mean, it's an extraordinary time to be alive, no doubt about that.
	Well, okay, now explain this.
	I think I know what's going on with General Milley and this fiasco or this controversy, which the media is trying to normalize as being par for the course, but set the factual grounds so that people understand, and then I'm going to have a few questions on this.
	Well, it goes back to what we discussed back at the time when trying to educate people that the military was not secretly on Trump's side.
	And I remember when there were people in the QAnon world who were saying that Trump should suspend the Constitution or whatever and seize election machines and have the military take over and all of this sort of nonsense, aside from that being a bad idea inherently.
	He pointed out that the military hierarchy was not on Trump's side.
	Got a lot of hate mail over that.
	Now, some of those folks are in the Hooskow, so you can figure out who was right and who was wrong.
	But the nature of it is that essentially what Milley was doing was conspiring in multiple ways against the president.
	He had agreed with the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, to not obey an order of the president of the United States while he was president.
	That was the first big problem.
	Now, that came out a few months ago.
	They're framing it only as being the nuke question.
	Was it only limited to the use of nukes, or was it in fact encompassing other military acts?
	It was clearly much broader than that.
	It was that he wouldn't go along with any act of the president to use the military in any capacity, domestically in any way, or any major military adventure or event without talking to Pelosi first.
	He was going to disobey the president and basically make Speaker Pelosi effectively the president.
	And now it comes out that he was talking to the Chinese government officials concerning these matters.
	And so this is incredible.
	I mean, imagine if this had happened during the Soviet Union days, where the Joint Chief of Staff said he's not going to obey the president.
	Let's say they didn't like Reagan towards the end.
	They would talk to Tip O 'Neill first and then talk to the Soviets first to see what to do.
	I mean, that's the kind of insanity that we're dealing with here.
	And people have called it treason.
	Politically, you could call it that.
	Legally, treason only applies in times when Congress has declared war, so it wouldn't be applicable legally.
	But now, I don't remember where I heard it, but some people were saying that one justification is, in fact, factually incorrect, that Milley was using channels that were, in fact, open to him, whereas it might have been Tim Pool, it might have been somewhere else.
	In fact, Milley was not even going through legitimate channels that were open to him.
	He was, in fact, bypassing, shortcutting, or what's the word, detouring the entire system and going through back channels that he had no legitimate or lawful reason to be using or access to.
	Is that your understanding?
	Absolutely.
	And to give people an analogy, this is what they improperly accused Michael Flynn of doing.
	Flynn actually had the right to talk to the Russian ambassador, but they accused him of using backchannels and said it was so severe he had to resign and should be in prison for years.
	Here you have the Joint Chief of Staff actually going through backchannels in an illicit and legal way at a critical time juncture with an actual adversary of the United States.
	I mean, the Chinese government's probably our biggest economic adversary at least, probably our biggest political adversary at this point.
	Other than maybe Iran, depending on what your perception or your argument was, or North Korea.
	But North Korea is just a bulldog on the end of the rope of the leash of China.
	And so that makes it very disturbing.
	Very, very disturbing.
	And probably haven't had anything like this since the Joint Chief of Staffs wanted to circumvent President Kennedy in the early 1960s with things like...
	Operation Northwoods that they wanted to do even after he said no, and the Bay of Pigs where they wanted an invasion after he said no.
	We know what happened to President Kennedy in the end.
	I think it raises serious questions about the entire hierarchy of the United States military.
	Why is that man still even in any position of power?
	He should be dishonorably discharged, not these honest soldiers asking some basic questions about religious and medical accommodations for their vaccines.
	Well, some people are asking, if it's not treason, if it's not mutiny, what would be the most accurate charges to be laid or, you know, recharged?
	Well, I mean, it's a violation of the chain of command, and it's a form of, I mean, what they were doing was a form of, was a real coup, and that's what it was.
	And there's a range of laws that apply to that because of his military duties and obligations.
	So that's what's applicable.
	Politically, you could call it a kind of treason.
	It's just, legally in America, treason is very limited to a select set of circumstances that almost never occurs.
	And so basically, the word was circumventing.
	Someone actually brought up.
	He was circumventing the existing channels of the existing military to effectively say, some are going to say, well, it's in the weaning days.
	It's in the last days of the Trump presidency.
	We don't want a lame duck president who's getting replaced in a month.
	Starting any nuclear war, starting whatever.
	So that'll be the rationale, the justification for anyone who wants the steel man of what was done.
	But he was effectively even bypassing the existing chain of command.
	And like, who was he personally assuring this on behalf of?
	Who is he acting for if he's circumventing the entire existing chain of command?
	Well, basically confirmed what Putin said many years ago, that he said many presidents come and go, but the men in gray suits run the show.
	And he was deeply right.
	And what Milley was doing was saying the deep state's still running the government.
	You don't have to worry about the elected president of the United States of America.
	But to go as far as he did, not just with the Pelosi problem, but going to China outside the proper chain of command is very disturbing.
	That's unprecedented in modern American history.
	Now, I'm being told, Sidney Minnie says, no, it happened in October, not after the election.
	So I guess that makes it.
	Even worse.
	That would absolutely make it, of course, even worse.
	And he was conspiring, frankly, against the president from the very beginning, from the time he was in positions of power.
	It's a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
	Article 94. The intent to usurp or override lawful military authority refuses in concert with any other person to obey orders or otherwise to his duty.
	Mutiny is a capital offense.
	I won't pursue that one any further.
	I'll just bring this one up.
	The best thing I got from the last four years was knowing I am the smartest person in the room.
	And then someone else has a clear violation of the Universal Code of Military Justice.
	Okay.
	And has that controversy just blown over?
	We're done with that now?
	I mean, apparently nobody in Congress or the Biden administration wants to do anything about it because they're all in favor of it.
	Though it does relate.
	I mean, there was finally, speaking of people that did a lot of illegal activities that got covered up during the election season.
	Finally, sleepy John Durham woke up and brought a prosecution he could have brought two years ago, identifying that all of that Russiagate Alphabank nonsense was a conspiracy by Clinton campaign lawyers, that they spread false information deliberately and in a criminal manner.
	And so one of the lawyers involved was finally indicted.
	Could have been indicted a long time ago.
	He indicts it at the time it's going to have the least amount of impact, the least amount of press coverage.
	Shows you what Durham's real objective was throughout these proceedings.
	It was more cover-up than expose.
	But at least he did finally bring an indictment.
	And it was an interesting one because it was one I had a debate with Dan Abrams with of Law& Crime and ABC News.
	Who was very critical of me, saying that there was illicit activities in Russiagate.
	And he said, what we really need to be focusing on, Barnes, is that Alpha Bank issue.
	Well, apparently Dan Abrams took the pick.
	He can issue an apology anytime soon.
	But finally, we're seeing some action, at least.
	And maybe some part of the record will finally be documented and detailed in court.
	But it shows what that whole scam was really all about all along.
	Now, by the way, the...
	The other lawyer, as we've talked about, who got nailed on all of this, who got the sweetheart deal, while people who trespassed at the Capitol are getting eight months, he got zero time, was reinstated by the D.C. Bar almost right away this past week.
	Well, okay, fine.
	Yeah, he wasn't ever supposed to be permanently suspended.
	It was a one-year suspension?
	Yep, and they made the one-year only apply to the time period he couldn't practice anyway, so it was completely without consequence.
	Here, a high-ranking Department of Justice lawyer who suborned a perjured testimony in order to illicitly spy on high-ranking Americans for politicized purposes not only serves no time, he suffers no professional consequence of any meaning.
	And you know what?
	Now that the thought has popped into my head, speaking of professional consequences, do we know where John Pierce is?
	Where in the world is John Pierce?
	He's back, apparently.
	And back, well, kind of helping.
	So we'll see how those cases go.
	I mean, hopefully that there'll be...
	Maybe he can just cut and paste.
	If he can learn how to cut and paste function, it's not too hard, then he might be okay.
	He's off the ventilator.
	Now he's responsive.
	Back on the cases.
	The 17 or 18 people, I mean, a bunch of them are trying to fire them, apparently.
	But we'll see how that sort of unfolds.
	There was a rally this week in D.C., pretty small.
	And then there were so many obvious feds there that it became a meme online because they had basically five guys that were trying to pretend that they were, you know, MAGA bros, Trump guys.
	And they were dressed like obvious feds.
	I mean, remember to leave your suit shoes at home when you're going to wear shorts outfits.
	So the people spotted them and had some fun with it.
	And on the subject of Jan 6, any new developments of any importance that we know of?
	Not that I know of.
	All right.
	What do we move on to now?
	Let's take a distinct lawsuit.
