Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 16, 2021 - Viva & Barnes

02:07:21

Ep. 83: Law Stuffs - Vaccine Mandate, Dominion, Pawlowski, Rogan AND MORE! Viva & Barnes LIVE

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Second.
	Early.
	Again.
	Okay.
	Good evening.
	I was one second early, not one second late.
	Therefore, I was on time.
	How's everybody doing?
	I see lots of Brandons in the house.
	This Brandon business is the best thing I've ever seen.
	Wait, there was one super chatted.
	Let's go, Brandon.
	We have to...
	Oh, the dog is already barking.
	We barely started.
	Let's go, Brandon.
	Jesse Bear.
	Always love the Avatar.
	Thank you very much.
	Let's see who else is in the house.
	Alright, everyone's in the house.
	First things first.
	I'm going to preface this by saying I'm a little cranky pants these days.
	Because you keep thinking the world can't get much more crazy.
	It cannot continue in this descent into legal tyranny.
	And then you wake up to another judgment, another story that says, yeah, you were wrong, Viva.
	And I've got a long-running...
	Oh, son of a gun, I did not...
	No, I did send the links to Robert.
	I've got a long-running analogy that I like to remind myself of.
	When you're in a bad mood, you tend to see a lot more bad drivers around, so to speak.
	When you're in a bad mood and you're driving to work or you're driving somewhere, everybody on the street is driving badly.
	And what is it about today that makes all of these drivers bad?
	By and large, there are always the same amount of bad drivers on the street at any given point in time.
	So one's propensity to noticing them, and more important than that, one's propensity to noticing them and getting frustrated by them, more often than not, is a reflection of their own internal spiritual state.
	In that when you are cranky and angry, you're going to notice a lot of the behavior from others that you would otherwise just brush off and say, it's a beautiful sunny day.
	Let's give everyone the benefit of the doubt and forgive them.
	So that's where I've been mentally and spiritually.
	But the risk of making these types of admissions online, people start asking, are you okay?
	Are you on burnout?
	Is it overwhelming?
	Yada, yada, yada.
	And so there's that type of reflexive response that makes this type of honesty.
	More difficult and more risky.
	Suffice only to say, I have been tired and cranky.
	I watched the first episode of Squid Games yesterday.
	I know how it ends.
	I've seen a bunch of episodes here and there.
	But I watched the first episode, and I do believe it affected my dreams.
	Because I had dreams that really greatly ran parallels to the opening red light, green light scene.
	Sick, diabolical...
	Cinematic movie making, whatever it is, series making.
	Okay.
	Before I get into the rant, because that wasn't the rant, that was just the disclaimer, but let me make sure that I actually sent the links to Barnes, because if I didn't, we might be waiting a little while for him to get in.
	Give me two seconds.
	Here are the links.
	Okay, I sent them to Robert.
	Good.
	Had a Twitter conversation with a Canadian saying that he would rather live in Australia than Texas where I am.
	Because safety over freedom.
	Hope that isn't the normal there or here because if so, we are in trouble.
	I talk to people and there's a lot of people who say in Australia, like I got messages from some saying, I don't know what everyone's freaking out about.
	Overseas, Australia is not that bad.
	There's a part of me that thinks that even Australians do not feel free enough to even be honest via social media because they know the government is actually monitoring their social media posts.
	I mean, this is known now.
	So be too critical.
	Expect the cops to show up at your front door like they did with the person who was organizing the rally, like they did with Avi Yamini in Australia.
	But I get a lot of messages nonetheless from people who I know, personally, even family.
	Saying it's not so bad.
	It's getting a little bad, but it's not so bad.
	But then you see what's going on, and it's over the top.
	And the problem is, I see a lot of people in Canada saying, it's not so bad, you know?
	They're not doing X to illustrate why A, B, and C is somehow not bad to be done.
	And that is the slippery slope in the psyche.
	We're like, well, they're not putting people on buses just yet.
	They're not detaining people in government...
	Facilities, just yet, except they are, they just happen to be hotels, so yada yada.
	It's a slippery slope, spiritually, psychologically, legally, constitutionally.
	Viva, expect the term collective freedom and formula.
	Individual freedom is oppressive to collective freedom to be used more in the upcoming months.
	It's a new Orwellian term Frankfurt School has been working on for the past year.
	It's interesting.
	Hey, collective freedom is no different than the greater good.
	It's just, you know, maybe more palatable.
	So...
	I hear a kid screaming upstairs, Let's Go Brandon.
	My gosh, the life that that has taken on.
	And by the way, just to shamelessly plug my second channel, Viva Family, I did three variations of Let's Go Brandon on piano.
	One was melancholic minor.
	The other one was major, just to show the differences between minor and major.
	And the other one was a ragtime blues, Let's Go Brandon, Viva Family, which is my other channel in case the unthinkable happens.
	That will be my voice to the world.
	Okay.
	Let's get some super chats.
	Let's get the rant.
	Let's get going.
	If the government asks a mandate, could there be a Third Amendment claim against it?
	I will get to it with Robert, but potentially, probably.
	Viva, you say bad drivers are out there in the same numbers daily.
	Leaf peeper season in New Hampshire begs to differ.
	Marked increase in insane drivers and pedestrians.
	Leaf peeper.
	Oh, leaf peepers and people coming to see the leaves.
	Yeah, I've seen the joke.
	I think it was Family Guy or The Simpsons where they come in from New Jersey and they're all a bunch of honking their horns, driving like maniacs.
	Okay, the chats are coming in heavy and I'm going to get into the disclaimer.
	Active military here.
	I've yet to get the Fauci juice and definitely don't want to.
	This is your choice.
	Consult with a doctor.
	Let me put my...
	Do I have my Tim Pool beanie?
	I don't.
	Tim Pool.
	I'm not giving any legal advice, medical advice.
	First disclaimer.
	Any legal basis at finding an exemption as a non-religious American?
	Well, I would say go to vivabarneslaw.locals.com for the discussion on this, but we'll talk about it tonight.
	And we've talked about it in the past.
	But Robert has assessed what the likelihood of other types of opposition are.
	And thus far, religious objections have been the ones that the courts have been recognizing.
	Okay, with that said, by the way, no legal advice.
	No medical advice.
	If you have any medical questions, consult with your doctor.
	If you don't trust your doctor, find your doctor that you trust.
	No legal advice because some of us might be more liberal in terms of what we say.
	I am neurotic.
	I don't want anyone saying I lost a lawsuit because this Quebec lawyer gave me an opinion in Alberta law, Nova Scotia law, American law.
	It is information, education only, entertainment, but mostly education in terms of broad knowledge, no specific legal advice, because that requires specific knowledge of facts, dates, law, and that is why anyone who gives you legal advice over the internet, beware.
	Be wary.
	Your rendition was great.
	I want it for a ringtone.
	Yeah, there's a way to convert it.
	It's pretty cool.
	Okay, I'm trying to get out of Dodge, trying to land employment in the US.
	Too many love and...
	Too many love and or going along with the government mandates.
	Not sure many minds can be swayed until it's too late.
	Well, let's get into the rant, people.
	For those of you who don't know, the PPC, People's Party of Canada, the political party for which I ran as a candidate in the Westmount NDG, Notre Dame de Grasse, they're back under the spotlight because after the election, there was an after party or an election night party.
	Now apparently the Saskatchewan or Saskatoon police are out looking for individuals whose images they have posted on the internet saying, do you identify these people?
	Can you identify these people?
	And if you can, give us anonymous tips because we believe they may have violated public health measures in congregating for an election night event evening with the People's Party of Canada.
	And it's not just that, you know, there's so little crime, there's so little to worry about in Canada that the government and the police force can dedicate their resources to tracking it.
	It's like January 6th, basically.
	I'm sorry.
	That's what it's like.
	It's like January 6th minus the violent riot part where you had people congregating for a political evening now being quite literally targeted and hunted down by the police.
	For unknown reasons, but anonymous sources, anonymous tips, welcome.
	We don't need your name, just the names of these individuals.
	And as if that's not enough, you then have the state-funded CBC.
	Running hard, not even running hard cover.
	Running, what's it called?
	The guys in football who lead the charge to break open the defense for the running back.
	I used to play football.
	I forget all these terms.
	Whatever, the linesman, I guess.
	The running linesman for the government now.
	The CBC.
	State-sponsored CBC.
	Coming out to push the message of the government to persecute, prosecute, go after your political adversaries, which is gross as well.
	I mean, it's just beyond gross.
	This is media working with government to oppress and persecute your political adversaries.
	Because, not to say look what they did, but look what they did because the Liberals violated health measures in Ontario as well.
	And I think, it's not that I say go...
	After the Liberals as well.
	I say go after neither and let these people congregate like is their constitutional right.
	But if you're going to get the Saskatoon police in and the CBC to track down and locate 14 people who congregated allegedly in violation of public health orders in Saskatchewan, you better damn well do it for the Liberals as well.
	Otherwise, we might be thinking that the political apparatus that is the CBC might have a vested interest in not...
	Treating political parties equally because one funds them to the tune of a billion dollars a year.
	The other one wants to defund them.
	Let me read this because this caught my eye.
	I hate my country.
	The police asking for anonymous tips is just asking them, asking for anyone to give them a reason to oppress because they're bordering on tyranny.
	I agree.
	I agree.
	I mean, look, anonymous tips have a purpose, but typically when you have to go, they rat them out because they violated public health.
	Edicts that were issued in virtue of a public health law that were renewed time and time again for the last two years.
	By the way, two years into it, apparently, they've done everything except for actually trying to increase ICU beds, hospital facilities, doctors, etc.
	They've done everything except for that.
	And it's like beatnik Ned Flanders talking about, we've done everything.
	Oh, sorry.
	We've done nothing and we're all out of ideas.
	Simpsons reference.
	Okay, let's see what we've got here.
	So that's my first rant, which bridges into the second rant.
	We might talk about it tonight, but it's going to be the vlog that I didn't get finished in time because I was so cranky today.
	I couldn't bring myself to sit in the car and feign a smile.
	Artur Pawlowski, the pastor who was...
	I'm not the pheasant plucker.
	I'm the pheasant plucker's son, and I'll be plucking pheasants.
	Okay, well played, he poopy.
	Arthur Pawlowski is the get out guy.
	Get out!
	Get out!
	Come back with a warrant.
	And the pastor in Alberta who kicked the police and the Alberta Health Services out of his church because they were coming to visit and make sure that he was not breaching any health orders.
	And at the time, you know, the get out video went viral.
	And I said, you know, they're going to come back.
	And they did.
	And then, you know, he got arrested for being in contempt, held for 21 days, I believe, released, went to do some interviews in the United States to explain what was going on in Canada, had some choice words, which YouTube and the police did not like, and neither did the courts.
	And upon his return, because apparently he wasn't allowed to leave the province, was arrested a second time.
	Both were, you know, very dramatic arrests.
	You'll have to wait for my video on this.
	But the judge...
	Came down.
	The judge is Germain.
	Judge Germain, federal judge, found him in contempt and sentenced him this time.
	And when you read this judgment, this judgment is almost as over the top as the one that I just did the vlog on about the father who was denied visitation rights of his three-year-old daughter because he chose not to get the V. The V in the V. He chose not to get it.
	Apparently he had already contracted the virus.
	So he believed he had antibodies.
	He apparently claimed religious objections because he was a Roman Catholic.
	The judge said, poo-poo.
	No, this was in the other case.
	But your religious objections ring hollow because the Pope said you should do it, so you have to do it.
	So the Canadian one, when you see this judgment, it's over the top.
	But the judge literally, in the paragraph where he says, This individual can exercise his right to free speech.
	But when he does it, he literally has to say what we say he has to say when criticizing the public health orders.
	I mean, literally, the judge drafted a paragraph as to what he is compelled to say under this order as part of his sanctions when exercising his right to free speech.
	So we've lost track.
	What's the word?
	We've lost the ball?
	What?
	We've lost the script?
	Someone help me out here while I get some super chats.
	Can I get a signed copy of your book, World War V?
	Talix, you need to send me that, because I'm going to post that everywhere.
	That was the best meme thus far.
	For anyone who didn't see Eric Hunley's livestream, Friday with a bunch of lawyers, we were talking about Dr. Sanjay Gupta's book, and it was beautiful, the meme.
	Gupta's book was World War C. Oh yeah, which was, I guess, World War C for COVID, making fun of World War Z, with Zed, as we like to say it.
	And Talix made an epic meme.
	The best legal advice you can give to anyone is, it depends, that should cover your bases.
	Also, have you done ostrich eggs since the video?
	Viva fam!
	Yeah, it depends, that'll be $5,000.
	And we have one more ostrich egg in the fridge that I got from the farm, which we're going to do something with.
	I did an amourette video.
	I just have to determine whether or not it's too inappropriate to have...
	A cooking lamb balls video with children.
	Because there really is no appropriate way to eat lamb balls.
	I'm going to do it.
	I have the content.
	At least the weather was beautiful here in Florida today.
	Optimism.
	The weather was beautiful here, but it was too cold because I was cranky.
	And even though it's a beautiful fall day, it was too cold.
	Okay, if Robert's watching when he gets in, we're going to bring him in.
	On the menu tonight, man, because it's a big one.
	And it's beautiful.
