Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 1, 2021 - Viva & Barnes

01:28:26

Ep. 85: Vax Mandates; Alec Baldwin; Cuomo Charged; Rittenhouse Trial; Canada & MORE! Viva & Barnes

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Early people.
	We're live, and when I look at myself in the camera now, the hair's getting a little out of control, but I'm not cutting it.
	It's the freedom fro, and it shall grow until we are free again in Canada.
	It's going to be a good one tonight, people.
	There's a lot of stuff.
	The good thing about tonight is there's not that much stuff to talk about, but they are all immensely interesting topics.
	On the menu, we have vaccine mandate lawsuits update.
	We have Alec Baldwin.
	We have Andrew Cuomo.
	We have the Joe Biden payment to, I think it's payment to illegal immigrants who are separated from their families at the border.
	We've got Kyle Rittenhouse update.
	We've got a ton of fascinating stuff.
	But while Robert comes in, And as the intro rant, I was going to have one intro rant.
	I was going to talk about Rumble's acquisition of Locals, but I'm going to wait for Robert to get in for that because I think there's a lot of stuff that we should clarify.
	In as much as I know it, I spoke with our, what do we call it, community manager at Locals today, and I got the answers to my questions.
	But I also have a lot to say about Rumble, because I've been on Rumble for years now, and I think I have a good relationship with the CEO, so I don't have the same concerns that other people have, but we'll talk about it.
	So my intro rant of the day.
	First of all, before we get there, it's not going to be so much of an intro rant, it's just going to be an intro.
	Superchats.
	We are live-streaming on Rumble as well, so you can go watch this on Rumble if you are so inclined.
	Superchats, such as this wonderful 24 Hours Late, We the Freedom, John Bailey, 30% of that Super Chat goes to YouTube.
	Now, it's a good way to support the channel, and it's a very nice and flattering way for people to show that they support us and enjoy what we do.
	But if you take issue with that, you could support us on Locals, where for $5, it's a month and you get a lot of exclusive content, and Locals takes 10%.
	The payment processor takes, you know, a certain percentage, but you're not supporting necessarily a beast that you don't want to support.
	Sunday night on a Monday night.
	This is true, Lauren Dunn.
	On Rumble, they have Rumble Rants, which are the equivalent of Super Chats.
	Rumble takes 20%, so you're supporting an entity that you might appreciate supporting more, and it's better for the creator.
	If you're watching live on Rumble, where we are simultaneously live streaming, and Rumble has been getting some amazing, amazing creators.
	Awaken with JP is now on Rumble.
	Russell Brand, who's been putting out some phenomenal stuff on YouTube.
	I say it's phenomenal.
	It is, for everyone in our community, probably common knowledge at this point.
	A lot of the subjects that he's covering now, revealing it to a broader and broader audience.
	I mean, just going over some of the stuff that he was talking about, which is not news to us and not news to those who have been paying attention for a little while, but it's wonderful to see a mainstream Hollywood guy finally getting into it.
	They're talking about, let's see, Russell Brand is talking about...
	Well, corruption.
	Okay.
	CNN coverage called out to its face.
	This is the fake news from Brian Stelter.
	Stelter?
	Brian Stelter.
	Talking about Big Pharma.
	Talking about Joe Rogan.
	It's great.
	Talking about Hillary Clinton.
	Talking about a bunch of stuff.
	Russell Brand is now spreading it to the millions because his videos are getting millions of views and God bless because a lot of people who are Russell Brand fans...
	Are probably now realizing a lot of stuff that the rest of us have known for a while, but have been called fringe elements, conspiracy theorists, extremist nutcases for having known.
	Did you not train your kids on how to hide the evidence?
	They're going to learn.
	I'm just curious as to how they found the evidence.
	Or have my kids found where we hid the candy?
	Leave a chair in front of the cupboard, half open with the bag undone on the top.
	Busted.
	Totally busted.
	And the dogs.
	Dogs didn't do anything.
	Guard dogs my butt.
	Okay, so intro rant, by the way.
	I ran into Gad Saad randomly on the street.
	I was going to, oddly enough, drop my neighbor's kid off at a park for a play date because we live community living in our neighborhood.
	I went to get a cup of coffee with Winston, run into Gad Saad, and we start talking.
	We took a few pictures, which are hilarious and are on Twitter.
	And then Gad Saad told me about his recent...
	Curfuffle with Valerie Bertinelli.
	Bertinelli.
	Of all people, by the way, I don't know how I didn't see it.
	Admittedly, Halloween weekend, I'm distracted and not really paying much attention, and I was trying to churn out videos nonetheless.
	But man, he got into it with Valerie Bertinelli, who apparently unleashed her crowd on Gadsad.
	Gadsad, for those of you who don't know, is a Montreal professor at Concordia, author of The Parasitic Mind, very outspoken, very...
	Satirical humor, edgy humor.
	Some might even call him a master troller on the Twitterverse.
	Has a great show called The Sad Truth.
	So he put out a tweet to the effect that he and his wife went to a coffee shop and in training was an individual whose gender they could not identify based on a visual.
	And the wife wanted to make a lighthearted joke to the person doing the training, to the new employee.
	You know, to say he or she will get it, you know, when they're learning how to work the register, etc., etc.
	But his wife was uncomfortable to make the comment because didn't want to get into any trouble with gendering, misgendering, yada, yada.
	So Gadsad puts out a tweet saying, you know, this is the world in which we live.
	People are now afraid of what would otherwise be normal, you know, back and forth human discourse, informal joking, you know, like...
	We're joshing around.
	I hate that word, joshing, but joshing around with our fellow brethren.
	And we're reluctant to do so now because we're fearful of stepping on the toes and we're walking on eggshells, etc., etc.