	It might be the most irrelevant of the evening, but it's interesting and I don't understand what on earth is going on.
	Devin Nunes is...
	Defamation lawsuit has not been reinstated, from what I understand, but he has sued a reporter who retweeted the publication of an article for which he had previously sued another reporter, and for which that lawsuit was dismissed, I think, because there was no actual malice proven.
	And despite the fact that that lawsuit was originally dismissed, this new reporter, Lizza, L-I-Z-Z-A is the last name, it's not Lizzo, republished a tweet.
	And now Nunes is suing that reporter on the basis that retweeting the original publication is defamation.
	I mean, I couldn't find the actual lawsuits.
	I just read a bunch of articles on it, and I just don't think I understand how this happens.
	If the original lawsuit that Nunes filed against the original reporter...
	Oh, sorry.
	I should preface it.
	The article was about Nunes' family having...
	Apparently, he moved a dairy farm to Iowa and allegedly employed illegal migrant workers and Nunes sued on the basis that it was defamation.
	But from what I understood, the original lawsuit was dismissed.
	But this reporter retweeted the original publication on tweet, and now he can sue the original reporter, or the second reporter.
	And I just don't understand.
	And I tend to be in agreement with one of the tweets that I saw on it, which was, how can retweeting something which was originally deemed to be not...
	No, that's my understanding.
	I think it's a twofold issue.
	One is when republication can constitute a defamation, and that varies.
	Usually the original publication under the single publication rule governs when and where you can sue.
	But here he's suing somebody differently than the person who originally published it.
	And so generally, if somebody else, like let's say you hear Let's say John prints a story about Joe and the story is false or believed to be false, but John gets out of the case and then I go and share the same, make the same statement as John did, I can then be sued because I'm a new publisher of that information.
	It depends on the case law.
	Some states don't allow it, some states do.
	The second aspect is, what it is, is the actual malice standard changes.
	Because it's one thing for the writer to originally write a statement, and that writer might say there was nothing in the record that made my statements a reckless disregard of the truth.
	But once the suit's been filed and a bunch of information has been documented that in fact it was false, for the person to run that story again or to repeat that story or reiterate that story or republish it, then they're on a different level of notice of knowledge.
	And that's how they might have actual malice where the first person did not.
	But if the first publication itself was not deemed to be defamatory, how can any republication of it be deemed to be defamatory, or even potentially?
	Because presumably the reason they didn't say the first story wasn't defamatory, they said it wasn't with actual malice because he's a public figure, it's my understanding.
	And so consequently, the knowledge and notice standard is what changed.
	And so people thought, okay, so-and-so got off the hook, so I can repeat that false statement.
	Actually, no.
	If it was, in fact, still a false statement...
	Now I'm on more notice than that original publisher was, and now it is reckless disregard of the truth to republish a story in that circumstance.
	So that's why they were being a little careless in doing that.
	Their hatred of Nunes is amazing, especially given Nunes' allegations about Russiagate have been consistently confirmed and corroborated, as they were again this week with the Durham indictment.
	Well, and also considering his propensity to sue for defamation when he feels that he has been defamed, he's not shy.
	So that distinction actually makes a lot of sense.
	And this is what the article said, is that the original suit was dismissed because they hadn't proved or demonstrated actual malice.
	But it might still have been false.
	And then the question becomes, when you republish something that was false, but not initially published with actual malice, the republication...
	Could easily have been done with actual malice because people might have also forgotten that the story was false in the first place, or at least potentially false.
	Very interesting.
	Now, speaking of the propensity of Nunes to sue, I love, I was watching a few, well, first of all, it's interesting that this story is not making bigger news, and I think it's because the media likes to celebrate Nunes' losses but not his Ws.
	I saw a 10-minute panel on CNN where their biggest concern was how Nunes, they call it, You know, lawfare.
	Others might call it just, you know, holding them to the same standard.
	Their biggest concern in all of this is that New York Times versus Sullivan might get revisited and overturned and make their lives as journalists a little more difficult.
	But one of the things they brought up, and it's an interesting thing, I don't know what Nunes' personal wealth is like, but I didn't know that there were rules against getting free legal services without disclosing who's giving you those legal services.
	To your knowledge, do you know how Nunes finances his multiple lawsuits and whether or not he gets free legal services?
	I do not.
	I do not know.
	I mean, I would say some people have advised him that that particular law firm he's used has not always been the best in their pleadings.
	I think they mean well, but not always been the best.
	But it's fascinating that they're obsessed with that kind of issue because I don't see that same question asked of a lot of the Democratic suits that are being filed right now.
	Another one filed against...
	Roger Stone blaming him for January 6th while the Capitol Police are busy, you know, covering up for their people that shot people on January 6th.
	I don't see the same sudden concerns about government officials' legal counsel in those cases or Swalwell's frivolous suit that he's filed against the president, things like that.
	It's an interesting discrepancy and disparity about which congressman they care about getting legal representation.
	All right.
	Well, I mean, it's interesting.
	So he's going to sue this new reporter.
	Anyone in the chat, remind me of the name.
	It's Litsa, L-I-Z-Z-A, but it's a last name.
	It's a man.
	I think he works for...
	Oh, geez.
	I forget who he works for now.
	Anyway, it is nice to see because lawfare is sometimes exploited and abused, and other times it just keeps people honest.
	And this goes back to me.
	We did that interview with Amanda Milius, who did the documentary about a lot of this, detailing what Nunes went through just to get out basic truths and what Kashpat Patel and some others did to get out basic truths and recommend that that documentary is particularly good.
	She, of course, the daughter of the famous great Hollywood producer, John Milius.
	And people can go back and watch that sidebar as well.
	And this is kind of a continuation of all of that.
	All Nunes did is expose that Russiagate was a scam and for it the whole system tried to come down on him.
	And he's been trying to get public justification ever since.
	Alright, well, segueing from one law that I didn't understand until you explained the distinction to another one that you're going to have to explain to everybody.
	The Mohammed Noor shooting of Justine Diamond.
	And I hope I didn't make a mistake on her first name.
	The Australian national who...
	For those of you who don't know the fact pattern, I think everybody's very familiar with this story because it brought up a lot of double standards, to say the least, and potentially more at worst.
	Justine DeMond calls the cops because she thinks something's going on in the back alley in, I think it's Minneapolis, in a low-crime area of Minneapolis, if that changes anything, which I think it does.
	She thinks she hears something screaming in an alley.
	Two cops show up, Mohamed Noor and his partner, I don't remember his name.
	They go through the back alley, don't see anything.
	The partner radios in, whatever it is, 10-4, says everything's clear, we're going to leave.
	Justine DeMond comes up to the car to talk to the cops, I guess, for whatever reason, puts her hand on the car and allegedly startles Mohamed Noor to the point where his first reaction is to draw his weapon, fire over his partner through the driver's side window.
	Striking demand in the abdomen.
	She bleeds out and passes away on the spot.
	They charged him with a number of charges.
	Maybe if you know which ones they charged him with, but I know which ones he was convicted of.
	He was convicted of second-degree manslaughter and third-degree depraved mind murder.
	And if that sounds familiar to anybody, that's because we've seen that charge in the Derek Chauvin trial where we have learned a lot about Minnesota law.
	He was convicted on both counts.
	Second-degree manslaughter carries with it, I think it's a maximum sentence of 10 years.
	Third-degree depraved mind murder carries a maximum sentence of 25 years.
	He appealed the conviction on third-degree depraved mind murder, and his argument, which was retained by the court, was that depraved mind murder requires an act that is dangerous to others without specificity to an individual, and therefore his act,
	which he directed with particularity towards de Monde, So, Robert, I mean, I think that's a decent, accurate enough of a fact pattern.
	The law, I mean, explain the law, explain the rationale, and does it make any sense to anyone?
	Yeah, I mean, so this was my argument during the Chauvin case.
	I had problems with the felony murder statute and applied to Chauvin, and I had problems with the third degree murder, reckless murder charge applied to Chauvin, because I didn't think it applied under Minnesota law and traditional standards.
	And so the, and this was, the third degree murder charge in Chauvin was originally dismissed on the grounds that others, to give people an idea, the concern of third degree murder.
	It's kind of a subspecies almost of felony murder, which is that you're engaging in such extraordinarily reckless, dangerous behavior that you could kill anybody.
	And so that your behavior is so dangerous that you could kill more than one person.
	And you fire into a crowd.
	You drive your car into a crowd.
	Something like that is the idea.
	And historically in Minnesota, they did not want it to be circumstances where you kill a single person and you're intending to cause a single person harm.
	That's covered by other criminal statutes.