	Okay, Sanjay Gupta.
	Joe Rogan interview.
	We're going to go over some of that stuff just because it was atrocious, the interview, or at the very least the highlights when Gupta was grilled.
	But we're going to go over whether or not Joe has a claim in defamation against CNN.
	The other subjects of the day.
	Steve Bannon.
	Back in hot water, man.
	I tell you, talk about, you know, we're not living in a world of political persecution.
	We're just living in a world of justice.
	And for whatever the reason, there seems to be only one side of the political aisle that is subject to justice.
	Justice.
	Oh, the Dominion deposition.
	Okay, that was a fun video to watch, in a sense, because people were saying, had you seen the deposition?
	Coomer looked deranged, unhinged.
	He didn't look deranged or unhinged.
	It was just a very bad deposition.
	Okay, what else?
	Oh, there's too much.
	Okay, Dominion, the January 6th, Joe Rogan, ban in contempt.
	We're going to do the vaccination mandate.
	The vaccine mandate updates.
	Tyson Foods.
	Barnes has had it with Tyson Foods.
	Alright, and now that I see him in the backstage, I shall bring in the Barnes.
	Robert, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	Okay, so, look.
	Before we get into Tyson Foods, let's just get straight into Tyson Foods.
	I think I've known you long enough, even though we've never met in person, that I know when you're pissed, when you're angry, irritated, genuinely frustrated.
	You seem to be at that point with Tyson Foods.
	You put out a tweet that said they were jerking my firm around, and I don't want to commit you to pro bono work, but the tweet is still there, I presume.
	I don't know if it was tongue-in-cheek.
	You'll take files pro bono against Tyson.
	Explain to the crowd what's going on with Tyson Foods, and if you can, to the extent that you can, because I don't even know what happened to put you over what I believe your edge to be.
	Sure.
	So Tyson Foods has issued a vaccine mandate for its employees.
	It originally tried to deny people religious accommodations, originally told them that pro-life beliefs are not real religious beliefs.
	They realized they were going to get sued over that and was going to cause lots of political trouble.
	So they reversed course on that.
	But their way of giving people religious or medical accommodations was to constructively terminate them, put them on unpaid leave for one year.
	So I filed suit in Dyer County, Tennessee.
	We served Tyson very quickly and gave them the courtesy of responding before we filed our request for an injunction.
	Went through the process of scheduling it with the court.
	The court took time out to make sure the schedule worked.
	And while we met our part of the schedule, we filed our motion for a preliminary injunction on Friday morning.
	And then Friday at the close of business, Tyson Foods sent notice that they had removed the case to federal court, even though there's no grounds.
	It's a patently frivolous motion to notice of removal.
	Okay, so it's a notice.
	They didn't actually totally bypass and get it removed.
	In America, your notice of removal automatically removes it and divests the state court of jurisdiction.
	And what they know is that a federal court will take too long to rule on remanding it back to state court.
	Such that it will be past the timeline for employees to get vaccinated.
	So they did this knowing because I said, in fact, I had had a call with the council, no surprise, big Federalist Society lawyer that represents him, Greg Grisham.
	I don't think he's related to John Grisham.
	If he is, he's like the evil bastard brother version of him.
	But he led me to believe.
	That there would be no issues, no problems, that we didn't need to file anything on an emergency basis.
	Just let them know.
	All of this, when clearly it was their intention all along to basically procedurally delay the proceedings by filing a frivolous request in federal court that a real federal court, if the federal courts were not so solicitous of big corporations, if a plaintiff's lawyer did this, they would get sanctioned by the federal court.
	Because we didn't sue for monetary damages.
	We only sued for declaratory and injunctive relief.
	So we didn't sue on any federal claim.
	So there's no grounds for a federal court to have jurisdiction.
	And they agreed to something of a schedule with you.
	That was my understanding.
	I sent the schedule.
	The court communicated the schedule.
	They didn't say anything in opposition at all.
	They were just sitting in wait to try to pull this tactic.
	And it's not a surprise they did it after close of business on Friday.
	So we couldn't seek any relief from anybody until Monday at the earliest.
	And Monday is the deadline for Tyson employees to effectively get vaccinated.
	If they haven't had this shot by then, they may be fired on November 1st.
	And they knew this because this was the precise subject we had discussed with them.
	And they're like, don't worry, don't worry.
	So, just dishonest.
	This is why I don't like the Federalist Society, for those people out there.
	At DEEP, they're solicitous of corporate power, not individual power.
	When they talk about liberty, they mean big business.
	So, this was just not an honorable, honest way to go about it.
	I could have got a temporary restraining order or asked for one ex parte.
	I didn't do that.
	And I was rewarded for my kindnesses in this manner.
	So what I said was on social media that I will look at representing as many people pro bono as I can against Tyson Foods from now until I die.
	And it turns out there's a lot of cases against Tyson Foods.
	Turns out there's labor issues with Tyson Foods, illegal immigration issues with Tyson Foods, monopolistic practices by Tyson Foods.
	So I'll take as many as I practically can.
	Won't be able to take all of them.
	And looking at bringing suit against Tyson Foods in Kentucky, Wisconsin, Arkansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas within the next week or two.
	And because they've clearly made them, they are behaving in a dishonest and dishonorable way.
	Some of these employees are 28-year employees, 22-year employees.
	There's no excuse for this.
	And it's just, it's who they are.
	Let me ask you this.
	On a personal level, Robert, because I know how I would respond to that or react internally.
	You get this on a Friday afternoon.
	It's those Friday afternoon specials that ruin your weekend, that ruin your faith in the practice.
	Personally, how do you internalize it and how do you respond to it?
	Does it ruin your entire weekend?
	Well, I believe in, you know, I'm from East Tennessee.
	So the home of Hatfields and McCoys.
	So I agree with Donald Trump that there is inherent value in reciprocating those who behave in this manner.
	And that's why I believe in never forgive, never forget, and hold the line.
	And Tyson Foods has just earned themselves a target on that list.
	Now, I've had sort of sporadic dealings with Tyson Foods over the years.
	When I was a young intern for the AFL-CIO when I was in college, I learned about how corrupt Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy was, then President Clinton, as they wouldn't even do anything about Tyson's history of speed and chicken and other poultry processing companies operated their lines so fast that workers were losing their fingers.
	Tyson Foods didn't care, nor did the corrupt Secretary of Agriculture under the Clinton administration.
	So that was my introduction to Tyson Foods.
	And I've heard complaints about them over the years.
	But if they had handled this on the up and up...
	Then it would have been one thing.
	But this was just, they were clearly sitting in wait, doing this the entire time, and it's just a dishonorable way to practice.
	It's not, they know that the remand should be rejected, or the removal should be rejected, it should get remanded.
	They're just playing a game, and the people who suffer are going to be employees who now take a shot they don't want to take, that they fear taking, that violates their conscience to take.
	Because it's their only way to maintain their livelihood and keep their obligation to their kids.
	And lawyers that do this to me, I pay back.
	I always pay back.
	I have a long history of paying them back, and I will do that here.
	And now we've discussed it, but thus far there's no precedence.
	There's immunity that's been granted to vaccine manufacturers, government, etc., etc.
	Without getting into any talk that can get you into trouble on YouTube, hypothetically, any incidents that come from this policy as relates to employees, Would Tyson's, in theory, potentially be on the hook for those damages?
	My view.
	I mean, it's basically an open question right now.
	The EEOC originally said employers could be liable.
	Then they sort of backed off without clarifying that one way or the other.
	But there's already people that believe they have been injured by what Tyson Foods has done.
	So those people will be suing.
	There's people that have been terminated.
	Those people will be suing.
	Again, all they did by they bought themselves a little bit of time.
	And maybe force some people to take a shot, the consequence for which is just going to be a lot more litigation from now into eternity.
	Because after I pass on, I'm going to make sure there's lawyers around just dedicated to suing Tyson Foods.
	Because this is not behavior I accept from anybody.
	And unless you want a permanent, intelligent adversary, don't engage in dishonest conduct with me.
	And the question is this.
	You get this notice on a Friday afternoon.
	Are you...
	Is it...
	Possible to move for, not ex-party necessarily, but an urgent injunction over the weekend, find the judge in chambers and get them to issue some sort of TRO?
	No, because it completely divests the state courts of jurisdiction, so they can do nothing.
	So now only the federal courts can take action, and to get the federal court to expedite a remand request, you have to know which court it's assigned to, and because of when they filed it, it hasn't even been assigned to the court or in the PACER system yet.
	So this is why they did it the way they did it.
	They did it knowing that their Tyson employees would be screwed.
	Knowing that was the precise consequence of it.
	I mean, it's really ruthless behavior.
	So it educates me about who Tyson Foods is.
	Maybe their name correlation with the Nazi Tyson family isn't a coincidence after all.
	But, you know, I was still...
	I don't know why I was surprised, but I was still surprised to see this degree of conduct.
	But I give people one chance, and if they betray that, they learn to regret the choice that they made.
	And not to play Monday morning quarterback, backseat driver.
	In retrospect, I mean, anything you could do to protect that wouldn't look totally crazy on your part in the first place?
	Essentially, you just have to go into these cases assuming the other side is corrupt.
	We'll do everything possible to mislead people.
	Now, what is the courts don't like you to...
	To assume that.
	So if you go in and say, hey, this defendant's untrustworthy, you need to sign a temporary ex-party restraining order now.
	Courts really hate doing that.
	They would prefer for the other side to get their opportunity to object.
	And they tend to only do that for the powerful and the politically protected and the politically privileged.
	So it's not likely that I could have done anything different.
	Than what I did do.
	But it establishes a basis moving forward.
	They were given a chance to show their hand.
	They've seen it.
	The court has seen it.
	Other parties can see it.
	I mean, the only basis to try to claim diversity jurisdiction is that somehow I'm going to have over $75,000 in attorney's fees per plaintiff.
	I mean, it's a patently ludicrous, frivolous claim.
	That again, if the court, if the roles were reversed, a court would sanction me in a heartbeat.
	And remand this sua sponte.
	We'll see what the federal courts do in the Western District of Tennessee, but there's a reason why the big corporations rushed to federal court.
	Historically, they've been very solicitous and deferential to big corporations, and that's the problem.
	And people should appreciate that.
	I mean, this is one thing that really irritated me about the practice is, like, you go in there and you either are hyper-aggressive, hyper-accusatory, or you're hyper, like...
	I want everything in writing.
	I want you to sign this.
	I want you to confirm via email.
	And when you do that, you end up looking like the crazy person.
	And then you end up getting stabbed in the back on a Friday afternoon for giving that one benefit of the doubt that would have made you look bad to assume you would not have gotten.
	And nobody's really going to understand it.
	I had this one file, which I will never forget, where they basically did not send me undertakings or they disjuncted one page from an undertaking.
	I only found out about it because it came in...
	By accident, through somebody else, I went to court, and they said, well, you didn't ask for that.
	You asked for this email, but not the attachments.
	I was like, nobody cared.
	At the end of the day, even the judge is like, don't waste my time today arguing over this.
	You have it now.
	Move on with your file.
	And for you, I mean, they'll get back in a week or two, and you'll be in the proper jurisdiction or wherever, and they'll say, I don't want to hear about this fight among lawyers.
	Get on with your file.
	That's part of the stomach-turning aspect of the law.
	But I guess speaking of the Tyson company, The class action lawsuit that has been filed against him, one of the lawsuits he sent me today, or yesterday, bottom line, I mean, to summarize the lawsuit, it's one employee seeking for class action relief on the basis of a class so similarly prejudiced, which is that he was not paid, apparently, for any overtime, in that he was working upwards of sometimes 80 to 100 hours a week, whereas he should have been getting paid overtime.
	One thing I didn't really understand, or the nuance of this is, How do you distinguish between a salaried employee versus an hourly rate employee who's entitled to overtime?
	Whereas if they're on a salary, it's work, whatever.
	And if you're not, then you get time and a half.
	How does that work?
	And how's it going to pan out in this lawsuit?
	The kind of employment that he describes is hourly employment.
	And so some employers have tried to get around overtime laws by relabeling an employee as salaried employee.
	But there are specific rules to prohibit that in cases exactly like this.
	And so what he's describing is that Tyson is systematically and systemically violating the rights of their employees to overtime payment by mislabeling and misidentifying them as salaried employees, given the legal restrictions and restraints on who can be so labeled.
	And so it looks like he's got a very robust claim.
	And I think, you know, it's a very strong claim.
	I mean, it turns out, like I said, it turns out Tyson Foods has a lot of problems, which, you know, now will...
	Get a lot more of my attention than it did before.
	But this highlights another case where Tyson Foods appears.
	It looks like he's got a very strong claim.
	It's a very smart labor lawyer that's bringing the claim.
	Employers try to get away with this all the time.
	And I think it's because Tyson Foods operates in a lot of small, rural, blue-collar jurisdictions.
	They're used to running roughshod over any kind of opposition in their employees and treating them as badly as they want to treat them.
	Treat them as badly as they treat the chickens.
	And so I think it's, you know, what is a smart people are learning to fight back and smart lawyers are joining the effort.
	And that's another example of it.
	I'm curious because I didn't see the contract.
	So I didn't know.
	I just didn't know how you circumvent hourly rate employment versus salaried employment.