	Something, you know, Jordan Peterson has been talking about for a while and Gadsad.
	Well, that tweet was met with a dodgeball-level bombardment of angry responses.
	And Valerie Bertinelli says to the effect, you know, how about just using...
	Neutral language like you or hey or yada yada without trying to objectify and create an issue so you can go after and make someone a target.
	It escalated real quickly, as was my tweet.
	And ironically enough, I tweeted, boy, that escalated quickly, the meme from Anchorman.
	And then I was like, immediately after I tweeted, boy, that escalated quickly was the meme.
	Is someone going to think I'm making a tongue-in-cheek Jab at the situation with the boy being in the reference of the meme, even though that's the actual line from the movie.
	And this is the paranoia that this type of thought policing and language policing that it creates.
	You're afraid to interact.
	You're afraid to make what would otherwise be lighthearted jokes that connected and unified people.
	And reading some of the responses to Valerie Bertinelli's response to Gad Saad, people are like...
	How about you just mind your own damn business and don't make the person feel bad or anything?
	And like, this is the world we live in, where we should walk around in silos and bubbles and not interact, because mind your own damn business, don't misgender me, don't insult me with your microaggressions, and this is the world we live in.
	And people are afraid to talk to each other, and they're afraid to be human with one another.
	So all that to say, I met Gadsad funnily on the street, but we've been, you know, we know each other.
	And it was...
	Sorry.
	You know what?
	I should get in the habit of breathing down to my diaphragm.
	I heard Viva is going to be Baldwin's lawyer.
	He needs...
	Look, someone said be nice on Baldwin.
	I'm not trying to kick him while he's down.
	I think he needs...
	He's going to need therapy whether he knows it or not.
	And I'm not saying he's an idiot for talking to make fun of him as an idiot.
	The dude needs to stop talking because...
	There's a reason why Joe Rogan at one point said that he would never interview fighters after a knockout because they're not all there.
	Because they've been knocked out, they're concussed, they're disoriented.
	And it's why when he interviewed Daniel Cormier after the vicious knockout and Cormier starts crying and is not making any sense, it's why he shouldn't have done that.
	He apologized for it and I'm not ragging on Joe at all.
	But that's the rule.
	You don't interview someone who just got knocked out because they're not all there.
	They're not going to be speaking total sense.
	They're going to be concussed emotional.
	They might say things they regret, and you leave them alone.
	Alec Baldwin is in an emotional concussion right now, whether he knows it or not.
	He has to be.
	I don't care if you're the worst person on earth.
	What you just did is going to...
	Unless you're an antisocial sociopath with no emotions, but he has a lot of problems.
	I don't think those are one of them.
	So I'm not kicking him while he's down, and I'm not breaking this down and telling him to STFU because I'm trying to make fun of him.
	He needs to appreciate he's in an emotional concussion right now, and he needs to heal before he can even speak.
	Okay, Russell Brand has some pretty mild opinions, kind of like Tim Pool, but definitely more likable.
	The British accent, by the way, is a cheap way of getting people to like you, okay?
	I think if I had a British accent, I'd be at a billion subs right now.
	I'm just reading or I just listened to Six Minute X-Ray by Chase Hughes.
	It's in a British accent.
	And I'm thinking, as far as manipulation goes or persuasion, having that book read in a British accent is a beautiful way of getting people to treat it perhaps more seriously than they would if it had my accent.
	One last thing.
	Interesting bit of news.
	Federal elections are over.
	Marc Garneau got a massive crushing 53% majority win in our writing.
	To thank him for his efforts, Justin Trudeau apparently, rumor on the street, is going to appoint him to an ambassadorship.
	This is all public news, but public rumor.
	Appoint Garneau to an ambassadorship to France, which some people in the political verse think...
	Is actually an act of hostility and not a promotion because Mark Garneau is an elderly gentleman.
	His grandkids live in Montreal.
	Dude doesn't exactly want to go live in France away from his family and grandkids.
	Some people think it's a jab from Trudeau to Garneau and not a political promotion.
	But if that happens, Garneau's seat in our district becomes vacant and they have to hold a by-election within six months of the vacancy of that seat.
	I knew there was a reason why I kept my posters, people.
	They're in my basement.
	Taking a valuable, useless real estate in our basement.
	But I knew there was a reason why I kept them.
	So if I do not sign them and auction them off, we may have a by-election within six months.
	Allons-y, Brandon.
	Allons-y, Brandon.
	Okay, I see Robert's in the house.
	So that about does it.
	Let's bring Barnes in because we got some stuff to talk about.
	And Barnes is looking dapper as always.
	Robert, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	So you're back at home now.
	Yes, yes.
	There's an empty trowel house sitting in Kenosha, Wisconsin, by the lake.
	It's beautiful.
	If anybody wants a time of year up there, it's a little cold.
	But it turned out that I'm not there, nor is anyone else, thanks to the efforts of some of the people around Kyle Rittenhouse and his family, not Kyle himself.
	But yeah, so back in Vegas.
	It is warmer here.
	Well, here's the question.
	Sometimes I'm nervous because I'm not sure what I can ask you, but you're a big boy.
	You'll tell me if you can't talk about it.
	What can you talk about in terms of what went down with Rittenhouse and what's going forward by way of trial?
	Sure.
	So when I got involved, certain assurances were made by the team of people around Kyle and his mother.
	And that was one that the that Wendy Rittenhouse would be the legal operational and signatory control of everything related to the fundraising and the funds and the expenditures concerning those funds.
	I was given assurances that that had already happened back in March of this year.
	In addition, as it was clear that the people running his public relations, running his marketing, running his social media accounts were...