	Reckless murder was supposed to be you're just crazy.
	Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.
	And so I thought it had no application in Chauvin.
	The Minnesota Court of Appeals that originally affirmed this verdict was the one that said, yes, it does apply in Chauvin and forced the district court to reinstate it.
	And the Minnesota Supreme Court sat on their hands, and I said at the time, Watch.
	The Minnesota Supreme Court will ultimately overturn this.
	And then, of course, they did.
	Which means, in my view, it's guaranteed that Chauvin's third-degree murder conviction will also be overturned because it was the same basis.
	Now, he faced a different issue because of the second-degree murder charge.
	But I think the second-degree murder charge should be overturned because I don't think it fits felony murder.
	But that's for another day.
	So I understand the rationale.
	I understand the objection.
	Someone might say, well, his actions, at least Mohamed Noor, could have just as easily killed his partner as Justine.
	So could that not satisfy the others to make it applicable?
	It could have.
	But in this particular instance, they believed that where he was pointing the gun, that that was improbable.
	So that he wasn't shooting into a crowd.
	He was shooting at her, and even though it was a little bit risky because of the guns in front of him, that that probability was not a likely event.
	That criminal statute's dealing with a very particular kind of risk that didn't really fit these facts.
	And it's also because they have repeatedly in Minnesota said, don't extend this statute to these kind of circumstances.
	Yeah.
	And now, so a lot of people in the comment section of that video said, well, this is what happens when you overcharge an individual, you get a conviction on some charges that ought not have been brought in the first place.
	I'm just thinking in the Derek Chauvin case, he was convicted of third degree depraved It has to be overturned.
	It has to be.
	Under this Supreme Court decision, they have no choice but to overturn that one.
	Now, the second degree murder may still stand, but that's going to put massive pressure on Minnesota still being the only court, one of the only courts in the country that has their very peculiar interpretation of felony murder.
	And we'll see if the Minnesota Supreme Court does that too.
	And again, probably what's going to happen is by that time, Chauvin's going to cut a deal with the feds and already be doing time.
	So they'll be politically off the hook, allow the politically justified conviction, and then they'll come in and clean up the law later, which is what I forecast would happen.
	And part of that's already now happening.
	Well, and they're not going to come up with some cockamamie interpretation as though his actions were directed at the children watching potentially on the street.
	So, at the very least, he'll get acquitted on the third-degree depraved-minded murder.
	The question is this, and maybe you know, maybe you don't, and people in the chat know, did they charge Mohammed Noor with second-degree murder, or did they just go with second-degree manslaughter?
	I think they tried some form of that, and maybe he got acquitted of that one, if I recall right.
	I'm not remembering all into detail, but I thought he got charged with a different second-degree murder and got acquitted, if I recall right.
	We'll see if the chat knows.
	Because, I mean, that was one of the questions is, okay, fine.
	You can understand the distinction now between second-degree murder and third-degree depraved mind murder, which was sort of the analogy I said.
	It's like letting your car run down a cliff, either knowing there's a group of people or not.
	You know, through an intersection, it's just depraved mind.
	You're just a psychopath doing stupid things.
	But running it into somebody in particular, different charge.
	Correct.
	It makes sense.
	It's just so offensive, the idea that...
	Yeah, it seems counterintuitive, but that's because people who are targeting someone, that's covered by separate criminal statutes.
	In his particular instance, it's really second-degree manslaughter is what it is, because he's not trying to kill the person, and he's not behaving so recklessly towards a bunch of people that he's likely to kill any group of people.
	And so what the criminal law says, okay, you do something reckless toward one person, That's second-degree manslaughter.
	You do something reckless towards a bunch of people, that's third-degree murder.
	And that's why his charge never fit, in my view.
	Minnesota Court of Appeals was just being very political there in the Twin Cities to allow either of those cases to go forward.
	And it's their fault that it did.
	But credit to the Minnesota Supreme Court for stepping in and realizing that's bad law.
	All right, now I'm looking at the notes.
	So, bad law, the impact is going to be...
	Chauvin will get acquitted on this, but he's going to get convicted.
	I mean, I hope Minnesota Supreme Court also clarifies its felony murder rule to throw out that conviction, too.
	And I don't think it will matter for Chauvin, because Chauvin will matter a little bit.
	He'll do a little more time on the Fed side, probably on the state side, because of the civil rights charges.
	He's probably going to cut a combined deal and do 10-plus years on the federal side.
	So it may curve the length of his sentence.
	But I thought always the second and third degree murder charges were not legally warranted under the definition of that law as traditionally applied.
	It was trying to stick charges that didn't apply because of the politics of the case.
	It makes sense.
	It's just going to leave people very angry because people are going to look at this and say the conduct in Mohamed Noor case was exponentially more egregious than the Derek Chauvin case and there's only one big difference between the two cases that's not going to make anybody happy and that's not going to make anybody satisfied with the Legal outcomes in these two cases.
	All right.
	What do we move on to now, Robert?
	Let's see.
	I mean, there were a bunch of different topics.
	Oh, go ahead.
	Okay, Nunes, Chauvin.
	Oh, Chauvin.
	Okay, we got the Chauvin.
	We did that.
	Well, some of them I don't know anything about to even ask the question.
	Let's do 9-11 Saudi suit because I'm curious for my own benefit.
	What's the dealio with what's going on there?
	So that's a long suit that's still ongoing in New York.
	And what it is, it's allegations of victims of 9-11 that the Saudi government was complicit in what happened on 9-11.
	And there's been various congressional legislation that passed that changed when and where and under what circumstances the Saudis could be sued for that.
	There's a lot of people can watch the documentary Looming Tower about that.
	About aspects of that.
	And it involves different Saudi potential complicity, at least in terms of particularly because so many of the 9 /11 people were Saudis, the accused terrorists.
	And then there was allegations that the Saudis helped get them here, protect them while they were here, didn't expose them in a timely manner, and so forth.
	One of the key issues has been a lot of information has been consistently withheld.
	From those cases.
	That is because of classification and the rest.
	And that will transition later into another state secrets case.
	But the Biden administration is kind of politically adverse a little bit to the Saudis, more on the Iranian side than the Saudi side to a certain extent.
	And consequently, it appears they are green lighting the FBI disclosing a wide range of files concerning the Saudis.
	That's why those files were released.
	They were ordered to be released by the court.
	The Biden administration used it as a pretext to release them more broadly.
	And that's the kind of political backstory that's happening.
	But it means that suit is going to continue to go forward.
	And there were different Saudi governmental issues.
	I mean, the Saudis, for example, worked with the Bush administration to get a lot of bin Laden's family out of the United States right after 9 /11 when airlines are supposed to be shut down, but they weren't so much for some people.
	And so there's always been questions about what did the Saudi government do?
	Did they help fund things?
	Was it mere recklessness or was it deliberate aid in abetting people who committed the acts on 9 /11?
	And they're getting more evidence that supports their plaintiff's theory of the case.
	And so for anybody who doesn't know, the plaintiffs are the victims of 9 /11.
	They're suing the Saudi government specifically?
	Yes.
	And I believe some Saudi officials and individuals as well, if I recall correctly.
	And, I mean, so it's occurring in the United States.
	Presumably, we know that the Saudis or the Saudi government would have assets in the States that they could execute against in the event of a favorable judgment.
	Oh, yes.
	Is there an understatement, but are there any legal protections that are offered specifically to Saudis or Saudi officials, or can they be treated like a standard defendant?
	Historically, there were, but Congress changed the laws so that the Saudis in particular could be gone after in the 9-11 context.
	So it's various forms of aid with terrorism.
	And you have to meet certain thresholds.
	But so far, they continue to meet those evidentiary thresholds for the case to get closer and closer to a jury trial.
	My goodness.
	And what would that look like?
	I mean, how do you go about jury selection for that?
	And what venue?
	There's no change of venue for that.
	How do you go about it?
	I mean, I assume they're going to try to have it not necessarily be a New York City jury pool, but I think that they're going to be kind of stuck up against it.
	There's going to be a lot of embarrassing facts.
	Now, the interesting component of that...
	It may have lots of political implications.
	So there's the backstory of the Biden administration's potentially adverse relationship with the Saudis.
	It also relates to the Bush administration.
	Some high-ranking Bush people may be badly implicated.
	I mean, because there are already some of the stories that came out concerned information the FBI had that was not made widely public at the time by a certain FBI director who was brought in right around 9-11, who helped to make sure things stayed kind of quiet, a man by the name of Robert Mueller.
	And so there might be a lot of information that comes out in that case that surprises people.
	It's the first case of that nature concerning 9-11 that is likely to ever reach the public limelight because almost every other case never did.