	Whereas if they say we're paying you $80,000 a year and you're expected to work X amount of hours, if you work more than those hours, how does it work?
	I never got that far into labor law.
	At least those specific questions.
	But without getting into too much detail, so that's going to be the bottom line.
	This employee is alleging hourly work, but they were qualified as a contractor or salaried employee so they can work them more than they would otherwise get away with had they been an actual by-hour employee.
	Exactly.
	The nature of the work he describes for various certain rules under federal law require he be treated as an hourly employee for the purposes of overtime protection.
	An employer cannot just relabel you, salaried employee, and magically escape overtime protection.
	It depends on the kind of work you're being done, the expectations given, other legal limitations that define when they have to pay overtime, and they have to pay overtime regardless of whether they call you an hourly employee or not.
	That's based on independent legal standards based on what kind of work you're doing.
	All right.
	Excellent.
	Now, the intro, did we get into the update as to where you stand on the Tyson food lawsuits for the vaccine mandate issue?
	So I have to try to get that case remanded back to state court.
	And so we'll see what the federal court does, whether it does it on an expedited basis or not.
	But also looking at bringing another half dozen suits in another half dozen other states concerning the same matter.
	So looking at several cases in Texas, several cases in Arkansas, several cases in both North Carolina, South Carolina, and Kentucky, and cases in Wisconsin, and looking at more as well.
	So we can only handle so many realistically, but...
	I'll probably bring about a dozen cases against Tyson Foods related to just this issue.
	Not just the other issues where I'll be setting up shop, but just this issue.
	More suits are coming.
	On behalf of employees, because they are religiously discriminating against their workers.
	And given where they sell their food and where they get their workers from, they're basically slapping their local community in the face.
	And people like Sarah Huckabee Sanders, she wants to be governor of Arkansas.
	Well, it's time she take a stand publicly.
	Is she going to sell out to Tyson Foods?
	Or is she going to say what's happening here is wrong?
	She and her father have advocated for strong religious conservative rights, rights against religious discrimination.
	Well, here's a good chance to show who you really are.
	Show your real colors.
	And I hope she takes the right move.
	And if she does, she'll be the next governor of the state of Arkansas.
	And I guess we've talked about it briefly going over.
	So the issue with Tyson Foods is that they did not initially provide religious exemptions.
	What was the accommodation that they made that's actually no accommodation at all?
	You have no job for a year, no pay for a year, and maybe your job will be here in a year.
	It's firing.
	It's firing without calling it firing.
	That's what it is.
	Okay.
	Which I guess is the proper segue into the overall update on the vaccine mandate lawsuits.
	What's the latest?
	I mean, the last time we discussed it, I forget what we were waiting on, but bottom line...
	A number of the religious objections had been maintained at the higher levels of court.
	What did we see in the last week?
	So a split.
	So a federal court in the Eastern District of Tennessee enjoined a federal contractor from putting people on unpaid leave.
	Because on the grounds of religious accommodations.
	So this was another employer that was trying the Tyson approach of saying, okay, yes, we recognize you have a conscientious objection under religious protection laws from this vaccine.
	However, our accommodation is going to be, we're going to put you on unpaid leave for some period of time.
	And the only thing that changes by employer is what period of time they label that.
	So a federal court in the Eastern District of Tennessee issued a temporary restraining order while listening to the preliminary injunction.
	And the court just pointed out, you've been dealing with these accommodations for a year.
	You can't deal with them for two more weeks?
	You've got to lay these people off right now before I can even hear the preliminary injunction?
	I don't think so.
	And so the court enjoined them from doing so because there's national security clearance issues.
	Similarly, I believe it's the Northern District of Texas.
	United, the federal court also temporarily restrained United in that context for the same reason, saying, look, these people suffering having to take in a shot rather than lose their job puts them at imminent risk of imminent harm to their conscience and to their bodily autonomy.
	And so I'm going to prevent you from doing anything towards them until I hear the full preliminary injunction here.
	A court in New Mexico, federal court in New Mexico, and this will become part of the pattern, refused to issue an emergency injunction on similar grounds.
	A state court in Washington refused to issue an injunction on somewhat different grounds, but it's still related to the vaccine mandate issue.
	And then a federal court in Maine refused to even recognize a right to religious accommodation in the vaccine context.
	First court to do that.
	And the First Circuit refused to intervene.
	In that case, may be heading to the U.S. Supreme Court.
	And will pose a different question.
	Now, Justice Breyer is the gatekeeper for the First Circuit.
	My understanding of the normal protocol is they should refer it to the whole court.
	When they don't do it, in my experience, that's because they fear the whole court's going to reverse their opinion.
	So we'll see what Breyer does and what the court does with that, because this would be the first religious accommodation question.
	In the U.S. Supreme Court context, not surprising out of Maine.
	And with the pattern that's showing up, and then, of course, there was the case you covered, a family court in New York that gets all their news from MSNBC and CNN, busy libeling Joe Rogan in their spare time.
	Both of them, both those networks.
	All subjects we're going to get to tonight.
	Robert, that judgment is, it is over the top, right?
	There's no sanction that can come to that judge other than not being elected?
	Like, this is not egregious enough that, I don't know, whoever his supervising authorities are say, maybe you need to go to a seminar or two?
	Can that possibly happen?
	Well, it's the Family Court of New York, or whatever subdivision.
	I think they call it the Matrimonial Court.
	I didn't know they had another one like that.
	But the Family Court of New York is infamous for abusing people's constitutional liberties and rights.
	So I was the first lawyer to sue the Family Court of New York.
	So, on civil rights violations grounds for Wesley Snipes.
	And so, while the, generally you can't sue a court, and they said, I couldn't, we couldn't sue, we sued anyway, got the right attention, and they settled the case while the appeal was pending.
	And the West never appeared in that court until he'd won, and he only showed up to remind the court that they never should have done what they were trying to do in that case.
	And so it's not a surprise to me this comes out of the city of New York.
	What we're seeing is where are we seeing these crazy family court judgments?
	New York and Chicago.
	Where are we seeing denial of natural immunity?
	Places like California.
	Where are we seeing an unwillingness to get involved in the emergency injunction stage, even in religious injunction-related cases?
	Out of cases where the courts are sitting in Chicago or Seattle or San Francisco or L.A. or Boston or Portland, Maine.
	Or New Mexico, Albuquerque.
	It's geography.
	It's where you're seeing the overtly political courts that believe in deferring to the public health authorities, particularly under the Biden administration.
	I think some of these courts would have been nowhere near as deferential if Trump was still president.
	Whereas you're seeing courts in the whole rest of the country, Louisiana, Texas, Michigan, Tennessee, northern New York.
	Which is much more blue-collar and politically mixed.
	All rule against the vaccine mandates in the religious accommodation context.
	And I don't think that's probably a coincidence.
	So that's where the Supreme Court's probably going to have to step in, because there's probably going to start to be more splits.
	Courts that believe in the vaccine cult, and that's their only God.
	That's their only deity.
	I mean, I even had a Twitter feed commentary just to see people's reactions to cognitive dissonance about certain issues.
	And it was fascinating, the explanations people came up with.
	I mean, it was just, it was like, wow.
	This is like Babylon Bee territory.
	Well, the cognitive dissonance, and I don't want to spoil too many of the surprises in the vlog on the Canadian Artur Pawlowski's judgment, which reads a lot like the New York one.
	But Artur Pawlowski, for anybody who doesn't know, is a Polish immigrant who was persecuted in Poland under communist regime, coming here using the Yahtzee word.
	And in the judgment...
	The judge says, someone like you, who came from Poland, surely should know how inappropriate this comparison is.
	And I was like, I don't know if that's cognitive dissonance or motivated reasoning.
	We're like, someone who has more experience than you, who came from it, who can identify it probably better than you can, when they identify it, surely they must be wrong and you're right.
	So there's no way to get around it.
	If they agree with you, they're right.
	And if they disagree with you, they should know better.
	But in this case, I mean, now that I think about it...
	There was no plenary hearing, which means no full hearing.
	So this judge is repeating, I don't want to say spouting off because that would be disrespectful, but rather he's regurgitating or repeating certain claims in science for which no evidence could possibly have been adduced during that hearing.
	So it's straight up what this judge thinks is judicial knowledge of the realities of what he was describing.
	And if anyone hasn't seen that video, I thought it would be of more interest.
	But what the judge was saying was like, I won't say over the top, was just these are disputed facts even among scientists.
	And the judge was saying the risk that an unvaccinated parent poses to their child cannot be understated.
	Oh, sorry, cannot be overstated.
	Sorry, the exact other way.
	What this judge was saying, I asked the question, but there was no scientific expertise provided during this hearing, right, Robert?
	There was no hearing.
	The court denied a hearing.
	Even though the court said, you know, other courts like me have been disciplined for not granting hearings, I'm still not going to grant a hearing.
	Because this is so universally recognized.
	It's so universally recognized the court was too scared to have a hearing.
	What was the court afraid to hear?
	What evidence was the court not wanting to have admitted in their record?
	It's been a year.
	It became such an urgency after the guardian, Ed Lidham, and the wife brought it up.
	It became such an emergency.
	They had to...
	Some people were saying the father had...
	Supervised visitation, which is true.
	Even by the judgment, the father had apparently substance abuse and mental health issues.
	But those were not the reasons for which he was denied access.
	It was because he refused to get vaccinated.
	It was such a dire emergency.
	They could not wait for a plenary hearing.
	Especially for people that don't know, you have a constitutional fundamental right to custody over your child.
	And that can only be interfered with by a court.
	If they find clear and convincing evidence that a particular form of conduct poses an imminent risk.
	Now, as noteworthy, this court completely failed to cite the constitutional standards applicable to their judgment, which that's no surprise.
	First time I was in a family court was in Tennessee, and a lot of these family courts didn't work the way they thought they would.
	They became mills that favored a certain group of people and did not actually enhance people's...
	It was mostly because circuit court judges didn't want to deal with it.
	Hated family law.
	For good cause.
	But what this court was supposed to have found, the first time I was in Tennessee, I raised the Constitution the very first time as a kid lawyer I ever appeared in that court.
	And I'll never forget the judge.
	The judge looked at me and said, Constitution?
	Constitution?
	What is that?
	We're in family court, Mr. Barnes.
	I thought I was in that skit where they do the badges?
	Badges?
	We don't need no stinking badges.
	It was that kind of routine.
	And again, I've sued judges in New York, family court judges in New York, because of how nuts they tend to be and how they run roughshod.
	Other government lawyers and other states will shop their cases.
	There's a lot of ways you can do this in the child support context, particularly.
	To New York Family Court because it has such a reputation of being so egregious at violating people's civil rights and civil liberties, and they've never fixed it.
	People think of New York as a sophisticated city.
	Its legal system is backwards.
	But what this judge said, there's no factual basis for that conclusion, that an unvaccinated adult poses an imminent risk of irremediable severe harm to a child.
	That's ludicrous.
	And not giving medical advice.
	It is statistically, by all accounts, ludicrous.
	It's not me saying this.
	It's the statistics.
	And he said, what was the word he used?
	Oh, yeah.
	The risk cannot be understated.
	An immediate harm such that the father is hitherto pending a plenary hearing.
	But the issue is this.
	You read it.
	You know the judge had it in for the father.
	And this all would have happened in the dead of night, you know, in the darkness of justice.
	Nobody would have known about it.
	Now, at the very least, the judgment gets out there.
	People are asking, you know, other than waiting for the next election cycle, this guy might not get elected out because some people might like it a little too much what he did.
	This might please people's concerns in New York to the point where he'll get re-elected.
	Is there no supervising body?
	Because I do remember once upon a time in Quebec, there was one judge who was so over the top, they were...
	Recommended by their overarching authority figures to follow some classes, which they did, but they were still judges.
	They just had to go take some seminars.
	Can anybody do anything for this judge, or is it not even going to catch the attention of people with greater power than him in the court system?
	I mean, only the higher courts in New York can take it up on emergency relief, but nothing beyond that.
	And the practical reality is that That bias is shared by a lot of judges because it's a professional class prejudice.
	They all believe in all this stuff.
	That's why you have the Washington State Supreme Court that's supposed to rule in the legality of vaccine mandates, mandating vaccines for their own employees.
	I mean, that's a direct conflict of interest.
	Every single one of them should be recused.
	But then who's the substitute?
	It's a flaw within the system.
	And the same thing is present here.
	What I've been telling everybody is the...
	The prejudice on this issue is a political class prejudice of the professional class.
	It's not about law.
	It's not about facts.
	Because they don't even go through the process.
	This is a classic example.
	If you believe you're right about those facts, if the judge really was confident in them, then of course you hold a hearing.
	And you have a hearing where the other side really gets to present in the adversarial process other evidence that clearly this judge has not heard.
	But what it is, is this judge didn't want to hear it.
	It's a see no evil, hear no evil, know no evil defense.
	And they feel so, I mean, he must feel so benevolent and morally righteous while he does it.
	Denying a kid direct access to their parent.
	Because that's what, oh, it's in your best interest that you not be allowed to see your father.
	And he says in the judgment.
	It's not much pontificating nonsense.
	The judge says, the father purports to love his child more than his being, but he doesn't do what every other parent in the school system did, get vaccinated.
	And then he says, but he'll still benefit from free digital connection, phone and internet.