	We're incompetent at what they're doing, particularly a gentleman by the name of David Hancock, who had no experience or skill in this.
	His FreeCalUSA Twitter account, I think, still only has 5,000 followers.
	Which is inconceivable, by the way.
	I mean, it's inconceivable.
	Completely, completely.
	I mean, the guy has no clue what he's doing.
	It's either deliberate sabotage or just utter incompetence and ego.
	That he would be replaced by a very sophisticated team of people with Hollywood marketing skills, all people that I arranged the contacts and communications and referrals to.
	I vouched for all of this because my only concern was getting Kyle the best defense in the court of public opinion, the best defense in the court of law.
	I didn't care about anything else.
	And so that was my soul and whole focus.
	That is why for the entire time that I've worked for Kyle, I've spent a lot of money.
	Both in time and actual out-of-pocket costs, well in the six figures, and have never billed he or his family a penny, nickel, dime, or dollar.
	If I can ask, or if you can answer, the team that you were putting together, star-studded team, can you disclose?
	Part one was the operational control, I'll go to Wendy.
	Part two, I'll make the referrals, and made the referrals.
	I mean, I had people, I convinced people.
	To, uh, who's, you know, who's had family members on their deathbeds to, uh, go out and help Kyle, uh, and to, to make sure things got done, uh, and put the whole team, the Kyle's whole team up there, uh, in connection with them.
	They said they were going to hire him, retain him, get everything done, all the rest.
	Um, then state part three, a, uh, my view was there should have been full replacement of the legal defense team.
	Mark Richards talks about trying over 100 cases.
	He doesn't talk about winning a single one.
	I talked to people that are around them that knew them.
	I know a lot of people in Wisconsin.
	People don't know.
	I graduated from Wisconsin Law School.
	I got a lot of close connections with a lot of high-ranking defense attorneys in Wisconsin.
	I first went public about Lin Wood and John Pierce because I was hearing from Wisconsin lawyers who were very concerned about how the defense was going.
	And so I put together a team that ideally could be the defense at trial, but at a minimum, Would be the advisory council.
	These included several lawyers, including, I won't disclose their names yet because I don't have that, you know, I'm not sure if they would be okay with that fully, but they'd all agreed to help.
	Didn't demand any upfront payment.
	And I'm talking, two lawyers who had more self-defense wins than any lawyers in the country.
	Lawyers who literally wrote the book on self-defense.
	Lawyers, two lawyers who were intimately involved on the ground in Wisconsin.
	Two street-level lawyers who've done street criminal cases across the country, and that's the kind of skill set you need to add in.
	And two high-profile, lawyers handle high-profile criminal cases, plus myself and another.
	So there's an advisory team of 10 lawyers that was going to be better than the OJ Dream Team defense.
	And then...
	For the jury selection, brought in, and again, got these people to, just on my word, agree to come in without demanding any upfront advance payment at all, any guarantee of payment at all.
	And this included three different top data people, one of whom he said he can disclose, Richard Barris.
	One of the best in the country.
	All of them stepping in.
	Richard Barris had already done extensive polling at my expense for Kyle to know everything that was going on in Kenosha.
	Everything that was venue transfer issues, jury selection issues, you name it.
	Identified 17 different risk factors for Kyle's prospective jurors.
	Figured out that the jury pool was very contaminated by media publicity caused by Prosecutor Binger.
	Almost two-thirds of Kenosha jurors presumed Kyle guilty.
	People watched the jury selection today.
	They saw evidence of that.
	And not only that, so three different data sources, data vendors, because the juror information was available a week, more than a week before trial.
	So you could go through the all 150 jurors and find out key detailed pieces of information.
	I know they didn't find it because they asked the same questions that were available in the data today.
	That, you know, you could have got in the data.
	And instead, they just gave away some of their best jurors to the prosecution by publicly asking that question to the questionnaire.
	But not only that whole team of people that had put aside, set aside time, because I was promised and guaranteed two weeks ago that all of this was protected, all of this was agreed to, all of this was not a problem, so everybody could lock in their time, set aside their schedule, and this was substantial expense.
	On top of that...
	The best body language experts in the world, and the people out there can guess who they are, had agreed also to assist and were flying in and setting aside time to be there in the courtroom to observe whether jurors were telling the truth or not, whether they might be trying to hide something, whether they may be leaving, because that was the second key component.
	The first key component was the data analysis.
	The second key component was the in-person body language reporting.
	And by the way, now that I've gotten sufficiently through the six-minute x-ray of Chase Hughes, I'm just mentioning that because it's a book I'm reading.
	I can tell you, you can appreciate the application of what they can determine, what they can read into jury.
	Because the thing is this, those books are useful for people who are going to use it in everyday life when the person, when the people that you are trying to get information from, to do certain things from, don't know that it's going on.
	So it's extremely useful on a practical day-to-day level, not necessarily setting up one expert against another to see who can outsmart the other, just daily application of this, especially in trial.
	And knowing what's going on now with the trial, with jury selection, with how this could be used to determine things that the jury members are saying and are not saying body language-wise.
	Read the book, people, and it's immensely useful, and you can see the practical application it can have here.
	So sorry to interrupt you with that.
	Just so everybody understands the value that they were bringing to the table.
	Oh, absolutely.
	You're talking about over 100 years of collective experience of the best in the world body language experts all coming to the defense of Kyle Rittenhouse and made available to him on top of the data team, on top of the jury selection team.
	That's what's put together.
	I book houses, book travel, book transportation, set aside time, you name it.
	Vouch, you know, my name is used to vouch and save and raise more than $600,000 for Kyle Rittenhouse's defense.