	And this is 20 years later.
	I don't know.
	When did they file the suit?
	Is it relatively recent or has it been going on for decades?
	The theory of the litigation has been going on since about a year afterwards.
	And so it went back and forth in terms of when they could sue, whether they could sue, how they could sue.
	It's been a massive political legal battle for 20 years.
	That's crazy.
	And so the next step would then be what?
	I mean, what's the procedural posture left in this before getting to the trial?
	Hopefully they keep getting more interesting discovery.
	And hopefully this case does go to a full trial and we get to see a lot of the very interesting evidence that may be coming out.
	Political ramifications towards lots of people if it's not contained.
	So we'll see.
	All right.
	Very interesting.
	It is amazing to think that we're two decades after 9-11.
	Many wrongs have never even...
	You can't right those wrongs, but they've never even been addressed.
	They've never been compensated in any meaningful sense.
	And, you know, government life just goes on.
	It's...
	Yeah, no, let's...
	I plan to finish my Hush Hush series at vivabarneslaw.locals.com on 9-11, by 9-11, but because of all the vaccine cases and my trials, that will have to come over the next year.
	But it's a fascinating topic that will always be of importance, but it would be nice to see some real evidence tested in court to see at least some of the facts that have, to date, not come to public light.
	And the other one, if anybody wants to go to social media and...
	Hound Dershowitz so that he attends.
	I'm not saying he has not denied or refused.
	Let's just make it happen.
	We can have our special O.J. Soiree.
	I may have an alternative option in case Dershowitz is busy.
	The gentlemen of the behavior panel are game for a combined live stream on debating the O.J. Simpson case.
	So it would be us and all four of the behavior panel.
	And I would be the defense and they could voice the skepticism of the other side.
	And so I had a discussion with him this past week.
	And so that may be a fun little combined live stream project as well.
	And that might be the enticement that Dershowitz needs to come on afterwards and discuss in greater detail.
	I've noticed all the questions about Sussman indictment trial can show Mueller investigation was in reality a cover-up operation.
	You may need to set up the factual backgrounds for that.
	I'm not too familiar with what's going on.
	That's John Durham's indictment, and so that's his new indictment of the Clinton campaign lawyer who created a fake story about the Alpha Bank-Russia-Trump connection, which was, if you knew anything about banking or knew anything about Trump, you knew it was nonsense from day one, that it was just ludicrous allegations, even though people like Dan Abrams, chief legal advisor at ABC, took the bait on it.
	While he was critiquing me about how could you dare accuse the government of illegally spying on somebody?
	But that might be a good transition into our other case this week.
	For going on the better part of a decade, Wikimedia has been fighting the National Security Agency on its upload program that basically monitors massive amounts of Internet information.
	And first it was denied on standing, then it was reinstated on standing, then it went back.
	And finally the government came up with their new excuse, which is, One, we're not going to tell you whether you specifically are being spied on, so you don't have standing under the FISA laws to bring suit.
	And secondly, the proof that could prove that we were spying on you, we're going to call that a state secret.
	So now you can't sue us.
	Ha ha.
	And the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals took the bait on it.
	And allowed the NSA to get a full dismissal on state secrets grounds.
	I mean, it's a bad misapplication.
	It's a doctrine that didn't exist until the Cold War era.
	The Supreme Court just kind of invented it out of whole cloth, said it was in the common law, which is a bunch of nonsense.
	But it's an unfortunate expansion.
	There was some good language in there about other ways to challenge this, and this is a case that they've taken an analogous case up to the U.S. Supreme Court already.
	And it's whether or not the FISA law allows an aggrieved person, someone who has been illegally spied on, to get information and records despite the state secret's protection.
	Which is what the state secret's exception does.
	It says, I can't tell you what the evidence is because that would reveal a state secret.
	But I need that state secret in order to defend myself.
	So, Judge, you have to dismiss the case.
	I don't know, Robert, I don't know if we've made people love the practice of law or hate the practice of law more or the world in general, but at least they understand it more.
	Yeah, this is the type of stuff that makes you realize it's a big club and we're not invited or we're not members.
	We're not in it, as George Carlin famously said.
	And I'm not so familiar with the Wikimedia lawsuit.
	So this has now been going on.
	What's the essence basis of the lawsuit in a nutshell for those who don't know what it is?
	Effectively, it's maybe a First Amendment violation trying to create self-censored speech because people are aware that their speech is being monitored and surveilled.
	And the Second and Fourth Amendment violation because it's seizure of information without probable cause of a crime.
	And consequently, you should be able to sue on both grounds.
	Initially, the district court said, no, you can't sue at all.
	The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals wisely stepped in and said, yes, you could.
	We went back to the district court level, and then that's when they came up with the state secret doctrine.
	And what Wikimedia came back with was, hey, look, under the FISA laws, FISA laws were meant to preempt all of the state secret doctrine and say, if you are an agreed person, someone who has reason to believe you've been spied on, you can, in fact, get your First and Fourth Amendment remedy in court from illicit government action.
	And the government came back and said, yeah, but you haven't proven you're an aggrieved person, and that's a state secret, whether you are an aggrieved person, and we can't disclose that.
	It's critical to our defense.
	Dismiss the case, Judge.
	And the case, Judge did.
	It's Wikimedia.
	What is that from the get-go as an entity?
	I don't know all the details about them.
	I forget whether they're connected to WikiLeaks or not.
	We'll see if we can get some...
	I thought they were, but I was not certain.
	I mean, they did have reason to know that they...
	And what they detailed was still very helpful because they detailed a lot of the information about the scale and scope of the NSA spying, that the NSA spying is on...
	Often the NSA uses...
	If information simply touches and...
	The international aspect of the internet distribution mechanism, it grabs the whole thing.
	Data packets.
	Mike Lindell has gone a little off on data packets.
	He's got some incorrect information, but we'll put that for another day.
	Yeah, Wikipedia Foundation runs Wikipedia.
	Yes, that's right.
	Thank you, Avid.
	Okay, so that's the system, people.
	Yes, it is.
	Avoid it.
	Now, Robert, people are asking.
	I don't want to discuss it because I don't want to...
	I've publicized that which was basically said not to be presentable during the trial, but there's been some discussion in Kyle Rittenhouse.
	I know you're limited in terms of what you can discuss, and so I'm just going to put a broad question out there and leave it to your better judgment, which is better than everyone, as to what you can discuss and what you can't.
	For those of anybody who doesn't know, you know who Kyle Rittenhouse is.
	17-year-old kid showed up with a firearm to protect businesses during the riots in Kenosha.
	A bunch of very bad people and we know it now.
	And they're referring to the lone survivor.
	They called him a lone survivor of his murder spree.
	This guy who showed up to a riot with an unlawful concealed weapon.
	Said he wanted to end Kyle Rittenhouse's life.
	We all know what happened there.
	And now they're going to trial.
	The trial is scheduled for, I'm looking, I don't have to remember.
	First week of November.
	So first week of November, yeah, the whole month it's scheduled for.
	So there are three big pieces of news.
	One was, as forecast, the prosecutor continues to simply inflame the local court of public opinion by filing motions to introduce evidence that have nothing to do with the case.
	And as predicted, the judge denied all of their requests to get in this nonsensical information.
	But again, they had their intended effect, which was to contaminate the local jury pool.
	But as predicted, all of that was gibberish.
	Right now, the court's not allowing in the fact that some of the people that were shot that night had long, extensive criminal histories, including pedophilia.
	That can be reexamined if it becomes pertinent at the trial.
	The third thing that the court said was the court is not inclined to give The court wants to limit the politicization of the case and some of the questions that are being asked.
	So some of that is going to be apprising the court.
	I may be making a formal appearance in the case sometime in the future.
	Making sure the court's aware that what the prosecutor's done is heavily prejudiced the jury pool and the only interest Kyle Rittenhouse has is not a political case.
	It is solely in making sure there's people that presume him innocent as the law requires are his jury and not people who presume him guilty based on inadmissible information that the prosecutor has been funneling and pumping out into the local community.
	So now the other interesting aspect to all this is I think I briefly mentioned in a prior episode.
	Which is there were reasons to suspect that the FBI and other government agencies were secretly drone filming all of the riots that occurred last year.
	And it turns out they did.
	And the question is, you know, well, what have they been doing with that?
	What were they doing with that?
	Why weren't a lot of other people arrested and later charged with crimes given the information they had?
	They've been trying to hide that evidence.
	The prosecutor tried to mis...
	apparently finally got his hands on it.
	The defense doesn't have it yet.
	But the prosecutor was trying to spin it as Kyle chasing the other guy.