	I mean, it's atrocious.
	Hopefully it gets appealed.
	We'll see.
	If anybody's following that, because I don't have as direct access, send me these things.
	David at vivafry.com.
	It's loaded with spam, but I still get, you know, some messages make its way through.
	So far, the court of public opinion is what worked.
	Because remember, there was a Chicago court that did the same thing.
	There was so much blowback in the court of public opinion, the court suddenly reversed itself sui sponte.
	Now, this is New York, so we'll see.
	Well, in that case, the judge reversed, rescinded his own order without being told to do so.
	My big concern is always, you know, public...
	Pressure, backlash can sometimes turn into harassment and doxing and there's the fine line between it.
	People should condemn it in a court of public opinion.
	Never directly reach out to the court.
	Condemn it in a court of public opinion and say why it's wrong.
	Anyway, get it in the news.
	I mean, it's been in the news, so hopefully there'll be some reaction.
	Let me bring this chat up because it's massive and I have to bring it.
	It's going to take up my face.
	Wuggett says, Hey, fellas, my wife is attending a public nursing program.
	They will have a religious exemption.
	However, the participants are required to work in private clinics around the community.
	And if any of the clinics deny a religious exemption, she will be expelled.
	Discrimination by proxy.
	Yeah, that's still a form of religious discrimination.
	And many of these laws apply to public accommodations as well.
	So, I mean, I think ultimately the only case that's gone against religious accommodations has been Maine.
	Not a surprise.
	It reminded me of the...
	I was in front of some of those Maine judges on election issues during the pandemic.
	And the only consistency I found...
	In the federal courts in Maine was deference to whatever the Democratic governor wanted.
	It reminded me of the old, when Huey Long and Earl Long were having a dispute in Louisiana, Huey Long had put in one of his people as governor of the state while he was senator.
	And so the joke was that this guy, O.K. Allen, was just doing whatever Huey Long told him.
	And the way Earl Long told the story, he said, you know, a leaf once blew across O.K.'s desk and he signed it.
	Well, the judges in Maine seem to have taken the same approach of deference, undue deference.
	To the state authorities in Maine.
	To say you have no right of any religious accommodation under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or under the relevant state or federal laws is just an outrageous decision and the first of its kind.
	And so I think if any case should be taken, it's a compelling case for the U.S. Supreme Court to take.
	The only thing I would say is I think these cases are stronger.
	If people emphasize that their clients are, like my clients in the Tyson Foods case, are being forced to make a choice between the vaccine and their livelihoods, between their conscience and their livelihoods, between their bodily autonomy and their livelihoods.
	Because that focuses on the part of why do we need injunctive relief?
	Why can't back pay and monetary relief cover it?
	It's because you can't get back the violation of your conscience.
	You can't get back the violation of your bodily autonomy.
	That's gone.
	That's why we always say constitutional violations are irremediable.
	Irreparable.
	Irreparable is better.
	Irremediable is whatever.
	Irreparable.
	Irreparable injury.
	And that's why.
	And so I think if more people focus on that, that will be better at getting the court's attention.
	Because it was that focus which helped in the United case.
	That focus partially helped in the Tennessee case.
	There's some more cases being brought.
	Navy SEALs have filed suit this weekend in the Middle District of Florida, I think on Friday, against the Defense Department.
	Case brought by the Liberty Council.
	People can look them up.
	They're doing a lot of great work on this out of Florida.
	And they challenge it because the Biden administration apparently is floating the idea that if any Navy SEAL would rather resign than take the shot, that they are going to sue that Navy SEAL for the economic cost of training them over there, basically bankrupt that Navy SEAL.
	So it's not just good enough to deprive someone of a passion and a career and a profession that they've dedicated and risked.
	Now they're going to bankrupt them as well if they assert their conscience.
	When I told somebody else, they said, oh, I remember that.
	That used to be an old Soviet technique.
	That's where we are right now in this country.
	I have no words because it really is depressing.
	You try to not get angry, but you see influential, otherwise reasonable people now thinking it's acceptable to say, Don't deny services to the unvaccinated.
	To say things that are fundamentally inhumane, but it's now become mainstream.
	And I don't know who steps it back.
	I don't know who brings it back.
	I don't know who talks everyone down.
	And the people with influence.
	It's not like fringe elements saying, Overweight people really should be denied access to hospitals, or they should be made to pay their own costs to the extent that they did this to themselves.
	It's not there.
	It is just on this one political issue, which is being weaponized against a minority of individuals in the absence of compelling justification.
	And I don't know how it steps back, because it just seems to be hurtling forward full throttle.
	No, go after them to recoup your costs for training, because something changed.
	Even call it force majeure.
	Now you're going to say either do this on a going forward basis or we're going to unilaterally, arbitrarily, and retroactively claim damages for what we did.
	This is how you drive people.
	And these are Navy SEALs.
	These are people who take the greatest risk to defend the country.
	That's who they're treating.
	It's extraordinary.
	The same people that this president abandoned, some of whom he abandoned in Afghanistan to their deaths because of his incompetency and dereliction.
	So it's striking.
	Which, maybe a transition to our next topic.
	The plea disposition reached by the soldier who spoke up about the many derelictions of duty taking place in the military these days.
	Taking for granted, everybody knows about this, Lieutenant Colonel Stuart Scheller, who was jailed, briefly released for having posted social media posts critical of the government and the military.
	For their withdrawal from Afghanistan, was told not to post any more videos.
	Some gag order was issued.
	He nonetheless continued to do it.
	And we've seen, even among our ardent followers, Robert, supporters, people who like us, there's been a pretty decent split.
	Some saying, you go to the military, you know what you're signing up for, you abandon your First Amendment rights.
	Others saying, you can't have whistleblowers in the military if this is what the precedent is set.
	So, all that set aside.
	He was arrested after one of his...
	Repeated violations, sent to the brig, briefly released.
	What's the sanction, Robert?
	So he cut a deal.
	And so he pled guilty to all those charges, unbecoming an officer, all that jazz.
	Insubordination or whatever.
	Yeah, insubordination, contempt, disobeying, etc.
	And my view was he had a robust First Amendment defense because my view is that the First Amendment...
	Limits the military's ability to discipline to those cases where your speech they can show directly incites officers to not function as a military unit.
	And it can't be criticism of higher up people for making mistakes that need to be commented upon and talked about to remedy.
	What he was requesting was relief and remedy that would improve.
	The efficacy of the military, in my view.
	So I thought he had a robust First Amendment defense.
	But what they did is they offered him a deal where the whole penalty is just in the press release.
	Because while they say, look at all these things he pled guilty to, what they did not highlight, the Washington Post and other media institutions that covered it didn't highlight, is he serves no time at all.
	He gets an honorable discharge.
	He only loses about two-thirds of his pay for one year.
	He already knew he forfeited his pension once he made his statements because he knew he was out on those grounds.
	And given the amount of money raised for his defense, right now, if you're out there in the military, look at what happened to him.
	He became much better off financially for speaking his mind than if he'd kept his mouth shut.
	And just to clarify the terms then, so the honorable discharge does not reinstate his pension.
	Is 20 years.
	That's the pension he does.
	But it'll still qualify for all the other veterans' benefits.
	So all he loses is two-thirds pay for one year.
	That's it.
	And otherwise, Andy gets an honorable...
	And he was already going to be discharged, so he wasn't going to be able to get a 20-year pension because he wouldn't be in the military for 20 years.
	But even an honorable discharge, not even a dishonorable discharge.
	But he did lose whatever pension he would have been entitled to had he made it to 20 years, but he still gets benefits.
	Correct.
	It's mostly meant to be a scary example, but if you look at the actual consequences, it shouldn't be.
	If you're out there in the military and you see this, it shows the military is scared of a First Amendment challenge, a robust First Amendment challenge.
	They don't want to fight it, but this guy had raised so much money, over $2 million for a legal defense fund that would otherwise go to him.
	By the way, Lin Wood, by the way, certain other lawyers, this is how you're supposed to behave.
	You're not supposed to demand somebody's legal defense fund.
	For yourself, just FYI, that the money would go over.
	It now goes to him personally, but because they saw, oh wow, this guy's got two and a half million legal defense fund.
	He's going to have a bunch of lawyers line up to make creative First Amendment arguments.
	We're probably wrong on our First Amendment violations of our soldiers.
	We don't want to risk that.
	We'll let him walk and actually become better off financially than he would have been had he kept his mouth shut.
	I guess it's good.
	On paper, it will still be fearful.
	It'll still be fear-inducing, rather, to others who might speak up.
	Yes, but what it shows is the military is much more scared of a First Amendment challenge than they've been willing to let on because they would have never let him walk on such a soft deal.
	But for their fear, what it shows you is when there's crowdfunding for good lawyers combined with smart legal defenses, the institutions get scared real fast.
	Well, and I was going to say that this is...
	This illustrates the beauty of crowdfunding, because when you have a good case and a sympathetic cause and you're a just cause with an honest individual, you can easily raise it.
	And then, you know, hopefully you're not a...
	Who were the people that screwed the homeless guy with the last 20 bucks for gas?
	Oh, I'll forget their names.
	But the first time we got wise to how GoFundMe can be used to defraud.
	But if you're a good person with a good case...
	It's an amazing way to go about doing things.
	You really don't have to worry about finding and funding the legal fees.
	You can get people who want to rally behind you and do it.
	It is good.
	Good for him.
	He got the message out and got the discussion out, which is probably more important than anything.
	Oh, absolutely.
	And it also shows he's right.
	They definitely didn't want a discovery process and other things that might go in directions they didn't want it to go in.
	So it shows that they're much guiltier than they want to let on.
	They got the PR release that they needed to intimidate the soldier that doesn't look past the headline.
	But for the military member that looks past the headline, they realize that the system is a lot more scared of them than they think it is.
	I'm going to bring this one up.
	I always hate the argument that something can suppress the rights or are above the Constitution.
	Leftists argue that business can do what they want.
	Can they enslave trade or U.S.?
	Essentially, their argument, well, it might be a bit of a straw man because they're going to say they're private enterprises.
	They don't have to respect the Constitution, but they have to respect the law.
	But some of these private enterprises, arguably...
	Above the Constitution, given their roles in society.
	But Robert, okay, I guess speaking of one wrongfully detained individual, there have been updates in the January 6th, but I'm not familiar with one of the questions that we're going to discuss.
	I'm only familiar with what's happening to Steve Bannon.
	And, my goodness, I don't know if this was the case in which they were talking about the Hatch Act for Jen Psaki, where allegedly, you know, she, oh, never mind, sorry, the Hatch Act was interfering with elections.
	This was where Biden was weaponizing the Department of Justice in terms of prosecuting people at his direction or instruction.
	But apparently, Steve Bannon was issued a congressional subpoena to testify on his involvement in the January 6th insurrection or riots or protests, violent protests, however you want to call it.
	So he was issued a congressional subpoena.
	My understanding is he said, no, not coming yet because I benefit from...
	Some privilege, and until we clarify what the privilege is, I'm not going to sit down for a congressional hearing in virtue of the subpoena.
	Then, you know, apparently Joe Biden says that he defied the subpoena, he should be prosecuted, which itself is problematic, and I'm sure you'll explain to us why.
	Where does that, I guess, going to the beginning of Bannon's objection, what privilege could he benefit from at this point in time that he could refuse to comply with a congressional subpoena?
	So my understanding of the process of how this happened is this is a special committee set up by Congress.
	So it's not a real committee, quite frankly.
	It's a separate little committee.
	And the problem for them is in their investigative fact-finding role, they can only issue compulsory process if it serves a legislative function.
	They do not have executive authority.
	They do not have judicial authority.
	So the problem with out of the gate was they were issuing subpoenas.
	That don't appear to relate to any legislation.
	What legislation are they going to pass related to Steve Bannon's communications from January of 2017 or 2021?
	So that was issue one, is maybe this was beyond their jurisdiction.
	And, you know, I contested this when an actual committee, a real committee, the Senate Committee on Intelligence, though a co-opted committee.
	A committee that apparently Bill Maher doesn't still know that the Senate Committee on Intelligence is run by the CIA.
	It doesn't supervise the CIA.
	Not anymore.
	Not in about 30 years.
	Not since its founding in the late 1970s.
	But I contested.
	They tried to issue a subpoena to actually a bunch of people that I was representing.
	And I contested it and said I'm going to contest it in court.
	And they dropped it rather than let me contest it in court.
	They just walked away.
	And they got politically embarrassed because they made some mistakes in some communications to me that maybe got shared with some members of the media.
	So the nature of it is that that's the first issue.
	Do they have the authority at all?
	The second issue is apparently Trump's lawyers instructed Bannon and some other people that the subpoenas were clearly asking for executive privileged communications with the White House.
	And that was their objection.
	This goes all the way back to FDR having a kitchen cabinet.
	And because of that reality, it's what led to executive privilege being developed, which was we don't want presidents to sit around thinking, well, I better not talk with anybody because it will all end up in a court record someday.
	So the idea is you want free-flowing discussion and advice.
	So whomever you're getting that advice from, the idea is executive privilege would cover that.
	And so Trump's lawyers told Bannon...
	We assert executive privilege, so don't produce anything until that can get litigated.