	I got Lin Wood to agree to set aside a million of the bail fund, at least a million of the bail fund, to cover any other legal or any security and other personal family expenses necessary to make sure the trial goes correctly and adequately.
	Barnes, I'm going to bring this up.
	Let me read this one, Robert, because it's a good question.
	Bexfire, is it that Kyle's attorney secretly want to sink him, or are they afraid that Barnes and his team would steal their thunder?
	It just doesn't make sense.
	After all this, explain to us who is left on the team, and what does the team consist of?
	How many lawyers?
	How many experts that you know of?
	And, you know, what's the strategy?
	But sorry.
	Yeah, so basically early last week.
	When everybody's up there, everybody's on the way there, if they aren't already there, I'm suddenly told by Mark Richards that not only will they not share any information, they won't allow any of us in the courtroom for jury selection.
	And they won't be taking any advice from anybody.
	And I write back and I'm like, you don't have to do anything with the advice.
	I'm not demanding you get replaced.
	I'm just saying, why not have that advice available to you?
	And said no, refused.
	Just outright.
	Tried to reach out to talk to Kyle and his mom.
	And I'm told that I can't meet with him unless this guy David Hancock is there in the room.
	This security guy who's basically hijacked and kidnapped the family functionally.
	I find out, this is how all this I think happened, around the same time in the weeks leading up.
	There is a lawsuit filed that I'm the registered agent for the Milo Fund, which is the fundraising fund.
	And I'm concerned by the allegations raised in the suit.
	The allegations in the suit are a million-dollar-plus claim against the Milo Fund.
	It claims that this guy, David Hancock, is secretly running it all, that he's basically in control of the family, control of the family finances, control of the Milo Fund.
	And all the things that I had been told had been corrected back in February.
	Now I have to wonder whether it's true.
	So I just asked for real simple information.
	I said, I want to just give me the audited financials and that this had been promised to me all along anyway, that once it was available, it would be forthcoming.
	It was supposed to be available by early October.
	And the legal documentation showing that, in fact, Wendy Rittenhouse is the owner of the fund, is the trustee, is the signatory.
	And suddenly that's unavailable.
	And then a few days later, suddenly I'm out.
	And suddenly everybody else is excluded.
	And nobody can help.
	And I mean, no better way to hijack a kid than to be his sole source of food, his sole source of groceries, his sole source of housing, his sole source of utilities, sole source of medicine for he and his family.
	Sole source of security as well, because that, I suspect, is the number one concern above all else.
	Correct.
	And so it's his security guy, this David Hancock guy.
	It was his idea to bring in Lin Wood.
	It was his idea to bring in John Pierce.
	It was his idea to ambush Kyle with militia members of the Proud Boys members at a bar that Kyle had no clue who they were or what they're about.
	And the question is what that person asks.
	Is this deliberate sabotage of Kyle's defense?
	Is it ego?
	What is it?
	I mean, I...
	I thought it was so irrational that nobody could do this.
	Even if their goal was money or something else, Kyle gets convicted that their opportunities go away.
	So I thought everybody was aligned.
	I didn't care about the money.
	I didn't care about the ego.
	If they wanted to fire me and tar and feather me, go have at it.
	Just make sure Kyle has the best available defense.
	And so when they were like, we won't allow anybody else in the room.
	So based on the questions asked today...
	We gave them tons of great information about what were the key areas of risk for Kyle.
	And for those that don't understand this, the problem is the right lives in its own echo chamber of its own accord.
	Most people in Kenosha have been bombarded by false media stories from the local media affiliates and the local newspapers, but particularly the TV affiliates, and that has gone through their social media, and they have a false news narrative about Kyle.
	That's why you heard jurors talking about, didn't he have a machine gun?
	Didn't he come from Chicago?
	I mean, things that are utterly false.
	Worried about him because they think he's somehow dangerous?
	This is a kid who is just out to protect a small business.
	If he wasn't there that night, a gas station gets burned down and God knows how many people die.
	I mean, the kid's a sweetheart.
	The mom's a sweetheart.
	The whole family is sweethearts.
	But they're a poor family.
	That I don't think is getting the best legal advice.
	And so now all I know of with the jury selection is what I saw in court.
	And based on the questions being asked, they clearly did not take advantage of the information that Richard and I and others had provided to them because they're asking questions about gun ownership and other things that would have been available if you would have done your data research correctly.
	I don't think they replaced it.
	I don't think they replaced the people we had with anybody.
	I think there's like one or two people that are helping them out on the jury selection side that are not well-equipped for these kind of cases.
	Richards himself is a liberal Democrat.
	You know, he's not well-suited for a gun Second Amendment case.
	Doesn't have a reputation of winning.
	I mean, again, talks about over 100 jury trials.
	Doesn't talk about a single one he's ever won.
	And if people, like I got bombarded today with text and email saying, what the heck's going on with jury selection?
	Some of these questions are terrible.
	The follow-up is awful.
	My whole team is not there.
	So, I mean, people knew the Dream Team.
	I mean, they basically used me saying, hey, promising me, hey, well, we're going to make sure the Dream Team is available for Kyle so that I would go out and raise funds for Kyle's defense to make sure he was secure and then turned around and gutted all that.
	I mean, it's borderline, if not actual legal malpractice by Mark Richards, in my view.
	The people are asking how it can happen.
	What would you have done differently?
	And it's something we've been discussing from the very beginning, is that you cannot go solicit a mandate from a client.
	They have to come to you.
	They have to call you.
	And this, call it strategizing.
	You were strategizing one way or the other to get the team together so that the resources were there.
	Now, the lawyers on the ground.
	How many lawyers on the ground?
	So now, to my knowledge, there's two, maybe three lawyers on the ground.