	That's a bunch of nonsense.
	We'll show the whole context in all the videos that that's just not accurate.
	But it's good to finally find out.
	We want all of that video footage, not just select parts of it, because I believe evidence will show several of the people involved that night were planning on chasing him down and causing him harm all night.
	And you'll see the shots fired before to trigger the whole incident in the first place.
	But is this going to be another...
	Whitmer document dump, they're going to just say, here's a thousand hours of drone footage on the eve of the trial.
	If that happens, then there'll need to be a continuance to absorb all of that evidence.
	We were the ones that first raised the issue of this evidence all the way back several months ago, and so have wanted this evidence.
	And so if we thought the evidence looked bad, we wouldn't be asking for it.
	The evidence looks good.
	And in fact, part of this is...
	Earlier on that night, Kyle was trying to stop people, including several of these people, from basically creating firebombing through a dumpster, getting a fire in a dumpster and then pushing the dumpster towards buildings or police cars or people.
	And that's what Kyle was trying to stop happening, and that's what enraged some of these people.
	And so some of that's already on the available footage.
	But we would like to have more footage that would document and demonstrate that more.
	When you have people with this kind of extensive criminal history, that night you're going to have organized criminal activity.
	It reminds me a lot of the Michael Strickland case, the Oregon case, where there was footage.
	Ultimately, it showed up.
	It showed these Antifa types were organizing, planning on attacking him that day.
	And it was evidence that wasn't fully disclosed at the time, in my view.
	So that's where we'll be in the...
	And I'll be involved in the jury selection in that case either way, whether we do it in person or by questionnaire.
	I favor some part of a questionnaire, but I don't mind having more extensive in-person voidier as long as it's done in a way that's likely to produce an impartial jury that presumes the defendant innocent, not guilty.
	Hey, Robert, just look at the camera for one second without the cup.
	Got it.
	I want to take a screenshot of this because I appreciate it.
	Thank you very much.
	Now, it was on the Rittenhouse.
	Oh, you know, sorry.
	Nick Ricada, by the way, apparently did an excellent breakdown of the whole hearing.
	So people can look at Nick Ricada's Ricada Media, Ricada Law, R-E-K-E-I-T-A, I believe.
	I haven't seen it, but people told me he did a great breakdown because I've been in trouble.
	No, and now, just so also people appreciate, of the three victims, one was the, I think the YouTube term is a potato file, so we don't get into trouble.
	The other one was someone who had just gotten released from a psychiatric hospital, and I say this not to make fun, was suicidal, and apparently was suicidal that entire evening.
	And the one who got shot in the bicep, was he the...
	He was the one who carried the gun.
	He also had his criminal history.
	I think it was maybe domestic violence, stalking, whatever it was.
	Had a criminal history.
	And he said later he wanted to shoot Kyle in the face.
	And empty it into Kyle.
	It was one of the Facebook posts.
	So these are three wonderful individuals who showed up clearly to protest racial inequality in America.
	Not to start bad SHIT.
	And Lord knows, drone footage would show quite literally, you know, movement of flaming objects into other objects.
	It would also show who fired what where in order to trigger the timing of what ensued.
	It would show all the people firing right behind Kyle to make it appear to him that they're shooting at him.
	And there's people coming behind him shooting here, there's people shooting, and there's multiple places where they appear to be trying to create the impression to him that they're shooting at him.
	And so that's why we want all that file.
	But also, why hasn't the FBI disclosed this in other contexts all across the country?
	They have all kinds of information on criminal activity they've been hiding.
	Why?
	Well, I just took a chat from Dan Harrington.
	I think it was Harrington.
	Mike Harrington?
	Harrington in the chat said, I didn't know they had drawn footage.
	Neither did I. And I've been following this pretty closely.
	But it's going to piss people off because they're going to say you can't introduce the criminal history of the victims.
	I can understand why.
	You're not trying to prove character.
	It's irrelevant.
	It's not to prove.
	It's not to say that these people deserve to be shot or anything else.
	It is to show the mindset of who these people are and what they were about that night and show that it explains their intent because you're trying to explain an interaction.
	How did it come about?
	Why did it come about?
	And aspects of their history can be relevant to that.
	The court recognized that.
	The court said that the clarity needs to be you need to produce evidence of that.
	Rather than just the fact they have a criminal history, I'm going to be disinclined to let it in.
	But if there's something that shows why what happened that night happened, then we'll reexamine it at trial.
	Okay.
	And in as much as the history of the victims was deemed to be inadmissible, so too was two incidents predating this incident involving Kyle, which is good.
	I just don't want to bring any more attention to irrelevant...
	I mean, the prosecutor got what they wanted.
	The local media saturated coverage over that topic.
	He targeted local media for the coverage.
	And so you're going to have more than half of the Kenosha jury pool that presumes Kyle guilty before the trial begins.
	And that's my concern for the jury selection process with the court.
	It's not political beliefs of the jury.
	It's making sure that they presume him innocent.
	As the law requires.
	I have to bring this up because it's just funny to read.
	Yeah, it is.
	Okay, so that's...
	So what is the status then of the drone footage of the FBI?
	We know it exists.
	This is not a rumor.
	We're finally going to get it, but apparently not all of it.
	So apparently we have to fight to get all of it.
	And then once you get it, you're going to see how much of it you get, whether or not it's digestible in advance of the trial.
	And if it's not, then you'll reassess.
	Correct.
	And for people who've asked, I've got a lot of requests about people who can help because the legal fund is empty and there's a lot of security costs that he and his family have had to go through due to the threats against them.
	I have pinned a comment where you can go to support the case, and that's at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	You can find the pinned comment towards the top, and that will take you to the link.
	And people do keep asking for the template of the letter to employers.
	I keep getting messages and I can't respond to all of them, but it's there somewhere.
	It's pinned right at the top, an exemplar or an example of a letter that you can send that others have sent and that others have successfully utilized.
	It's not a guarantee of success, of course, but that many have had success using that letter and the information in it.
	There's no copyright asserted.
	Use it as you see fit.
	Of course, it's not legal advice in case the state bars are whining out there.
	You're free to do it with it, whatever you want.
	It came in a bottle, as I like to say.
	But a lot of people have successfully used it because a lot of employers are uneducated on their legal risks by doing these mandates.
	And the same thing that's happening in Quebec is that the government might be immune.
	Old person homes might be immune.
	Vaccine manufacturers might be immune.
	But small businesses are not.
	Although they're floating the idea of immunizing them.
	Of course they are.
	It's never ending.
	But it's funny how...
	The threat of a lawsuit makes people say maybe the risk of an unvaccinated dude is not all that much to warrant whatever we're doing.
	But we'll see.
	Ask some of the hospitals that don't have enough nurses to take care of babies currently.
	So whether this was such a wise idea.
	Our government made the decision that an unvaccinated healthcare worker is more of a threat than not having a bed to deliver a baby.
	I would be asking the question if the FBI was using the drone to organize their stooges to burn down the city.
	Well, I won't get to that level of it, but I'm just going to say...
	FBI is there with drone footage, and no charges have been pressed of any meaningful degree against those protesters.
	Are they there to broadcast it, or are they there to do their effing jobs?
	Exactly, exactly.
	And that's in town after town, apparently.
	They were doing it everywhere.
	And because it also came up with Milley, Milley deliberately misled the president about issues related to this to prevent President Trump from operating on his instincts that they needed to send in the National Guard.
	To stop a lot of these rioting that caused so much damages to business and people all across the nation.
	So you had the high-ranking part of the FBI and Milley, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, coordinating to keep information from the president and from the people that could have protected businesses and lives.
	Well, all right.
	And we've said this before, Biden should be impeached for this drone strike.
	I'd say impeach him, replace him with whom?
	Kamala Harris?
	I don't want to make any offensive movie references, but you're going to replace him with some of...
	It's the devil you know versus the devil you know.
	Which devil do you want today?
	No doubt.
	So now Epstein is being sued.
	Not Epstein, I'm sorry.
	Prince Andrew.
	Well, that's one hell of a Freudian slip.
	Prince Andrew, people.
	Not Jeffrey Epstein.
	Is being sued.
	We all know what he's been accused of.
	Who's the plaintiff in this particular suit?
	It's the woman who gave the interview.
	Virginia Guthrie.
	Okay, so she's suing now.
	And she's suing for Epstein-ish-esque type accusations.
	We saw it is now known as the interview heard around the world of Prince Andrew explaining that it couldn't possibly have been him because...
	I remember at that time in my life where she says she remembers me being sweaty, I suffered from a condition where he couldn't sweat.
	That's his defense.
	And since that interview, I don't think he's done another public appearance.