	So, of course, Congress's little bogus committee complained about this, and so they issued a referral because Congress had, somebody was like, there were some lefties on the internet saying, the U.S. Marshals are coming for Steve Bannon.
	I bet they've been listening to that nut job from Britain who kept talking about the marshals coming to arrest people from the Supreme Court and all that gibberish back during the Spygate nonsense.
	So they don't have, the U.S. marshals don't work for Congress.
	Congress has their little Capitol police, and that's it.
	Now they're trying to misuse and abuse that power too, but they don't have contempt power.
	They're not a judicial body either.
	So all they can do, I mean, they can issue a finding.
	We hereby find you in contempt.
	Okay, whoop-de-doo.
	All they can do is refer it.
	If there's a pending judicial proceeding, they can refer it to the judge.
	Otherwise, they have to refer it to Biden's Justice Department.
	And the Justice Department can bring a case, but then Bannon gets to assert that it wasn't contempt because privilege objected to it.
	And historically, what it is, is they'll just litigate that for like a year, two years, however long it takes.
	So it's not clear to me they'll ever get this information.
	If they don't hold the House in 2022, the subpoena will be withdrawn and mooted.
	So it's just sort of a time process.
	And I don't anticipate they'll discover or uncover much information.
	It was most meant to be a headline than it was a reality.
	Now, I didn't see the subpoena in this particular case.
	I'm going to go crazy if I don't remember.
	When was it before that they were asking for a subpoena?
	They had subpoenaed...
	I forget who it was.
	It was in the context of the impeachment, knowing that they couldn't provide the information in the subpoena and then threatened to hold them in contempt.
	Do you remember the context for that?
	Yeah, there's a bunch of people they subpoenaed in that context, and to my knowledge, they lost every single one of those subpoenaed challenges.
	I forgot about that.
	I can't remember exactly which one I'm thinking about, but it's a fair point, actually.
	I totally forgot about that particular example where...
	The subpoena powers are for legislative purposes and not for criminal prosecution because they're not the police.
	That's not their purpose.
	I didn't see the subpoena in this.
	Do we know what they were asking for?
	Their goal is to say that Trump orchestrated it.
	They wanted to get in and they just wanted to spy on all of Trump's communications.
	They were just doing it in a backdoor way by going after people they thought he had communicated to and with.
	And that other people in the White House had communicated to and with.
	Now they dug in, by the way, they'll find nothing that supports their conspiracy theories.
	I thought the FBI basically already confirmed that there's not really much more to see other than a protest that got out of hand in one respect and in another respect in terms of the only individual who was actually killed that day.
	But no, the FBI says nothing.
	They keep going and then hope to get something through the process.
	It's like if they don't get them on the accusation, they'll get them on the process.
	They basically are locked in, kind of like on COVID.
	They're locked into the narrative that continues to be shown to not be factually true on January 6th.
	And they were constantly embarrassed.
	It's probably not a surprise they tried to change the story this week because of what happened in the January 6th cases, where a federal district court judge said, here's real contempt.
	The people running the jail cells and detaining the January 6th defendants are violating flagrantly their civil rights so bad that he referred them for a contempt finding and may pursue the contempt finding himself.
	The judge does have that power, but was asking the Justice Department to look into it further after making big factual findings that are extremely rare in the federal criminal justice process.
	So fill us in on this, because we know what was going on with some of these What were the factual findings that this judge came to?
	How did he come to them?
	What were the violations of civil rights and liberties of these detainees that could have gotten this judge to react this way?
	Well, basically, in this case, that they are risking A detainee's death because of how they're handling his cancer treatment.
	And this has been cascading.
	There have been multiple claims by the detainees of abuse, of beatings, of isolation, of denial of basic rights, denial of access to their own defense, etc.
	And a lot of this was sort of dismissed by a lot of the press and others, and even initially by the courts.
	But then the courts continue to see more and more and more evidence of it.
	This judge started off by just wanting a further inquiry, and he got stonewalled.
	Basically, the local warden and the local political actors that are in charge of these detainees told a federal judge to just shove off, which is striking.
	It shows you their contemptuous arrogance for the process, that they believe they can do whatever they want, whenever they want, and there aren't any limitations on them.
	Brother of Barack Obama with the same mindset of a lot of Obama's people, but without any of the intelligence.
	And we're seeing it in multiple contexts.
	The military context, the vaccine mandate context, the FDA context.
	I'm dealing with it in the FDA suit we have against the FDA related to the bait and switch, where their entire defense is that they're above the law.
	That nobody can hold them accountable.
	That no court can ever review what they do.
	That emergency use authorizations can never be reviewed by anybody.
	And even if they're violating congressional restrictions in the law, doesn't matter.
	Nobody can do anything about it.
	Same mindset.
	And this judge got so agitated because he was issuing escalating orders.
	It escalated to the point where he's like, enough's enough.
	I'm holding you in contempt.
	You're just refusing to obey basic civil rights and you're refusing to even respond to my judicial inquiries about About how you may be killing somebody in your custody and care.
	Now, I have to ask if you know the political leanings of this judge.
	Are they appointed?
	Are they elected?
	And if we know, might that explain...
	These are all federal judges in the District of Columbia.
	This particular judge, by the way, was very hostile initially to the January 6th defendants.
	Old school, Reagan appointee, known for going his own way no matter what.
	But initially, at least on the January 6th, defendants was viciously hostile to them.
	So when you see a judge like that start off with being very hostile to being much more sympathetic and...
	It shows you how bad these cases are going.
	And that's why the committee needed to put out a fake press release about the imminent arrest of Steve Bannon to change the news stories so the kooky leftists that still believe in Spygate and Russiagate could say, oh, they're about to arrest Trump.
	Robert, every time I think I've been red-pilled enough, you drop something that makes me put...
	Two and two together in my head that blackpills me.
	Because when I googled, you know, you sent me the two subject matters.
	One was the jailers being in contempt, and the other one was Steve Bannon in contempt.
	When I googled it, I didn't get any results for the first one.
	And so I thought maybe it was a wrong story.
	Now, you say this, and it makes me even more cynical that they quite literally make a conscious political strategic decision to drop certain stories so that it even fudges with the Google results, which are already being fudged with, so that when I, a reasonably intelligent individual who knows what I'm looking for, still can't find it, anyone else out there is going to Google, and all they're going to find is Steve Bannon contempt stories, because that's all I found.
	I feel like I just took another pill, people, in a place where the sun don't shine.
	Well, and it's similar to what they did earlier, what the Justice Department did.
	When the FBI came out and admitted Alex Jones did nothing wrong and actually was there to reduce any problems that day on January 6th, the same day they bring these ticky-tack little charges.
	Tick-tock might be appropriate these days, but ticky-tack charges against Owen Schroyer.
	So what story does the media run with?
	Do they run with a story of Alex Jones cleared?
	We've been lying about him for the last six months?
	No.
	Infowars.
	A reporter caught and indicted on charges related to January 6th.
	They're bogus charges, by the way.
	This is a consistent pattern.
	No, because you say it, and now that's two for two within short memory, where the search terms that anyone would be looking up for in social, in the Google, in the search engines, would yield the results that would mislead you as to what is actual news.
	And actually, speaking of that, Robert, Ashley Babbitt update.
	Yes.
	Has there been, or is there still that procedural timeframe that they have to go through in order to...
	Oh, I forget what it is now.
	When they file a claim...
	Yeah, sorry, sorry.
	Yes, that.
	What you just said.
	Now, say it again.
	Yeah, they still have to administratively go through exhaustion of remedies before they can bring suit.
	But credit again to Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch, because while the Capitol Police is exempt from FOIA, the D.C. police are not.
	And D.C. police, he figured out, were on the ground and taking reporting information that day.
	So he FOIA'd the D.C. police.
	For what they investigated about the shooting of Ashley Babbitt.
	And they found that there was basically, internally at the time, they admitted there was no justification.
	They knew she didn't have a weapon.
	The officer knew she didn't have a weapon.
	All of it.
	So inflammatory, exculpatory, or inculpatory evidence of him, exculpatory of her.
	And so that was an important development and shows again the benefit and utility to using the Freedom of Information Act to...
	But it was another January 6th story they had to sit on this week by doing the Steve Bannon thing.
	Because those stories got low simmer coverage, while the Steve Bannon story got the headline coverage.
	And it's not a coincidence of the timing.
	But it was another revelatory development that undermines the original institutional narrative about January 6th.
	That's another thing that irritates me because it's true.
	I have my ear to the pavement probably more so than anybody and didn't hear about that development.
	This is one of the things where I don't think my position on it has changed.
	I say once you get involved in certain conduct, you can't be surprised or shocked when people overreact or react badly.
	That does not say that they should not be held accountable for having reacted badly.
	Knowing now the full details of this, It's unjustifiable.
	And I guess now having seen the...
	What was his name?
	We can speak his name now.
	Bird, I think, was the shooter's name or the policeman's name.
	His interview did not do much to convince me that in his mind, even, it was justified.
	Speaking of bad interviews, that Dominion guy, Eric Krumer or Krumer, whatever you say his name, that guy should have never sued.
	That was one of the most embarrassing depositions I've ever seen in a defamation case.
	Well, Robert, here's where you're going to get some flack.
	I'm going to get some flack.
	You might get some more flack than me just because people are going to blame you for undermining certain claims from the get-go.
	I want to tell everybody, and I'm not defending you because I like you.
	I'm defending you because you're right.
	This deposition was a disaster, but it doesn't change anything as relates to the substantive claims that were made by Giuliani Sidney Powell.
	During the election, that were the most unsubstantiated, unable to be substantiated claim.
	Other claims, this might lend some support to some of the other claims, but this doesn't change or lend credibility to some of the claims that you have said from the beginning were factually incorrect and a distraction from the actual constitutional arguments.
	With that said, this deposition was a disaster.
	Coomer still sued.
	Coomer sued, just so everybody knows.
	Eric Coomer.
	Dr. Eric Coomer by the media, who was an executive at Dominion.
	He was in charge of security.
	Yeah.
	Product design, product strategy, and security.
	I don't exactly know if he's an executive with power, with decision-making, whatever, but he's a higher up within this company.
	This company is conducting the elections for the American people.
	People made some outlandish claims and people made some other claims, which at the time sent outlandish, but are much less outlandish now that, you know, to the effect that I attended.
	I heard a conference call where someone named Eric Coomer identified himself and assured us.
	That's one of the more outlandish ones that has not yet been substantiated or contradicted, but whether or not it is now plausible is a different issue.
	But other statements were made about Coomer that he then said, they made these statements about me.
	I was forced to delete my social media presence to go into hiding.
	I was getting death threats because of the things Giuliani, Sidney Powell, Altman, whatever, Altman, I forget his name now, and others were saying about me.
	So I'm suing them for defamation.
	In his deposition, for anybody who didn't watch the video, watch it, it's great, but don't...
	You can watch the deposition.
	It's how a deposition goes badly.
	Where the individual, Coomer, basically admits he created his Facebook page.
	In May of 2020, in response to the George Floyd incident, in the year leading up to the election, he posted things which would have been childish for a child to post, things which would have been lacking discretion for a teenager to post, a politically active teenager, let alone an executive for the vote-counting company.
	And the things were, Trump is a fascist.
	If you vote for him, he's an asshat.
	You know, dropping the F-bombs.
	If you vote for him, you're an R-word.
	Unfriend me, yada, yada, yada.
	He admitted all of these things, and then he says, I deleted these posts because they were being weaponized by people who were trying to frame it in a negative way.
	I think I've spoken a lot, Robert, and I put a lot of words in your mouth, but, I mean, on the substance of some of the claims, what does it change in your mind?
	On the substance of the defamation claim, what does it change in your mind?
	So, you know, it shows the value of focusing on what you can prove rather than what you can't.
	If people would have focused on the claims they had social media proof of, post proof of, they would have been far better off rather than jump down rabbit holes that didn't get anywhere.
	Because what, in fact, he basically admitted to is that a key security executive for the lead vote counting machine company in America was a raging political lunatic obsessed with having Donald Trump defeated.
	Dominion should have been reconsidering suit.
	Now they have their top security official admitting these ridiculous political motivated rants dedicated to defeating Donald Trump.
	I mean, they look terrible.
	I mean, right now, if I was a Republican in any state...
	I would pull Dominion's contract just based on this.
	You have these kind of officials in key security roles.
	This should never be the case.
	We want neutral, like what they promised people, politically neutral administration of the election machinery, not someone that is a raging lunatic running it.
	And that's what he was.
	It wasn't just that he was political.
	This guy was nuts.
	So that no one thinks Barnes is hyping it up.
	It was raging.
	What was the word you just used, Robert?
	Raging lunatic?
	It was a raging lunatic.
	He was putting up videos by dead prez, as in dead presidents, and then claiming under oath he didn't know what prez meant in the context.
	He put up a video, F America.
	What was it?
	Yeah, F America.
	And then he said, I still stand by my right to post that post.
	He might be right from a freedom of speech perspective.
	But bear in mind, and bear in mind the nature of the damages.
	He was claiming that he was getting death threats and had to go into hiding because of the things Giuliani said about him.
	I might venture an argument that if he did, in fact, get death threats, someone just said, you know, I'd like to see proof of the threats.
	It could have been...
	It doesn't matter where the threats are coming from.