	Mark Richards and a lawyer from Madison, and an associate of Mark Richards, my understanding.
	And then one person to help with the jury, as far as I know.
	And that's it.
	I don't know if they did any data work at all, but the nature of their questions, they didn't.
	And at this point, what the data show...
	Like, here's the other issue.
	If the judge would have known...
	What he saw today in advance, that two-thirds of the Kenosha likely jury pool presumed Kyle guilty because of the medial misrepresentations about the case, I believe the judge would have allowed much more extensive written and other voidire so that it would have filtered that out to make sure that only people who presume Kyle innocent are on that jury pool.
	If we had been allowed to run the jury selection, I had no doubt there was zero chance of a conviction of Kyle, period.
	There might have been a mistrial, but there never would have been a conviction.
	Because we knew exactly who the risk factors were.
	We had all the people there to make sure that people didn't...
	We didn't have a Chauvin juror who misrepresented the facts to get on there.
	We were going to be in an equipped position to make sure that did not happen.
	And so forth.
	And so I don't have any confidence.
	And I can't, at this point, vouch for the fundraising organization because none of the information has been forthcoming that I've requested over the last several weeks.
	And again, the...
	I was suddenly punitively pushed out.
	Everybody else was pushed out at the same time that this information was supposed to be forthcoming.
	I assume there's probably a connection between the two.
	The money that was raised was to serve as defense costs, literal legal defense and physical defense and all of that.
	Do we know who has access to that money?
	Who gets to sign off on how that's disposed of?
	That's what's unclear.
	I asked for clarification on that information because I'd been led to believe it was Wendy Rittenhouse, and the nature of the lawsuit filed against the fund suggests it's not Wendy Rittenhouse.
	Suggests instead it's this David Hancock fellow who's got a very shadowy, shall we say spooky, past in more ways than just Halloween-ish.
	And there's hundreds of thousands of dollars in that fund.
	That was right.
	Oh, yes.
	I mean, my understanding was at least $650,000 had been raised.
	We don't know if more has been raised.
	We don't know.
	I don't know everything.
	Again, all I asked for was proof of what happened.
	And they said it was almost finished.
	It was coming.
	And then all of a sudden, when it was due, suddenly, oh, we really can't have you around anywhere.
	We can't have any of the people around.
	We can't have anybody but this team around.
	And if you're Mark Richards, what's your grounds for this?
	There are some decisions that are client decisions and there are some decisions that are lawyer decisions.
	Jury selection is a lawyer decision because your client's not in a position to know what's a good jury, any of that.
	That's not their skill set.
	Their position is do I plead, do I not?
	That's within their control.
	Do I testify, do I not?
	That's within their control.
	What is not within their control are things that are outside of their knowledge, outside of their understanding.
	And so why did Mark Richards turn down...
	A dream team of advisory council?
	A dream team for jury selection?
	A dream team for investigative work?
	What logic would be behind turning that down unless there's some sort of problem he doesn't want me stumbling into?
	Yeah, or they want the glory.
	They expect this to be a slam dunk without you.
	I hope they get it.
	I hope they can take all the glory.
	I'd made that clear to all of them.
	I don't care about...
	I've been through enough high-profile cases.
	I don't need any more.
	So, I was happy.
	They could take all the credit.
	I had zero problem with that.
	That's the part that I don't understand.
	We could be in the background.
	The only reason why I was publicly talking about the Dream Team jury selection is because it was a key to helping Kyle raise funds to pay everyday security and legal costs.
	That's why.
	Otherwise, there's no reason for me to talk about it until the case is over.
	It was done on his behalf that that was even discussed.
	That could be it, but that quite doesn't honestly make a lot of sense, frankly.
	But it's possible.
	You have lawyers with big egos who don't want anybody to help participate.
	But normally, if you have a big ego, it's because you deserve it in a certain context.
	In other words, if you've won a lot of cases, not when you're known for losing lots of cases.
	Confession through projection goes both ways, Robert.
	So when you say that, yeah, the big ego, which some people might accuse some people of having, can be warranted, can be earned, or can be totally unjustified.
	A lot of good criminal defense lawyers do have huge egos.
	So, you know, I mean, I've been around plenty of them.
	I've dealt with it a hundred times.
	It always baffles me, frankly, but to a certain degree.
	I mean, if you can use...
	I always welcome help.
	I welcome help from ordinary, everyday people, no matter the circumstance.
	I like it on the locals board.
	One of the people on the locals board made a fair point that given how much they were using my reputation to raise funds, I probably should have been more aggressive earlier.
	But my whole focus was defending Kyle.
	And as long as we got the jury selection people in, I could cross this bridge down the road.
	I just cared about the kid being found innocent because he is innocent.
	The family being secure because they deserve to be secure.
	My concern was not money, was not ego, was not anything else.
	And I obviously ran into people whose motivations are different than what I can understand.
	Maybe they have some explanation that I don't understand that is professionally explicable or whatnot.
	Maybe they think you're a political liability and they don't want you as part of the team.
	I could think of reasons.
	We want to be polite to Barnes.
	He represented Alex Jones.
	We don't need that type of baggage going into Kenosha.
	I could think of something along those lines.
	I'm just going to read a word of Mark.
	I was willing to step back.
	They asked me to go to public.
	In fact, a lot of this was precipitated because they were people on this David Hancock guy in particular.
	I was enraged that I didn't use the Tim Pool Timcast and didn't hijack it to yell at Tim Pool the whole time about whatever it is his personal grievances about John Pierce being on Tim Pool once, which I didn't think that was productive on the eve of trial.
	And at the same time, and also to go off on other things, Tim Pool's been a critical ally, one of the few.
	Big platform allies of Kyle's defense.