	We know the nature of the allegations.
	We don't need to get into them.
	It involves very bad stuff.
	It connects back to Epstein and Maxwell, Gillian Maxwell.
	What were the hurdles in terms of getting that lawsuit filed in the first place?
	So there are several.
	For people who want to see a breakdown of the interview and why he hasn't done one since, look at the behavior panel.
	Did a great breakdown of him.
	It was epic.
	Even the way his foot moved and things like this.
	I think Chase Hughes could figure out his heart pulse rate by the way his foot moved.
	It's fascinating.
	They're great guys.
	They've helped me out in a couple of cases.
	But so the problem is, of course, he's a British official.
	I mean, I think he's still kind of in the royal family, even if he's not quite credited with it.
	But because he's British, he's a foreigner, you have to go through the British process to get a British court or the British government to approve the summons being served on him for them to have personal jurisdiction over him in the United States.
	And that was approved this week in Britain, so he will be having to defend himself.
	They tried greatly to fight that and resist it.
	They were unsuccessful, so he will have to defend himself in court in New York.
	He has said he'll have an aggressive defense and that the allegations are untrue and so on and so forth.
	We'll see.
	I mean, there are photos with him and the person, so that doesn't help him.
	And now for anybody who has not seen that photo, it's a photo.
	I believe at one point people were saying it was a fake photo because of the angle of his hand around her waist.
	Couldn't be the position of his shoulders.
	Bullcrap.
	It does illustrate the importance, and this is one thing I've learned during the campaign.
	When you take selfies, pull the Keanu Reeves hovering hand.
	You can never go wrong with the hovering hand as opposed to making contacts somewhere where you're not supposed to.
	It's called Keanu Reeves style.
	That's how he does all his photos.
	All his photos are at least four feet behind.
	Hold on, my computer has not been plugged in.
	Oh my gosh, hold on.
	Jeez Louise, am I glad I saw that.
	Okay.
	Yeah, no, Keanu Reeves, when you see the pictures, it's an amazing thing.
	I don't want to put Keanu on a pedestal that maybe, you know, everybody's human, but he certainly looks like he deserves something of a pedestal.
	So it's going to be, we know the nature of the allegations, damages for these types of things.
	Statute of limitations, is that going to be a problem in this?
	Not in New York, because they have a very long statute of limitations for these kind of charges.
	And it's going to be in New York, which...
	Yeah, there'll be another high-profile case.
	I don't think he'll be able to get a dismissal or anything else.
	That case seems to me like it's going to be a jury trial case.
	And Wright Brothers R.C. says he's sweating now.
	Well played, sir.
	That is quite on point.
	Have we seen the allegations of the lawsuit?
	Yes, yes.
	It basically lays out the allegations that are in the various documentaries concerning it as well.
	The problem that he has is, one, the photo, but also other witnesses that are in those documentaries that talk about seeing him with her on the island and some other places.
	Now, he may have some defenses in terms of...
	What exactly he knew and didn't know and what exactly her age was, although she may have been 18 at the time.
	So then it's a little bit different issue as to him.
	It's obviously very politically damaging and reputationally impacting, but the degree to which the factual claims will support certain legal theories is unknown at this time.
	And I mean, I guess it ties in.
	Do we have any updates in Jelaine Maxwell?
	I mean, we haven't heard from her in a while.
	Not yet.
	Not yet.
	They dumped more data and evidence concerning it.
	Technofog at his substack follows the case in some great detail, and he had an update a couple of weeks ago, but I haven't seen an update since.
	Okay.
	Let's see.
	It says we almost lost email.
	Yeah, I was down to, let me see here.
	Yeah, 3%, and that's after I've had the battery plugged in now for two seconds.
	What do we move on to now, Robert?
	Let me see.
	If you can think of something faster than I can find it, know me too in China.
	Robert?
	Yes, indeed.
	It's basically a woman who accused a high-ranking official of sexual harassment.
	And the Chinese courts decided that they weren't going to have any of the Me Too and basically dismissed her case.
	So it just shows a very different cultural mindset, good and bad, depending on your perspective in China.
	I mean, they're also trying to purge all the soy boys from any form of Chinese media.
	They see that as a bad, they want masculine, masculine men.
	And it seems to be kind of a reflection of that.
	I've had friends that have had, let's just say, interesting experiences in China in terms of their approach to sexual harassment.
	But it shows that the Me Too laws are not laws that are going to be strictly enforced in China.
	Well, and you know, it's a funny thing because during our debate with the federal candidates people, Mark Garneau, who's the Minister of Foreign Affairs, was taking flack because in the debate he says, we're not going to recognize the Taliban as a government.
	But we're negotiating and working closely with them.
	And we have made our demands clear that we expect...
	I mean, he literally said this.
	We expect diversity and respect of women's rights from the Taliban in Afghanistan.
	And people scoffed in the crowd, but they think, especially from a defeated, humiliated military perspective, that they're going to start making gender demands on the Taliban.
	Good luck with that.
	No, and you wonder, like, these countries have to be laughing at us in a way that's not funny in terms of what they think we're still carrying a big stick.
	Like, no, we just fled, left thousands of people in the dead of night and had to scramble to get them out so they didn't get killed by your regime.
	Now we're telling you, we expect you to respect gender equality in Afghanistan and sexual harassment in China.
	I mean, it's...
	It's not to say that we should lower the standards here, but we have to be realistic in terms of how...
	When a little bit too much becomes too much in terms of maintaining discipline in our own countries.
	I don't know what the Chinese military thinks when they look at Milley compromising the US military here and then at the same time undermining its standing with China itself.
	They might look...
	Go ahead, sir.
	No, what were you going to say?
	I was going to move on to another topic.
	Oh, yeah.
	Well, actually, I am remembering the top topic at the poll at VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com is an unsettling case to some degree, a Sixth Circuit decision that said a group of doctors who sued the FDA over their policies concerning hydroxychloroquine, in particular limiting the federal stockpile, and effectively discouraging its use for COVID.
	That the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals said they didn't have any standing, there's that wonderful word again, to sue.
	And what was problematic is historically, physicians have always been able to sue for their patients.
	So it's called third-party standing in the law, that certain relationships are so connected that one party can sue on behalf of another party who's injured.
	And the second general standing doctrine is called associational standing.
	Where you represent as a group a bunch of people who have a common interest whose members will suffer injury, and rather than forcing all of them to sue or them suing individually and separately, you allow the group to sue.
	Now, some people on the right have thought that some people on the left have misused and abused that to file a lot of unnecessary litigation against governmental policies, and I understand what some of their concerns are.
	But I've never been a fan of standing as a doctrine.
	I think it's an invented doctrine.
	It's a Pontius Pilate pretext to hide from responsibility and judicial accountability.
	And that doesn't change no matter which way it breaks.
	But what was unsettling is the Sixth Circuit decided that, no, the doctors have no right to sue even for their patients.
	And they showed very little concern and were very dismissive of the concerns raised about...
	The issue about the hydroxychloroquine.
	They're like, well, you haven't shown that the medical boards are going to do anything hostile to you if you go against FDA advice, which honestly, that's kind of preposterous.
	I mean, they should know better than that.
	It appears to just be an attempt to escape responsibility and accountability in some of these controversial cases concerning the FDA.
	We saw similar ones of that during the lockdown context, saw similar versions of it during the election law context, where judges find a place to cower and be cowards rather than step up to the plate.
	And so that was a little unsettling.
	It shows that there's going to be ongoing attacks on who can sue and who can get remedy in this context and in comparable analogous context.
	And it shows also how political the standing doctrine is because the same Sixth Circuit, the same week, issued a decision about the Tennessee abortion law in which everybody kind of had broad standing somehow.
	Because, you know, it was all of a sudden, you know, associations can sue and doctors can sue for their patients and so on and so forth.
	Because it's not like they had a patient suing saying, I want to get an abortion at this time and can't because of the law.
	But they also, it's going to be another abortion law case controversy.
	A very interesting dissent for people who want to read about the criticisms of the Roe decision.
	The dissent is both a part concurring opinion, part dissenting opinion.
	What it was is Tennessee passed a similar law as Texas.
	It's a heartbeat law, except the state employed it and it had criminal punishment remedies, unlike the Texas law, which only had private act or lawsuit remedies.
	And Biden, of course, the Department of Justice did sue in Texas, and they did not win a temporary restraining order on that.
	For the same reasons that the Supreme Court already turned it down.
	So it's kind of political futility like we said last week it was.
	But the Tennessee decision, they said that the heartbeat law violated that there's an absolute right to an abortion prior to the fetus being viable outside of the womb.