	If it comes as a result of what Giuliani said, Giuliani's got a problem.
	If it comes as a result of what Coomer himself has posted, if I find out, not I, I would never do that.
	Full stop.
	If someone who is inclined to issuing internet threats finds those posts, they might be issuing those threats and trying to dox them because of those posts and not because of anything else anyone said.
	And now you have Dominion suing for defamation, saying we're losing contracts because of what Sidney Powell and Giuliani and OAN and Newsmax said.
	They'll lose contracts because they clearly don't vet or continue to supervise their own employees with senior positions within the firm.
	And given what the firm is, you know, doing, what these guys are saying is what will cost them contracts.
	So I think they both blew both of their defamation suits.
	It doesn't mean there was any F word as relates to the election.
	It doesn't mean that stories of German servers, the story of vote flipping are any more true than they were not back in the day.
	But this sinks the defamation lawsuit.
	How can they get out of it?
	If they were so inclined to get out of this as quickly as possible, as painlessly as possible.
	What does Dominion and Coomer do now?
	I mean, if I were them, I would have...
	I mean, they're going to go marching onward at this point.
	They clearly have very strong defamation claims based on other factual allegations.
	What Coomer's deposition blew up was their damages claim, as you're pointing out.
	That there was independent bases for people to be angry at them because they were hiring...
	Raging, politically motivated lunatics as a head of their security in one of the most contested elections in the history of America.
	And it was known at the time.
	And here's the other problem for Dominion.
	It would have been one thing if they didn't know about it and then fired him as soon as they did find out.
	To my knowledge, they've taken no retaliatory action on him.
	So it means they knew at some point he was a politically raging lunatic and they kept him employed and apparently encouraged him to bring this suit.
	So they're already subject to a RICO claim because their lawyers don't know how to follow ethical rules.
	Those are the lawyers at Claire Locke, by the way.
	Or the PR marketing people that were involved in it.
	And now they brought a suit where their lead security guy admits under oath that every crazy thing you could have...
	Originally, when I heard those posts, he posted those.
	I assume that, too, couldn't be true.
	Because it was so insane.
	Clearly nobody would be dumb enough.
	And then he was still defending it.
	He was saying, yeah, Trump's still a fascist Nazi.
	Within the year of the election.
	And by the way, it's so glorious because Coomer not only, you know, he put up the posts.
	He deletes them the week after the election when people discover them.
	Then he writes an op-ed or, you know, he writes a piece for, I forget who it was, Chicago Tribune.
	He writes a piece for the news saying, The social media posts you are seeing are impersonating me, and they're not my own.
	As if to suggest that all of these prior posts were not his own.
	In deposition, he says, oh, when I said that, I just meant that, because I had suspended, my accounts were suspended, I had deleted the post.
	I meant current accounts pretending to be me were impersonating me.
	And he was grilled on this.
	He's like, do you not think it sounded like you were implying that all the previous posts that were just being unearthed and that you just deleted?
	We're also impersonated.
	He's like, yeah, I guess I could have phrased it better.
	So you have the guy then admitting he deleted the posts.
	Then he misled as to whether or not he was the author of the posts.
	And then finally, under oath, he comes out and says...
	Yeah, I did it, and I'd do it again verbatim.
	Exactly.
	And Dominion has done nothing to me because of this.
	At this point, Dominion still has strong facts, but they have very weak damages.
	The only thing that they're going to survive on is biased judges and biased juries because of where they've sued.
	That's it.
	That's all they got going for them.
	I think the defamation case is over.
	The problem is people want this to justify or serve as evidence to other stuff, which it doesn't.
	It just means this company is very biased, at the very least has a very biased employee, borderline deranged, has no quality control on that employee.
	The question is whether or not Coomer could have even done what it is that it was alleged they did.
	But, I mean, that's where it is.
	Yeah, there's still, again, no basis, in my view, because Richard Barris and I looked at it for blaming the machines for the outcome of the election.
	That doesn't change the fact that what Dominion has proven in Coomer's deposition is that they shouldn't be running elections anywhere.
	100%.
	100%.
	I mean, that's the bottom line.
	All right.
	And it was fun and frustrating to listen to.
	And yeah, I listened to it at 2x or 1.5, and it was a little difficult to hear.
	But my goodness, gems in there.
	And it was...
	It was how to conduct an examination.
	The lawyer was calm, and the other lawyer objected.
	He's like, are you actually asking my client if he believes F America?
	He's like, yeah, you're damn right I'm asking him that.
	And the guy says, yeah, I would do it again.
	Speaking of people who should not sit down for interviews, if you're Sanjay Gupta, and you're the great medical guru of CNN, you probably shouldn't sit down with an interview with Joe Rogan.
	I mean, what does it say about the state of our COVID news coverage that one of the leading media medical experts in the world, in America, on American media news, can't handle basic questions from UFC commentator, comedian Joe Rogan, and couldn't try to extract himself for the fact that clearly CNN not only has libeled Joe Rogan, but they decided to double down and libel him again.
	After this interview.
	Let's back it up a little bit.
	I mean, everyone's seen it because this was the most popular video I put out of the week and it was the most popular news item.
	There were highlights.
	It was a three-hour interview.
	It wasn't all acrimonious.
	It wasn't all interesting.
	It was only the back and forths that were interesting.
	One in particular on a study that Dr. Gupta was seemingly not familiar with.
	And instead of saying, I'm not familiar with that study, I'll get back to you.
	Because that would have been damning enough for a doctor who's making public recommendations to say, I don't know all the studies while I'm making recommendations.
	The other issue...
	Let me close that down.
	The other issue was this back and forth about CNN lying about the I-word.
	Apparently the I-word, Robert, we're not allowed saying either.
	We have to refer to it as the horse dewormer.
	So, apparently, Joe Rogan accused...
	He accused CNN of basically...
	Deliberately misrepresenting what Joe Rogan had taken by way of medicine.
	And the highlights that you can find on the internet of media in unison all of a sudden deciding that this medication, Nobel Peace Prize winning medication for parasitic infections was a horse dewormer.
	And only that.
	That's how they ran with it.
	So Joe Rogan says, look, you knew that you were lying when you said it.
	Why would they have called it this?
	And Gupta trying to wheeze a lot of it.
	I said he went through the seven stages of denial, trying to play the victim, flip the question back, pretend to be ignorant.
	He had all of them, but he just couldn't answer the question.
	And then ultimately he admits, yeah, CNN should not have referred to it like that.
	Can Joe Rogan sue for defamation?
	Absolutely.
	Because they said he took a horse dewormer to treat COVID, and that was patently false.
	He took a doctor-prescribed parasitic medicine.
	That has been proven to be safe and effective for decades, unlike maybe a certain other current medicine being mandated, and got better, which purportedly wasn't supposed to happen, according to the media.
	And so CNN kept lying and saying he was taking horse to warmer.
	He was not.
	They knew that.
	They kept lying.
	And even after this interview, where Gupta had to admit, oh, yeah, I mean, after you broke it down well, after question number 12. He finally was like, oh, okay, yeah, CNN lied.
	Yeah, yeah, probably shouldn't have done that, yeah.
	Then Don Lemon goes back in, and they start repeating the lies the next day.
	So if I were Joe Rogan, Tim Pool said, you know, publicly, when Nerdrotic was on his show on Friday, the great Nerdrotic from San Diego, now moved to Texas.
	Gary, who's been on the sidebar with us before.
	That pointed out that he really hoped Rogan would seriously consider suing because somebody has to put a stop to this at some point.
	This was a blatant lie.
	It was knowingly false.
	It was materially false.
	It was meant to prejudice Rogan.
	Rogan could just sue for declaratory relief, not even sue for monetary damages, just to make the point.
	But they knew they were lying, and it was done to damage his reputation because a lot of people listened to him, and he was raising questions that people should be able to have a right to raise questions to.
	Again, Rogan's a self-described Bernie Sanders-supporting liberal.
	So it's not like this is, you know, a right-wing guy.
	You know, Rogan just asked honest questions about topics we should be able to have honest questions about, and because of it, CNN lied and libeled him, and he's got probably one of the cleanest open-and-shut lawsuits you possibly could have.
	And just in time, we have a new member whose name is Ivor, and his or her last name is Mecton.
	It is, no, it's egregious.
	And then you have Gupta.
	Basically saying, yeah, they shouldn't have said like that because you got it from a doctor.
	Therefore, it's obviously not veterinary medicine.
	And whether or not it works is a separate argument, but presumably Joe has a competent doctor.
	He was quite clear to say, I can afford human medicine, mother effer.
	It was hilarious back and forth.
	But yeah, then most people don't really know fully.
	Sanjay Gupta, in addition to going back on his network, he gets back into a silo.
	He feels so safe to say what he should have said.
	During the interview, without being challenged the way he was, he wrote an op-ed or he wrote a piece basically saying, maybe I shouldn't have done this.
	Oh, at one point, Joe was so irate, I thought he was going to lean over and choke on me.
	I think he meant it as a joke, even in the article.
	But bottom line, these guys, when you sit down for a long-format interview, it's very difficult to be dishonest and it's very difficult to conceal, on the one hand, your ignorance, your arrogance, or your contemptuousness.
	It's why the whole system, like for all these mandates and everything else, they won't allow full hearings in the legislative process.
	It doesn't even go through the legislative process.
	First time ever that's occurred, a government mandate being issued in this manner.
	They won't allow it to go through evidentiary hearings in the administrative process.
	The FDA and the CDC short-circuit that repeatedly.
	Don't meaningfully answer citizen petitions, so on and so forth.
	Often, like OSHA is about to do, skip the whole rule and comment period, notice and comment time period.
	They're supposed to do.
	They're going to skip it again.
	And in the court systems, the courts that affirm this, whether it's the family court in New York or the federal court in California, no meaningful evidentiary hearings allowed.
	And so why is that?
	What they all share in common is these people are like Gupta.
	If you put the CDC commissioner, you put Fauci under interrogation from Rand Paul, none of them can hold up because either they don't know the facts or they're lying about the facts.
	That's what CNN did to Joe Rogan.
	Gupta just got caught not knowing the facts.
	And he even said he's never had a three-hour conversation with anybody.
	Like I said, it's not just the fact that we're governed by people whose moral compass is broken.
	We're governed by people whose intellectual capabilities don't rise above seventh grade.
	Well, I didn't take that statement literally, that particular one.
	But look, it's not to be judgmental.
	It was just watching Gupta's demeanor, he did not inspire confidence in me in anything that he was saying.
	He did not make me think he was sharp, analytical, on point.
	At one point I was reading the comments and someone said, I just have to remind you, Joe Rogan, one of these guys is a doctor, the other one is an MMA fighter turned commentator.
	Because the roles looked reversed.
	And Joe...
	He doesn't have an MD degree, but that doesn't mean he's not smart, analytic, intelligent, able to decipher information, and able to read fast and digest the information that he reads, because he is.
	Okay, what else?
	What was I just going to say, Robert?
	Oh, well, let's see what's going on in Loudoun County, because that implicates right now Crowder as well.
	So as far as I understand, Robert, we have to be careful talking about this story, because there's a lot of facts that we don't know about it.
	In terms of who the perpetrator is, identities, motivations, but apparently there was an individual who committed an act of sexual violence on a student of one of the parents at a PTA meeting.
	The parent became so irate, and apparently this was not the first time that it had happened, and the school board knew about it, and instead of taking appropriate protective measures...
	Are you familiar with what's going on in the situation?
	I guess we can get into how it impacted Crowder afterwards.
	A concern and an argument has been whether or not certain restroom and locker room policies will create an environment or invite an environment where someone can be unsafe and insecure and lead to some criminal act of violence against them.
	The argument from one side has been no, that's not a risk at all.
	That's a fiction.
	That's a myth.
	The concern from the other side has been this just seems to us a likely event to occur due to the nature of the situation or circumstance.
	And what happened is apparently not confirmed at this point in the sense of there's been no trial, no evidence you're hearing, no formal accusation.
	What does a parent believe, and we'll put it that way to stay within the YouTube censors, a parent believe that this policy...
	Led to or created an insecure environment for their child in a bathroom setting that led to them being victimized by crime.
	And the school knew about it, but the school thought that it would implicate their restroom and locker room policies.
	And so instead of dealing with it...
	Suppressed information about it and hid information.
	This is what the parent believes.
	Whether the parent's right or not, another story, hasn't been tested in court.
	But that's what the parent believed.
	And when the parent tried to raise this issue, the parent ended up being subject to exclusion, I think even arrest.
	So a lot of parents feel strongly that it's not appropriate, particularly during this age range, to have...
	A restroom or locker room policy that ignores biological gender.
	They believe that has risks for a range of reasons.
	Loudoun County strongly supports allowing self-identification to govern gender policy in locker rooms and restrooms.
	That's the background of what's taking place.
	People are upset because they're not so much upset about whether or not this incident actually happened and whether it happened because of the policy.
	They're upset because the school is so committed to the policy, they were hiding information from the parents about what happened.
	And now, apparently, so what happened with Crowder is he did a bit which was quite graphic covering this in some detail, and he got a strike, and I believe he got a short suspension as per his first strike or second strike, for alleged targeted harassment, and the idea being that...