	So that was patently inappropriate in my view.
	I didn't feel overly comfortable promoting the fundraising when I had big questions that had not yet been answered by the time of the show from earlier in the week.
	And in addition, I didn't want to do anything to rock the judge's boat because he was going to issue rulings on Monday, which I thought could be very favorable to Kyle.
	This was this past Monday.
	And there was no reason to do anything that would rattle that cage.
	And that proved right because the judge issued a lot of rulings that were very favorable to Kyle this past month.
	So actually, before we get into that, a lot of people have been asking, you know, what can people do?
	I say, above and beyond, share this and hope that it gets to the family somehow so they know what their alternatives are if they have not been made aware of them.
	And so they can hear both sides and make their own decisions to the extent they still can make their own decisions.
	Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, pray.
	Pray.
	I mean, to be honest with you, that's about all right now.
	Watch the trial.
	See what you can learn from it either way in terms of things about trials in general.
	I think it's healthy if Mark Richards and David Hancock and others know that the world is watching.
	So there better not be any other tactical decisions that look like sabotaging Kyle.
	That they better be given honest advice, not bad advice.
	That if Kyle gets convicted from their malpractice, they're going to face legal consequences for that.
	I thought about saying nothing.
	That's always a possibility in this circumstance.
	I went back and forth and talked to ethics professors, talked to high-ranking ethics people.
	What can I do?
	What am I allowed to do?
	What am I not allowed to do?
	I've tried to stay cleanly, neatly within that.
	My overarching focus is still that Kyle get acquitted.
	I hope he does.
	I hope the people that are doing his defense...
	Maybe they did things for ego reasons and not sabotage, but if they have any bad motivations, they better put those aside because the world is watching.
	Excellent.
	And now I guess, if nothing else, thanks for all the help you've done and the information you've taught us.
	I mean, people will armchair Monday morning quarterback all day long and say you should get something in writing, yada, yada, yada, whatever.
	I think you've done good, and you've done good selflessly, which is...
	More good than good.
	Before we get into the meat of the Rittenhouse cases, it was this David Hancock fellow who kept asking me not to be part of the January 6th cases all the way back to January.
	Neither Kyle nor his mom made that request.
	So, uh, I respected this team of people saying that, but now that I am out of, uh, representing Kyle and nothing I do after that can be reflected on him in any way, shape or form.
	I have reached out to Matt Brainerd and I am going to start getting involved in those January 6th cases to help those defendants because I've sat on the sidelines for that long enough.
	And I don't know if that was somebody's ulterior agenda not to keep me out, but if it was, it didn't work for long.
	And I'll be happy to help coordinate some legal strategies and ideas because I think a lot of those people have also been railroaded in the criminal justice process.
	You said something earlier that the lawyer, Mark Richards, the lawyer on the ground, was a...
	Did you say a classic liberal or a liberal Democrat?
	Yeah, I mean, his reputation, I think he told me that, too.
	He's a liberal Democrat.
	And it's just nothing against liberal Democrats.
	It's just this is a kind of case that I don't think a liberal Democrat is best equipped to handle, to understand what some of the issues are.
	They may misconstrue and misinterpret them.
	And by some of the questions I saw in jury selection today, they had that hallmark to them, sadly.
	And just so nobody thinks that that's a political jab, because that could go one way or the other.
	Maybe in Kenosha, what you want to have is a liberal Democrat as a lawyer, so they're more friendly with the community, and therefore, you know, don't come in as brashly or as negatively viewed as, say, someone who has, you know, Robert Barnes, who was dependent on Alex Jones.
	Maybe that works.
	Maybe you do need someone like Robert Barnes, who is...
	You know, wouldn't be qualified as a liberal Democrat to come in and just put the screws to the machine.
	So that could go either way.
	By the way, my own view was not for me to replace him.
	My own view was to have lawyers who've won self-defense cases be the lead.
	And I would just assist in whatever way they wanted me to assist.
	There, not there, public, private, don't care.
	That was what I had promoted because it makes no sense for Kyle to be defended by a couple of lawyers that, to my knowledge, have never won a self-defense case in their lives, that, to my knowledge, haven't won a high-profile case in their lives, that, to my knowledge, are not known for winning, period.
	When Kyle was in a position where he could have had people who literally wrote the book on self-defense be his lead counsel.
	I think he's been ill-served by, I think, primarily David Hancock, who's basically handpicked his lawyers for him, and even to the point of controlling communications, not allowing him to communicate with people unless he approves.
	It's insanity what's taking place.
	I'm going to read this one.
	Kyle must win.
	It will lead to a cascading effect of DA's politicizing self-defense.
	God help us all then.
	Providence willing.
	Both of your work will help Kyle.
	And hopefully the country will help heal Kyle and hopefully the country is a result.
	And by the way, as I see God help us then, I just want to say everyone should go out there and listen to God help us all by five times August because it's a glorious song.
	So Robert, the rulings, the substantive rulings that came down last.
	Great rulings by a good old school judge who's a no-nonsense judge.
	We read him right from the very get-go.
	I knew of his reputation.
	I knew very, very well from a wide number of lawyers who've been in front of him and dealt with him.
	He's not always...
	He's usually not a pro-defense judge.
	But I think he saw this case for what it was from the get-go.
	Former state prosecutor probably thought, hmm, I wouldn't have brought this prosecution.
	That he understood the lawlessness that occurred that night.
	That what they accused Kyle of is what the other people who attacked Kyle that night were guilty of.
	Kyle isn't the one with the criminal record.
	The people who attacked him and attacked Kenosha that night were.
	Kyle isn't the one.
	That's from really outside of town.
	They made a big deal across state borders.