	Prior to viability and this was on the basis of Roe v.
	Wade in some ways.
	Yes, Roe v.
	Wade and Casey combined.
	And then the second issue, which was interesting, Tennessee passed an anti-discrimination law, and the Sixth Circuit had upheld a prior Ohio law that said you can't abort a fetus if the reason for doing so is its mental disability perceived because of genetic testing.
	It's becoming all the rave, and now you can have a certain prediction as to whether or not a child may have a certain mental disability.
	It's disturbing to people who are concerned about the history of eugenics that that is starting to factor into abortion decisions.
	And so the Tennessee just expanded it and said if it's based on race, if it's based on gender, or if it's based on genetic testing of perceived mental disability, you can't do the abortion.
	And the Sixth Circuit majority over one dissenting judge said that was too vague somehow.
	It's like the Ohio law was just fine.
	Which is almost identical language.
	It was basically two judges who are very strong on the pro-choice side of the equation, who, in fact, made positive comments about genetic testing.
	Shows you where a lot of the mindset of a lot of these people are.
	There's a long history of ties between abortion advocates and eugenicists, going back to Margaret Singer and others.
	But the Tennessee law was struck down entirely, potentially heading up to the Supreme Court, along with the Texas and Mississippi cases.
	I don't know anything about this.
	What is the, I don't know if it goes state by state, history of the law on abortion specifically as relates to birth defects?
	So is that not recognized as a legitimate reason for aborting in certain states?
	Or is there no national consensus on that?
	No, it depends on the state.
	Now, if you do a public opinion poll, most people have problems with abortions being done on that basis.
	But it depends on the state.
	Most states, it is legal to abort based on perceived disabilities that the child may have.
	In Tennessee, they were trying to ban that because they didn't want that to be the reason for such decisions, nor do they want race or gender to be the basis of the decision.
	All it was was the doctor couldn't do the abortion or the abortionist couldn't do the abortion without If they knew that that was the reason for it, and they said that was somehow void for vagueness, which is kind of interesting.
	I mean, there's a lot of laws that should be void for vague then, but they even went through, well, yeah, there's all these other laws that we've all said are okay that are clearly much more vague than this law is, but it's abortion, so we have our own.
	It shows how politicized, the best place to see the politicization of courts is in the abortion context.
	Void for vagueness.
	You have to steel man the argument because the law said, the law outlawed abortions at a stage which would be pre-viability.
	Yeah, there's that component.
	The other component was no abortions for discriminatory reasons.
	And that's the one they said was void for vagueness.
	Included in the discriminatory reasons were things like race and sex and apparent or perceived disability.
	Those were all three put on the same...
	A specific one, a Down syndrome, particularly.
	Okay.
	What would be the steel manning of the argument in terms of where the void for vagueness would be?
	They're asking the abortionist to know the mindset of the person doing the abortion.
	But that happens.
	There's a hundred contexts in which we do that.
	And again, it doesn't assume.
	It just says, if I as a doctor know.
	It doesn't say I have to know.
	It doesn't say I should know.
	It says, if I as an abortionist know that...
	That that's going to be, that that's their motivation, then it's illegal.
	To me, that's not void for vagueness.
	If it had more elasticity to it, then I would understand, but it didn't.
	And frankly, it was better than a lot of other places where they hold people liable for criminal leave.
	Okay, interesting.
	Now, Robert, someone's asking, and I don't know what they mean by it.
	Viva legality of the no-fly zones around southern invasion.
	Do you know what that means?
	I do not.
	Okay.
	I'm sorry.
	Whoever asked that, I tried.
	I don't know what it is, but I'll look into it, but don't know offhand.
	That transitions into the other case that was the most popular on our poll at vivabarneslaw.logos.com, which is the craziness, aside from my current case in North Carolina, the craziness taking place in the North Carolina courts, which is a North Carolina court determined that voter IDs are racist.
	And it's similarly kind of oriented to that Nevada decision.
	We talked about immigration laws being racist.
	That, you know, it's a lot of historical speculation about the intention and meaning of what some legislators were doing.
	Really, it's Democrats at war with Republicans.
	Democrats have a lot of power in the judiciary, not so much power in the legislative branch.
	So they're using their judicial branch power to try to stop the legislative branch from requiring voter IDs.
	Ironic that some of these same courts that have problems with voter IDs don't have a problem with vaccine passports.
	We have to highlight this down.
	I'm going to bring it back again to the incident that occurred in Canada.
	Nobody wants voter IDs because it's racist.
	The argument is soft bigotry of low expectations.
	Minorities don't know how to get IDs.
	To vote.
	But yet we're going to require ID, identification, disclosure of personal medical information to get food, to get into a coffee shop.
	That's fine.
	The minorities are smart enough and able enough to do that.
	But when it comes to voting, we just want everybody, you know, no racism, totally tolerant.
	But when it comes to eating and living, I don't know how anybody reconciles those mutually incompatible ideas without lying to themselves.
	I don't know how.
	And it's not for failure to understand.
	It's impossible because it's mutually incompatible positions.
	And one of these cases is going up to the North Carolina Supreme Court where there's massive manipulation to try to disqualify the judges who they think might rule the other way.
	And so you have Democratic judges on the North Carolina Supreme Court apparently coordinating to exclude the Republican-elected judges on the Supreme Court from being part of the decision.
	So it's not clear whether they'll go through with that, but that appears traditionally recusal, disqualification of a judge is determined by the judge themselves, not by the other judicial members of that court.
	It can happen that they get involved, but that's really not supposed to happen because the fear is that you would have politically motivated consequences and politically motivated intentions.
	Particularly ironic in the North Carolina Supreme Court context because one of the judges who's looking at recusing the other one is a judge who has actually participated in certain ways in the underlying litigation for one of the sides.
	So it just showed the politicization of the courts is getting really bad.
	And around some of these issues, the fight is so intense.
	That they're willing to go places they've never gone before.
	It's, I mean, politicization, Robin.
	We've lived it in real time, and I don't know if I've become more aware of it or if it's become more pronounced.
	I think it's become more pronounced.
	I can understand the motivated reasoning that comes in reconciling a woman's right to choose with not giving a woman the right to choose on the vaccine.
	Although I will still rub that what I feel to be somewhat incompatible thought pattern in anybody who says it.
	Today, Mark Garneau, my political rival says, we support a woman's right to choose, blah, blah, blah.
	I said, yeah, woman's right to choose, except when it comes to vaccines.
	No voter ID laws, except when it comes to vaccine passports.
	It's motivated reasoning at its best, but specifically with respect to that.
	Now, Robert, the idea of the, sorry, the drone, Plane thing.
	Apparently, Biden has made it illegal to fly a drone within two kilometers of the migrant camps.
	Because of all the footage of people just walking across the river?
	On the southern border is flying video drones over holding facilities.
	Because I guess they were getting some good aerial footage that was showing there were slightly more people than they're letting on, leading people to believe.
	There's only so much they can do there.
	They have a lot of power over the border, but they can't unduly...
	Because remember, the media sued on this early on when the Biden administration was trying to keep everybody out of the border from seeing all of this, or the media threatened sued, and they backed off because they have to allow a certain degree of access.
	They can only restrict that so much.
	But speaking of social media and media operations, Facebook did bring its motion to transfer that I predicted it would in the Trump cases.
	So not a big surprise, but basically...
	They laid out why the case had to be brought and transferred to the Northern District of California.
	And I'll summarize it because it's pretty straightforward, pretty easy.
	Standard terms of use, they provide for a specific form for dispute resolutions, and it provides for the courts of Northern California.
	The one thing I don't understand, you'll explain to me, this is the Trump Second Amendment removal suppression lawsuit, which we had some criticism on.
	Apparently there's an amended complaint that hasn't been served yet, but we'll get there in due course.
	Facebook moves to change venue because their terms of service, which were in effect when the accounts were created, provide for a specific form for dispute resolutions.
	Seems straightforward to me, but one thing that I don't understand, or maybe I do understand it, but you'll tell me what you think.
	Do you not make the motion to dismiss in the venue in which it was filed, and if that motion to dismiss gets dismissed, then you make the motion for change of venue, or is there, there's a word for it, tacit acceptance of the venue if you make a motion there?
	It's because it's federal court.
	So because it's federal court, they always have an option of transfer.
	So you can bring a motion to dismiss or, in lieu thereof, motion to transfer.
	I know why they want it transferred.
	They want it transferred prior to dismissal because they likely want to bring anti-slap remedies against Trump.
	And they wouldn't be able to get two kicks at the can.
	It's atornment.
	I think atornment is the term, atornment to jurisdiction.