	By covering, not just covering, but by placing disproportionate emphasis on certain alleged crimes as opposed to others, that can qualify as targeted harassment.
	I mean, I didn't see Crowder's bid.
	I don't know the extent of the detail he went into, whether or not that on its own could violate YouTube's community guidelines.
	But it is interesting that they're basically creating a standard by which, if they deem coverage of certain types of alleged crimes to be disproportionate, That it can qualify as targeted harassment, but I presume other alleged crimes can be covered ad nauseum for indefinite periods of time, and this will never come up.
	So the question is how YouTube might be weaponizing this.
	If anybody knows, do you know what the outcome with Crowder was?
	I mean, I think he had a suspension and that's it?
	Yeah, yeah, he had a suspension and a strike, and YouTube's counsel was involved because they communicated back, and that's how committed they are.
	They're basically committed to trying to get...
	Kick Crowder off.
	One of their most popular YouTubers.
	So, I mean, YouTube cares more right now about controlling the narrative than it does about making money, even.
	And so that's where, you know, this is where the corporatist right has been fundamentally wrong from the get-go.
	They all along, and for some of us on the populist side, we've made this criticism for many, many, many long time.
	In law school, we call it the problem of power.
	The markets and contracts don't solve the problem of power.
	People do economically irrational things in the name of power all the time.
	Sexual harassment fits that, racial discrimination.
	These are things that economically shouldn't happen because it's in your best interest not to discriminate.
	It's in your best interest not to harass.
	It's in your best interest to keep employees happy and productive.
	And yet that's constantly, I mean, we're seeing vaccine mandates right now, which clearly do not make them happy or productive.
	Because power matters more.
	And YouTube is choosing power even over the market.
	And it shows how the market will not be an effective restraint on YouTube.
	Because particularly, when they originally pushed this out, they targeted how harassment was meant to be, in most people's understanding of it, targeted to an individual.
	Not a subject matter.
	Not, oh, you can't talk about a subject matter.
	Or we're going to call that targeted harassment.
	Because that has no limit to it.
	But it's also what happens when you have these very vague...
	If this was a law, YouTube's policies were laws, they would all be struck down for void for vagueness.
	And what's interesting is...
	Oh, God.
	George Takei.
	Okay.
	It's not a segue into a separate subject, but this is very reminiscent of exactly what Dave Chappelle was talking about in his special, where...
	You know, it seems you can pick on make jokes at the expense of a lot of minority groups, but not others.
	And then in the wake of the scandal of Dave Chappelle's special, George Takei came out with probably the worst take on it because it was clear from his tweet he didn't see the special.
	And he said, imagine if Dave Chappelle had made fun of other ethnic groups like Asians, Muslims, and Jews.
	Would Netflix have stood behind him?
	And I was like, George, you didn't watch either this or Sticks and Stones because he made fun of Asians and Jews.
	It's true.
	I don't think I recall any jokes about Muslims.
	I didn't even notice that to take issue with it, nor would I even knowing it.
	But he made quite clear jokes at two of the three groups you mentioned with no backlash.
	And you're only out now backlashing against the one that he made the joke about not being able to make jokes about because of the community guidelines, standards, all this stuff.
	And this is exactly what's happening to Crowder.
	Is that you get in trouble for certain things and others who are equally, say, equally perhaps more egregious on other politically opposite end of the spectrum stuff see none of this.
	So it does seem to be part and parcel of the game.
	It is about power.
	It's about controlling the narrative.
	And it's about, I mean, I guess special interests when it comes to comedy and coverage.
	That and George Takei, if anybody is not familiar with his egregious admissions, just watch some Howard Stern highlights.
	George Takei has done some stuff that does not put him in a position to make comments on Dave Chappelle jokes.
	He was even taking shots at William Shatner for going into space.
	You can't take shots at the King.
	Shatner's great.
	He, of course, played Denny Crane wonderfully in the show Boston Legal.
	But, you know, one of the all-time classics, and he just doesn't care.
	He's the real-life Honey Badger.
	As, you know, as Gad Saad talked about, release your inner Honey Badger.
	He's kind of a version of that in the same process, which relates the season, this sort of interest of mine, but the season five finale of Billions on Showtime took place, and some people were asking me, was that legally realistic?
	What happened?
	So if you haven't seen it, here come the spoilers.
	We don't have a flash for spoiler alert, but spoiler alert, you're going to explain what happened in the episode because I haven't seen it and then whether or not it's realistic.
	Anyone who cares that much about Billions, who was it?
	Robert, you pissed somebody off by ruining something.
	I forget what it was.
	I got a private email saying, you guys ruined, I think it was Star Wars or something.
	Sorry.
	Okay.
	With that said, spoiler alert warning out there.
	What happened in the episode and was it realistic?
	So in the episode, David Axelrod ends up, he's about to get indicted, and instead of showing up, he flees to Switzerland.
	And when he unboards, he's given a Swiss passport, and purportedly, he's now beyond the extradition authority of the United States government.
	And so the question was, is that accurate?
	So it's not the nature of the crime in which he was accused, necessarily.
	So Switzerland extradites people for a wide range of behaviors.
	Roman Polanski, they ultimately didn't extradite for a range of political purposes and reasons, but that was subject to extradition.
	What Switzerland does not do is extradite their own citizens for certain crime categories.
	That's why the most significant aspect of that episode, which makes it legally accurate, tends to be...
	One of the most strikingly legally accurate TV shows out there, and politically accurate for how the system really operates, is that he has a Swiss passport.
	And because he has a Swiss passport, that means he has Swiss citizenship.
	And because he has Swiss citizenship, that's why under their constitution, a lot of governments, a lot of countries, do not extradite their citizens, sometimes at all, or sometimes for a certain category of crimes.
	For financial crimes, Switzerland generally does not extradite.
	It's own citizens.
	So the fact he was a Swiss citizen is what was key.
	Similarly, in Russia, they don't extradite their own citizens, period, for anything.
	It doesn't matter what it is.
	If you're a Russian citizen and you're on Russian territory, you cannot be legally extradited.
	So actually the show was perfectly accurate in how it captured it.
	Okay, and I guess speaking of extradition or asylum, just to bring it in not so smoothly, one of the cases, I don't remember the name, It was of a Chinese asylum seeker who came to the US.
	This is another decision where you read and you lose faith in everything.
	This is a Chinese asylum seeker who, in China, at one point, a cautionary tale for the rest of the world, his girlfriend or wife at the time...
	Oh, no, sorry.
	It was his girlfriend.
	They were not married.
	She got pregnant.
	And under the country's forced...
	Under their abortion laws...
	Or their child laws.
	She was going to be compelled by the state to abort the baby.
	They're not married.
	He took issue with this.
	He raised a stink, apparently was arrested, abused by police while in detention, detained for, I don't know, a couple weeks, I think, during his detention, had his hand slammed in a door, got hit on the head, had a scar, was released.
	Later on, what was the issue that he was detained for later on, Robert?
	I forget.
	He became a Christian.
	In order to deal with the trauma, because I surmise from the decision that the state got its way because the state believed it had ownership over the individual's body.
	Not drawing any parallels, but cautionary tale nonetheless.
	The state...
	Accomplished its goal.
	He was so distraught, he found solace in Christianity, which is not allowed to be practiced there.
	Another cautionary similarity one might want to think about in modern times.
	He was arrested for attending churches or underground churches.
	They had to continually switch locations where they were practicing.
	Detained.
	Basically threatened with further arrest.
	His life was threatened.
	Unless I'm mistaken.
	And so he sought asylum in the United States, went to one of these bureaucratic institutions, had his hearing, and they said, yeah, the issue you took about the abortion was political, but we don't believe that your abuse was sufficient enough to warrant persecution.
	And they said, we don't believe the threats on your life and the threats of future persecution for practicing religion rise to the level of...
	Of justified asylum.
	And they denied him asylum.
	The initial bureaucratic hearing confirmed on whatever the lower level appeal that they have was, but ultimately overturned.
	Was someone dissenting in it?
	I think someone was dissenting.
	No, no, that's another case.
	Overturned.
	And they just said the dissent was whether or not it's a mixed question of fact and law as to what persecution is.
	That might be a little unnecessary, Robert, but explain to me how these bureaucratic institutions work where someone comes in and says, I was beaten.
	Imprisoned.
	My girlfriend was forced to abandon a baby.
	And they told me that they threatened me for practicing religion.
	How you even get to a situation where anybody in decision-making power says, not enough.
	And these are the same bureaucrats that are happy in the Biden administration to call anybody an asylum seeker solely for claiming it and walk into the United States and get released when they're clearly not asylum seekers.
	So it shows you how politically motivated their decisions are.
	And I mean, to sit there and say that abortion is purely a political question and not a religious question, that's someone that's as prejudiced as some of the Tyson Foods managers and supervisors and corporate head honchos are.
	I mean, that's a...
	Really ludicrous kind of claim.
	Just because an issue happens to be political does not also mean it's religious.
	It's not religious.
	A lot of religious issues translate into the court of public opinion and into politics.
	And here, to say that this guy was beaten so badly that he still can't hear right.
	And they're like, nah, that wasn't severe.
	I mean, it really shows a ruthless indifference in the asylum process to legitimate...
	Asylum seekers and the political distortion and contortion of asylum for politicized purposes by too many of the bureaucrats.
	But credit to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals for reversing it because they highlighted to say this is so outrageous, the denial of asylum for somebody like this.
	Almost nobody could meet the definition of asylum.
	He's receiving notices from people back home in China saying you come back, you'll be arrested and imprisoned and beaten and tortured again.
	They're pretending that China is this wonderful country that it ain't.
	Good point.
	But no, they said the threats were not specific enough.
	The paper that they came on, they didn't look uniform enough or official enough.
	But yes, it's another good point, Robert.
	Black pill number three of the evening that these bureaucratic institutions, and it's not just the states, in Canada as well, are trying to make China look like the democracy that they think The U.S. should be.
	Yeah, okay, well, there you go.
	You had some of those people saying that the same people were talking about how in his conversation with people from the Soviet Union, they really look back nostalgically at breadlines.
	And it's like, who exactly are you talking to?
	Are you talking to the Stalin-esque person at the top?
	Because nobody I know in Russia looks nostalgically back at the breadlines and how it created a sense of community.
	I mean, but it gives a sense of the mindset and the mentality.
	Which, on the other immigration side, to the credit, the Ninth Circuit stepped in, thankfully.
	Yeah, but they stepped in because of idiocy at the lower levels, Robert.
	So, I don't know, you'll have to explain exactly what this regulation was that California passed, but as far as I understood, the effective impact of the regulation would have been to put an end to federal detainment facilities in California for illegal crossers.
	And they said, California government enacts some bill, AB23.
	Does the name of it matter?
	No.
	Okay.
	So they enact this bill that basically says we're outlawing detainment of immigrants.
	And it doesn't specifically target the federal government, so we're not overstepping our bounds in terms of state power versus federal law power.
	And that argument actually succeeded up until the appeals court.
	And even then, there was still one dissenting judge whom I don't know.
	Who appointed that judge?
	But I would take a wild guess.
	But bottom line, the California government enacts some regulation that basically says, we're denying federal law on detaining immigrants.
	Basically says ICE no longer can do what they're supposed to do here.
	I guess, elaborate, but just explain to me what the actual impact was of the regulation that they passed, which basically put an end to any form of detainment of illegals.
	Yeah, I mean, it was a sneaky attempt to do so.
	What they basically did is prevent private detention centers in California, then carved out a bunch of exemptions and exceptions for everybody except the feds in the immigration context.
	So it was clear the whole objective under the guise of, oh, we don't want these private detention centers anymore, when that had nothing to do with what their real objective was.
	Their real objective was under the guise of doing so.
	Make it impossible because basically it's all private detention centers utilized for cost and efficacy reasons for immigration detentions in California.
	So if you remove that, you would remove the ability of California's immigration authorities to detain anybody.
	They would have to ship them to another state and what would happen is there would just be mass release.
	And so that was, I believe, the objective.
	And correctly, and we've had this discussion before about...
	Why it's better to keep the feds in control of immigration?
	People don't like it in Texas when the Biden administration is doing what they're doing.
	But here's an example where unless you want California to have carte blanche over immigration, which would be a backdoor to allow it across the entire nation, you want uniform, singular federal control.
	And if there's a problem with what the federal politicians are doing, then that's resolved at election time.
	And if there's undue constitutional or statutory violations, people can sue, like both the governor of Texas and Missouri have repeatedly, as well as Texas sheriffs have, and now Florida Governor DeSantis is, so to enforce federal law as it currently exists.
	But basically, they said, look, this is preemption.
	This is federal law.
	You cannot subvert federal control over immigration, directly or indirectly.
	It's obvious that's what this goal and objective was.
	Preemption clearly applies.
	And it should have been a uniform decision, but instead you still had a judge going off because they liked the politicized objective.
	By the way, some of the same judges from the Ninth Circuit who said Joe Arapayo could not enforce immigration law in Arizona suddenly saying California can do whatever they want.
	This kind of political, overt, open hypocrisy from one side of the political aisle on the federal bench continues to undermine their credibility and authority.
	I forget.
	The judge's name was Morgida, I think.
	I forget which.
	But bottom line, reading the summary of her dissent was effectively like reading the bullet points of the lawmakers.