	That's a bedroom community in Illinois right about 10 minutes from downtown Kenosha.
	It's like Alexandria is a D.C. suburb of D.C. calling it somehow from crossing state lines from Virginia to be idiotic.
	People in Kenosha know that.
	That was just a national talking point to smear the kid.
	But the kid was from Kenosha, knew people from Kenosha, helped Kenosha, worked in Kenosha, had close friends in Kenosha, is from a working-class family, long-standing working-class family, a mama who works 80 hours a week kind of working-class family, doing nurse work.
	Kid who grew up trying to choose between being a cop and a nurse.
	That's who he was.
	That tells you a lot.
	His primary objective in life, protection.
	Protect people.
	Help people.
	It's not authority.
	It's not power, right?
	You don't want to become a nurse if you're an authoritarian.
	You don't want to become a nurse if you're driven by power.
	You want to become a nurse if you want to help people, protect people, heal people.
	That's why he went out there with his medical kit and was bragging about it to everybody.
	I got my medical kit, rushing into trouble, trying to help people everywhere he can.
	That night, he was the one who helped stop them from multiple attempts by rioters and looters and arsonists and criminals and sociopaths who invaded Kenosha that night in order to They were, in fact, no better evidence of this than the fact they were burning down and attacking.
	Black-owned businesses, Mexican-American-owned businesses, Asian-American-owned businesses, immigrant-owned businesses.
	That's who they were destroying that night.
	It was so lawless that people moved out.
	You heard the jurors talking today how everybody was terrified in the entire town.
	People going out and buying guns immediately because of how terrified they were.
	Hold down with their children inside of homes, terrified about what was going to happen.
	And what a 17-year-old kid did.
	Was go down and try to clean up the graffiti, try to help where he could.
	And people asked, because he was trained both in medicine and ER tactics and techniques and trained in the use of a weapon, they asked him if he could provide some protection that night so the criminality didn't invade the rest of Kenosha.
	And if he hadn't been there that night, it is likely that there are multiple efforts to invade the rest of the city, multiple efforts to attack a range of people that night, multiple efforts to firebomb.
	The gas station at the center of the issues being present, and by taking a dumpster, loading it with fire, and running it into the gas station, that would have exploded and caused Lord knows how many deaths.
	If he wasn't there that night, that's what happens in Kenosha.
	And because he's there, because he becomes the target of the rage of these...
	You know, pedophiles and sociopaths and psychopaths with a criminal record longer than my arm.
	And the worst kind of crimes.
	These aren't B&E property crimes.
	These aren't I'm desperate for drugs crimes.
	These are beating your wife, beating your kid, abusing children sexually crimes.
	And B&E is breaking and entering for those who don't know, I suspect.
	So, yeah, no, Robert, I mean, listening to you talk also, I'm hearing what would be the opening statements of a trial.
	Which we may or may not hear, but maybe someone's watching and taking notes.
	I sure as heck hope so.
	Prove me wrong.
	Prove Barnes wrong.
	Show how good you are.
	Do the best ever defense you've ever done.
	I hope so.
	I pray so.
	I'll be happy so.
	Send you some champagne, whiskey, bourbon, whatever your favorite liquor is.
	I only care about one thing and that kid walking because he deserves to walk because he's innocent and self-defense is itself on trial in America.
	And it's unfortunate these other people have hijacked and kidnapped it for the case for their own self-gain.
	But given those circumstances, the judge saw it for exactly what it was.
	That courthouse was attacked repeatedly over those days.
	I mean, they even stole the dinosaur, the cute little dinosaur, that was popular in the local community outside the museum.
	I mean, that's how sick these people were.
	So the judge saw it.
	The key evidence was the prosecutor wanted to put the fake narrative on trial.
	He wanted that fake narrative that he'd been lying to the media about.
	The other thing is now they'll no longer...
	Represent Kyle, I no longer have to restrain myself about the prosecutor.
	This prosecutor has been lying about Kyle Rittenhouse for a year, and he's been misusing and abusing bail proceedings, misusing and abusing evidentiary proceedings, merely to smear and defame and libel Kyle because he knew these facts were not true.
	He knew it wouldn't impact the judge for bail.
	He knew it wouldn't impact the judge for evidence, but he knew it would impact, as you could gather from some of his comments today in Jersey, He knew it would impact the jury pool.
	As he almost said with a smirk, many of you, everyone in here has heard something about this case in the media, and he knows what that means.
	He knows a random jury, that's why he wasn't busy picking the jury list early, looking up the info, he knows a random jury is more likely to convict than to acquit in Kenosha because of how much he's contaminated that jury pool.
	And so the underlying reality of the case is that when the judge has pushed back all the way through, he didn't buy the lies at the bail stage.
	Kyle never was a part of a militia, never knew anything with the militia, had no connection with the militia.
	Kyle has no connection to the Proud Boys, has nothing to do with the Proud Boys, didn't know where he was going when he was dropped off and led there by David Hancock, knew nothing about these people or these groups or these associations.
	Doesn't have a racist bone in his body.
	Has multiracial family members.
	Comes from a multiracial community.
	Isn't a vigilante of any kind.
	Didn't want anybody to die.
	He spent the first three weeks in jail vomiting every single day because of how distressed he was that anybody lost their life.
	Even people who were out to kill him that night.
	Well, that's the thing.
	And we're going to get into that because talking about how Kyle responded to what he did versus how Alec Baldwin is responding to what he did, we'll get there.
	But yeah, remember at the beginning, this was a white supremacist attack where, reflexively, even me, I thought, based on the fact that they were accusing him of being a white supremacist, surely he had to have killed some persons of color.
	But this is a mixed-race kid who shot and killed two white people and injured a third white person.