	If they were to try to bring a dismissal in the jurisdiction without invoking anti-slap, and that dismissal gets dismissed, is there an atornment or a tacit recognition of the jurisdiction?
	Or could they then make the motion to transfer, then make another motion to dismiss?
	No, I mean, essentially, if they move to dismiss it, it is dismissed.
	And the court they got is an Obama appointee.
	It's the same appointee who said that...
	The mask mandate couldn't apply to cruise ships.
	And the same one that said the First Amendment right.
	You had a First Amendment right to have vaccine passports.
	That you have a First Amendment right to impose a vaccine passport.
	So if I was Trump's people, you're not going to get anywhere with that, Judge.
	But if they move to dismiss and it's granted, they don't have any anti-slap fee rights.
	Whereas if they get it transferred first...
	And then move to dismiss, then they can force Trump to pay all their legal fees.
	And I guess, I mean, I presume Facebook chose that venue because the laws are more favorable to Facebook in the first place.
	Well, technically the laws are all the same.
	Well, some of them aren't the same.
	Substantively, California law would apply rather than federal law.
	And there's an argument.
	They did amend to add a couple of federal state law claims that were decent.
	Florida state law claims that raised issues about, for example, unfair competition.
	So they enhanced the complaint a bit much better than the original one.
	Still not quite where I think it could have been.
	But they're always going to have, given their theory of the case, was always going to have a transfer problem, a venue problem.
	And then you have the anti-slap problem.
	But mostly it's because of the judges in the Northern District of California tend to be real differential towards big tech.
	And where did I just see the chat?
	Cali and New York courts are activists.
	It's a no-brainer in terms of a transfer of jurisdiction, right?
	What would be the steel man argument for why it should not be transferred in accordance with the terms of service that were...
	Very hard.
	You know, Laura Loomer's suit in her case was transferred, and that was a, frankly, better brought suit than this one is.
	So it's going to get transferred.
	All right.
	And now in this particular lawsuit, in the motion for transfer...
	They keep referencing the fact that there was an amended or restated complaint that had not been served yet, but the council agreed to accept service.
	But I just don't understand.
	What does it mean when they say that there's an amended complaint that had not been served yet?
	How do they know?
	And what is the legal standing of an amended complaint that hasn't been served yet?
	So it depends on the local rules and the rules in place.
	Generally speaking, when you file suit in federal court, you often have to move for leave to amend unless you haven't served your original complaint.
	And if you haven't served your original complaint, then you often have a right to leave to amend at least once.
	It appears, I mean, here they filed one, and then they filed another one, and then they filed another one.
	It doesn't look good when you keep filing amended suits and never serve the complaint.
	It looks like you're using the case for PR purposes rather than to get into court.
	So I don't believe that's what their intention is, but that's how it appears.
	And Facebook is pointing that out to the court.
	The court's going to be hostile to Trump anyway, given the politics of that court, as reflected in the past.
	But it doesn't help.
	Again, the lawyers he has running those cases are not very impressive, in my view.
	Okay, well, we believe prediction is it will get transferred and it will get dismissed.
	The only question is going to be with or without the fee-shifting provisions of the anti-slap law in Northern California.
	Exactly.
	All right, well, that's going to be fun to look out for.
	We could have one fun case to wrap it up.
	I don't know if you'd call it a fun case, but it turned out that a fertility doctor was really good at helping his patients, and it turned out because it came from him.
	It turned out he had many, many children that people were unaware of and has led to litigation in New York.
	So let's explain how this happens.
	The fertility doctor is otherwise injecting the stuff of other people who donate, presumably, but this guy...
	I presume it's a guy, wants to have his genes live on in eternity, and so uses his own stuff for impregnating people who otherwise want to get pregnant, correct?
	That's exactly it.
	Okay, so is it a civil suit or is it a criminal suit?
	Civil suit.
	So the argument is going to be the women wanted to get impregnated.
	If they're doing artificial insemination, they selected a profile, depending on what the rules are of the jurisdiction.
	So the argument is going to be...
	They selected some person's profile.
	They ended up with another's.
	Civilly, what's the nature of the claim?
	Damages?
	Yes, it's basically a form of fraud.
	And the other component, apparently, some of them ended up related to people in ways they didn't know they were related, and that didn't make them happy, too.
	So because you had a single source with one guy who was treating all these people in the same community, you're going to end up with people that don't realize, oh, that's my half-brother.
	Those kind of issues apparently is what triggered the surgery.
	It's sick, and to that extent there's some sick humor in this, but there's a real issue in terms of when you pick a profile, you want to look for genetic disorders, especially when mixing and matching with a mother who might have sickle cell anemia, for example, or Tay-Sachs, where you have to know who you're getting the stuff from.
	So there's that.
	But, I mean, Robert, there is the real prospect of...
	Criminal charges that can be filed against him as well?
	I mean, what would those look like?
	I think they're outside the statute of limitations for all that.
	Because a lot of these people didn't find out until much, much later.
	So I think it's only civil charges that he would face.
	I mean, I think civil charges would be the only ones that concern the actual victims because they might want to go after him criminally.
	There could be an argument for tolling the prescription, the statute of limitations, because none of them knew and they discovered recently.
	There's usually something called a statute of repose that prevents a lot of that in the states.
	So the statute of repose means that from the time of the incident, you have a certain time to bring suit regardless of whether or not you discover it.
	And so the statute of repos is usually about 10 years in almost every state.
	So if you don't find out within the first 10 years, then you can't sue, period, even if you didn't discover it until year 11, 12, 13, etc.
	It varies by state as to whether it applies.
	And disciplinary action in terms of the doctor?
	I presume that there's no statute of limitations on?
	No, no, of course not.
	One big...
	Okay, so let's go towards the next week, first of all.
	What are we having to look forward?
	You're going to finish your trial soon.
	What do we have to look forward to on the legal front?
	So I anticipate a lot more vaccine mandate suits across the country.
	I'll be part of some of those as well.
	I mean, definitely against Tyson Foods, looking at suits in the state of Washington, the states of California.
	There's already good suits filed there.
	We would just be adding to those against the city of Oakland, city of San Francisco, and the city of Los Angeles, looking at suits against in New York, looking at suits against a wide range of big companies, looking at suits against the Department of Justice by other Justice Department employees, Department of Labor by Department of Justice.
	Department of Labor employees, Department of Defense, by Department of Defense employees, Department of Energy, by Department of Energy employees.
	So probably looking at a lot of suits in a lot of cases in a lot of places, figuring out what we can manage, putting together a team with the Children's Health Defense and some other groups to have a coordinated committee of people who are working together to make sure we get the most effective suits brought.
	I can only handle so many as is.
	But yeah, that is really going to heat up over the next month or so.
	Yeah, and you're a busy man.
	And I actually want to bring that up because I want people to appreciate this.
	Sometimes people, and I'm saying this for my own self-protecting interests, and Robert as well, are just too busy to get back to everybody.
	And so, you know, people tell me that they've reached out to you, Robert, and you didn't get back.
	Sometimes it's just not feasible.
	And there's some people I'll never be able to get back.
	I mean, just realistically, I have hundreds of inquiries every day.
	So I'll try to get back to who we can, when we can.
	But continue to go to vivabarneslaw.locals.com because that's where I'll update information.
	That will be a centralized gathering space.
	Do live streams there usually every Thursday, Friday, and Saturday.
	We'll be at a live chat there.
	Not a live stream, but a live chat after the show for a brief period of time because I've got to finish up my closing argument preparation.
	But we're going to continue to march on.
	And, of course, the big elections coming up in Canada.
	So I'm going to make one exception.
	To not telling people who to vote for.
	I'm not going to tell people who to vote for.
	If you want a Canada that looks like this, but worse or more extreme, vote for Trudeau, O'Toole, or Jagmeet Singh.
	If you want a Canada that looks like what we have been promoting and hoping for and fighting for, there's only one choice.
	Vote PPC.
	With that said, you'll make your decisions tomorrow, people.
	It's the biggest election in the history of Canada because it's going to determine our future going forward.
	If there's any opposition towards the path we are on, Or no opposition whatsoever and only agreement of more of the same.
	Yeah.
	It'll either be more Viva Frye from Montreal or future Viva Frye from Miami.
	Well, that might incite people not to vote for the BBC.
	Some people in Miami might want me there.
	But we'll see.
	We'll see, people.
	All that I say, Robert, thank you very much.
	Everyone in the chat, thank you for the support.
	Thank you for the emails.
	Thank you for the encouragement.
	Thank you.
	Robert, stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.
	Everyone else out there.
	Enjoy the rest of the weekend.
	Enjoy the week.

▲