	It doesn't target specifically the federal government.
	It never once mentions the federal government.
	And the states, you know...
	Are within their rights to do this.
	But I want to bring this up.
	Private detention centers and prisons are only allowed under the 13th Amendment.
	Robert, is that true?
	No.
	No, it's not true.
	Okay.
	And the 13th Amendment would have been what, in any event, as far as that point would have gone?
	Voluntary servitude and peonage.
	Okay.
	So it ended slavery, but also did more than that.
	My view, it ended debtor prisons.
	I've litigated that in other contexts.
	Because there's local governments around there.
	Country that still actually think you can put somebody in jail for a debt.
	Well, here.
	You can put someone in jail apparently here for even less than that.
	Oh, and Arthur Pawlowski, $23,000 in fines.
	It's outrageous.
	Any updates that we should know about in Rittenhouse?
	I think we updated it last week, and there's no changes since then.
	That's it.
	Okay.
	Let's see.
	If we pick one, Robert, we have a few minutes left.
	What did we get on Locals, actually?
	We covered them from Locals, right?
	Let me see.
	I think we got everything.
	There was a redistricting one that we didn't get to.
	Is it interesting?
	Is it too complicated?
	There's going to be a lot of redistricting litigation across the country, and their ability to do so is restricted based on the U.S. Supreme Court limiting the ability of courts to rewrite districts, but that won't stop them.
	There'll probably be 20 to 25 different redistricting lawsuits across the country.
	So as those cases develop, we'll get to them.
	And redistricting happens periodically, right?
	That's why the lawsuits come up in ways?
	Because of the census.
	So it's based on the census, so every 10 years.
	So we're in a big, massive redistricting right now.
	And, oh God, man.
	Just very briefly, explain to me the chicanery and the corruption that occurs in the redistricting.
	They basically say, if you have a heavily leaning entity one way, you want to swallow up what would otherwise be the strongholds that can go into another district so they become more inconsequential in the already heavily weighted, politically leaning district.
	Is that how basically it works?
	It's because of the first-past-the-vote system.
	So the same reason why the People's Party could do well in Canada and get no representation is the same reason why redistricting is manipulated here.
	They call it first-past-the-post in England.
	A person who wins that district who gets the most votes gets in.
	If we had proportional representation based on a state, based on the country, things of that nature, we wouldn't be dealing with this.
	But because of that, because geography, and there's positives to this, but there's negatives too, because of the winner-take-all system being geographically based.
	In states that have more than two congressional districts, or I'm sorry, more than one congressional district, because you have some states where redistricting is not an issue because they only have enough population for one seat.
	I think Montana's that way.
	I think some other ones may be that way.
	Maybe the Dakotas.
	But in the states like Texas and Florida and California...
	In New York, in Illinois, where you can have 20, 30, 40, however many house seats, that's where redistricting has its biggest impact because basically you can draw the lines to try to make sure your party wins the most possible seats.
	Now, the issues that restrict it are issues about race, issues about other issues that play into it.
	One person, one vote.
	It's the reason why the state cannot have, even in their internal state government, their own version of an electoral college that would protect rural...
	The U.S. Supreme Court, Reynolds v.
	Sims and Baker v.
	Carr, said one person, one vote applies in even that context.
	So you basically, it has to be proportionate to population, but there's certain rules.
	And then how crazy can the district be drawn?
	Can you draw a district that's like a little line that just goes down the highway, right?
	And there's districts that look that way.
	And so that's the legal issues.
	But the other issues, the big one's always who decides.
	Does the legislature decide?
	Does the governor decide?
	Does some independent commission decide?
	Do voters decide who decides amongst those groups?
	Do state court judges decide?
	Do federal court judges decide?
	It usually comes down to a question of power.
	Okay, amazing.
	And it's a good point.
	Now, the question came up during the debates as to whether or not Trudeau, why Trudeau did not follow through on election reform.
	Now I understand why.
	If I ever run again, I will go for a proportionate representation.
	I think that makes more sense than the first past the post, which is what we have here, which is why nearly a million votes, not one seat, but the Bloc Québécois, less, I think they might have had roughly the same amount of votes, maybe less.
	They end up with many seats because their votes are concentrated in Quebec, where they win the districts or where they win the electoral.
	And apparently they're looking at the party, the party for the People's Party on election night.
	Oh, it's nuts, Robert.
	The Saskatoon, I'll send you the link.
	Did I post it on Locals?
	I'll post it on Locals.
	They literally put out 14 pictures.
	Do you recognize these people?
	Because they attended or allegedly attended a PPC election night party and violated health orders.
	I mean, it's straight out of the movies.
	Now I'm convinced that communist dictators and fascist dictatorships felt good about what they were doing when they did it.
	And people who supported them.
	Genuinely thought they were doing good.
	No doubt.
	There were two other cases.
	One is the Georgia judge that dismissed the election lawsuit.
	They originally brought that election lawsuit on three grounds.
	One was the issue of the Open Records Act.
	The judge was actually very generous with that and gave them broad access to a lot of ballots that uncovered a lot of issues that now led to a criminal referral in Fulton County.
	The other two claims were voter dilution claims constitutionally under equal protection due process.
	The Georgia judge dismissed that.
	That upset a lot of people.
	But to be honest with you, that ship had already sailed earlier in the election.
	So those claims were never going to get anywhere under existing law.
	Existing law needs to be changed at a higher level than that judge has the authority to do.
	But that judge went very far to give them broad relief in the Open Records Act request.
	So people were being very critical of that judge, thinking his motivation was bad.
	He was stuck with the laws that exist on those other two claims.
	He gave great relief and great remedy on the one claim he had authority to do so.
	And what is, I think, some people have been misled in aspects of the election arena to think that 2020 is going to get reversed someday.
	That's never going to happen.
	Right, wrong or otherwise, not going to happen.
	So anybody pitching that to you is not pitching something that's accurate.
	That doesn't mean there isn't any value in making sure we have more transparent and better run elections using the audit process and the election reform process to achieve that.
	Oh, and last one, John Gruden versus the NFL.
	I don't think he's going to sue.
	They probably did a settlement.
	But it's a scary precedent, they said.
	The NFL used the excuse of investigating the Washington football team.
	They used to be called the Washington...
	Redskins.
	But apparently that was politically incorrect.
	So now it's Washington football team.
	So the...
	It's got to be the dumbest name in the history of football.
	They didn't actually go with the Washington football team?
	Yes.
	See what I mean?
	See, people don't know.
	It's like, that's ridiculous.
	Isn't that ridiculous?
	I heard of the Redskins issue.
	The same thing with, you know, not Aunt Jemima Mayweather.
	There was another company that changed.
	I didn't know they changed their name to the Washington football team.
	Yeah.
	Isn't that pitiful?
	Well, it's also pitiful because it's WFT, which is very close to WTF, which is exactly what's going on in my mind right now.
	Okay, sorry.
	So they use the pretext of investigating them to do a deep dive into John Gruden's emails that were sent from his private email account while he was not working at the Washington football team, while he was not working in the NFL, while he was not governed by any NFL league rules or NFL league contracts.
	To look at everything he'd ever written in over a decade.
	And so they used this excuse of, oh, we're looking at the Washington football team to do a deep dive into over 600,000 emails, a bunch of them to just his.
	The reason for this, the backstory is Gruden has been a critic of the politicization of the NFL.
	So he's been a critic, but he's been mostly behind the scenes, not in public.
	So he was a critic of pushing referees based on gender.
	Rather than qualification.
	Drafting players based on sexual preference rather than qualification.
	Of people kneeling to the anthem.
	He'd been critics of all those things.
	Now, sometimes he may have said so in not politically diplomatic language or politically correct language of today, but some of these statements are more than a decade old.
	They used those statements, leaked them to the New York Times to embarrass him for the goal of running him out of the league because they don't want anybody who's a critic To be around, number one.
	And number two, they don't want somebody with Gruden's popularity.
	They wanted to show everybody, if we can do this to a guy this popular, you better play ball and shut your mouth and do what we tell you, or we'll do to Gruden, we'll do to you what we did to John Gruden.
	And so the Oakland Raiders owner, instead of, you know, just win baby, became just quit baby and folded up shop.
	He was one of the Raiders or one of the teams that took away tickets from people.
	If they were not vaccinated, even if they couldn't be vaccinated because of a medical condition, I mean, sad and pitiful to watch it happen.
	I believe Gruden could have had a claim against the Raiders because in most contracts, you say your ongoing conduct...
	But they can't use your past conduct as a reason to fire you in most contracts.
	Now, they probably cut a secret deal with him and wrote him a big check.
	He was due $60 million on six more years.
	But it's scary what they're doing.
	Using a witch hunt, the media was happy to facilitate it and push it.
	And it's a disturbing indicator of where the NFL is going and the continuing joke that is sports media.
	Well, I have two questions.
	What's Michael Vick up to these days?
	Does he still play?
	No, he doesn't still play, but Deshaun Watson is still in the league, and he's facing credible allegations from over 20 women of sexual assault.
	So the conflicting standards here are the hypocrisy is itself a problem.
	My bigger problem is the underlying political message it sends, and it's a bad habit of doing these sort of, what did you believe 20 years ago, as a standard for whether you can participate in civilized society.
	And why didn't he, or why doesn't he fight harder?
	Is it just, does he deem it to be a politically lost fight already, and he'll just be happy to get his money and get out?
	Like, why not fight harder?
	I assume they wrote him a big check.
	If they didn't, I mean, he's already a very wealthy man, so that may be it.
	You know, he has grown accustomed to broad popularity.
	Probably, you know, they were doing cascading.
	They clearly were just going to keep attacking him and attacking him and attacking him.
	And so maybe just wanted to stop the attacks.
	And again, maybe get a settlement.
	But I think if he sued, he would win legally.
	What he said eight years ago cannot be grounds to terminate his contract when that behavior happened many years before his contract was even signed.
	And in my view, a lot of things he was being accused of were really unfair.
	Like, they were saying he was being homophobic because he used a word to describe an individual that has nothing to do with that person's sexual preference, right?
	Things like that.
	So it's because we've changed our political verbiage to no longer allow Dave Chappelle-style commentary.
	That is the only reason why he got blackballed and blacklisted so quickly from the League.
	But it shows a disturbing tendency of these institutions of power and their complicit media-compliant partners to facilitate this kind of behavior of these political witch-hunts meant to tar and feather people for their politically incorrect beliefs from the past.
	All right, I'll bring this one up.
	Have you guys heard about the Eastman legal memo regarding 12th Amendment on January 6th?
	If Eastman did write the memo, do you agree with his interpretation?
	I don't know what memo that is.
	Yeah, I mean, I'm obviously aware of Eastman, but I'm not aware of that particular memo.
	And someone says, Vic, did his time change his life?
	He may have done his time.
	He might have changed his life.
	The question is, I mean, this individual, Gruden, is being fired before he had any time to do his time and change his life.
	And I tend to think certain crimes, you may have done your time and you may have changed your life, but the propensity to commit Cruelty to animals translates disproportionately into worse stuff later on, although I think it's bad enough.
	Robert, this was another fantastic stream.
	What do we expect for the next week and what can you leave us on in terms of pulling out those three black pills that you gave me tonight?
	What can we expect for next week and words of encouragement?
	So, Wednesday.
	Sidebar with Scott Adams, the great comedian, the great mastermind, genius guy.
	Don't always agree with him.
	He doesn't always agree with me, obviously.
	But a brilliant thinker, genius thinker, teaches people how to think, which I think is very important.
	It'll be a lot of fun to have him on.
	On Friday, I don't know if we can discuss it, but we will be on a very interesting show come this Friday.
	And then I'll let you...
	Can we disclose or no?
	I think we can.
	We can.
	They just said in case one of us, that being me, has a problem.
	We're scheduled to be on Tim Pool Friday to meet for the first time in our lives.
	The flight down was longer than the drive.
	So I cancelled my flight and I'm going to drive down.
	And I like driving.
	I'm going to listen to a few books on the way and it's going to be two days of peace and quiet.
	Robert, I'm just looking forward to this.
	So I'm hoping I don't get forcibly detained at the border.
	I asked for a permission slip from Tim Pool indicating that this was, in fact, work-related cross-border travel.
	And so we're going to do it.
	And touch wood, this is the only thing.
	Touch wood, nothing precludes me from crossing the border.
	But it's going to be good.
	And I'm looking forward to Scott Adams because I am so neurotic when I make some tweets.
	I'm neurotic and nervous that...
	He's going to read them negatively and think they're jabs instead of humor.
	So we will get to make amends for any tweet that I may have made, but it's going to be a fantastic one.
	So next week is going to be big.
	And hopefully nothing gets in the way of our plans.
	Yep.
	And so, you know, as the lesson that I'm going to teach Tyson Foods, and it's a good lesson whenever you're facing difficult odds, to always remember, never forget, never forgive, hold the line.
	Or in other words...
	Let's go, Brandon.
	With that said, everyone in the chat, thank you for the comments.
	Thank you for the support.
	Thank you for tuning in.
	Highlights will come tomorrow.
	My Art of Pavlovsky vlog is coming out.
	If it's not tonight, it will be tomorrow.
	Robert, stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.
	And everyone else, Wednesday, Friday, next Sunday.
	Enjoy the week.

▲