	All of whom were of the most serious types of criminality that you can imagine, but the media went with the narrative, he's a white supremacist, and then they got a hold of that picture with him doing what is now the debunked, long debunked, OK symbol.
	That was the narrative at the beginning.
	That's correct.
	The narrative is, basically, Binger took the traits of the people who attacked Kyle that night and put it on Kyle.
	So sociopathology, criminal behavior, vigilante behavior, violent behavior, the desire of violence, all that was the people who attacked Kyle that night, who attacked Kenosha that night, because that's really what was happening.
	Kyle was seen as a perfect symbol of Kenosha, a nice, innocent, middle American community, still naive and idealistic about the world.
	And that's what enraged these pedophiles that enraged, these sociopaths that enraged.
	These criminals to attack him.
	That's why they're saying cranium the boy.
	That means kill him in the head.
	That's what's being chanted right as the people come in on him that night.
	So he's chased.
	I mean, you have Richie McGinnis, the reporter that was on the scene that saw the first shooting, said Kyle didn't jeopardize him.
	That other guy was jeopardizing him.
	He was running behind him, throwing things at him.
	It looked like either he or somebody else was shooting at him because there were guns in the air going off right behind him.
	The only two people that got killed that night, Are the two people who grabbed the gun trying to take it away from him, which, for those people out there who don't know it, when you grab a gun, you ain't unarmed anymore.
	You're now armed.
	The fact you may fail to get it doesn't change the fact you are now armed.
	And so, contrary to what Binger said, oh, unarmed.
	No, they weren't.
	They were grabbing guns.
	That makes them armed.
	The third guy wasn't unarmed.
	He had a gun.
	He said he wanted it empty in Kyle's head.
	The other guy, the people that went at him with a skateboard.
	That wasn't unarmed, because you try picking up a heavy skateboard.
	I mean, that's one of the most dangerous ways you can hurt, and I mean, that's heavy pieces of metal.
	I mentioned it a couple times.
	I was in high school with a kid, hospitalized because he got hit over the head with a skateboard in some random fight at a bank ATM.
	Yeah, these are obviously weapons, and anybody who paid attention knew it.
	Even the New York Times, which did their expose breakdown, knew it.
	They nonetheless prosecuted.
	But ran with this narrative that it was a white supremacist attack.
	Because it was a BLM protest, necessarily everyone who was victimized that night had to be B, black, when none of them were.
	And how many people were tainted from that initial reporting to be determined?
	But the ultimate outcome of the judge's ruling is that you can't refer to any of the victims, the deceased, the decedents as victims.
	Rather, you can refer to them by name or...
	Apparently, he can refer to them as rioters, protesters, or vandals if evidence has been adduced to justify that label.
	So, is that the...
	Yes, so that was one of the...
	So, the key, one of the key...
	What is he about this long litany of lies that Binger has told, the prosecutor has told the press and the public, through the press, that he wanted to continue into the trial.
	He wanted to call these criminals, these sociopaths, these attackers, these assaulters, he wanted to call them victims.
	Merely because they were unsuccessful in their attacks and self-defense led to their harm, in some cases death.
	But that doesn't make them victims.
	And the Nazis weren't victims when we bombed them.
	So in the same context, he wanted to prevent all of the evidence of their criminality from coming out.
	About what they did that night.
	Not just their criminal backgrounds in general, which had already been excluded, but he didn't want any records for the fact that they were trying to firebomb a gas station in the city of Kenosha and blow up a part of the city of Kenosha, which could have killed who knows how many people and caused who knows how much harm because, I mean, when you firebomb a gas station, just imagine what can happen.
	Of course, the prosecutor didn't want any of that evidence to come in.
	Instead, he wanted to pretend that this kid just wandered into a nice little protest and ended up shooting people, knowing that that was a lie, because he has to lie in order to win.
	Binger has no other choice, because the truth would require acquittals.
	But what the judge recognized is, in the context of self-defense cases, there is an ancient rule that applies, which is, if the person is dead...
	Normally, in a self-defense case, you get to put all the context on trial.
	Basically, you think about all the things, if the person is alive, you could ask them in cross-examination about what they did that night.
	But what happens if they're not alive?
	Now, are you now not allowed to introduce the evidence of everything they did that night to contextualize why it was likely self-defense?
	Or more likely than not, his behavior was reasonable, subjectively and objectively, because that's relevant in Wisconsin.
	Not just subjectively relevant, but also objectively relevant.
	And so if you look at that, the judge was dead on right.
	He said the ancient rule, as Wisconsin Supreme Court, is reiterated many times, including the great...
	Very liberal justice, Shirley Abramson, but I have great respect for her.
	I've dealt with her many, many times.
	Didn't always agree with her, but she was an old-school liberal.
	She believed in the law, believed in the Constitution.
	And what she said in a case that the judge referenced multiple times is that...
	Any question that would have been relevant to cross-examination if they were a live witness in a self-defense case is also relevant, and the mere fact that they are dead does not remove that relevance, even if Kyle didn't personally witness that behavior, because it goes to objective relevance and likely what happened that night.
	If I'm sitting there as a juror, I'm trying to figure out what is happening, because Binger keeps lying to the public about this FBI drone footage.
	And people should ask themselves, why did the FBI hide that drone footage for almost six months?
	The FBI was doing secret drone footage of all of these BLM protests.
	Why haven't we all seen that?
	Why have they been hiding that from FOIA requests, hiding that from discovery requests?
	So you look at what that footage shows.
	Binger claims it shows Kyle chasing Rosenbaum.
	A bunch of gibbers.
	Total garbage.
	Utterly false.
	What happens is Kyle is just going down, trying to look at something that's happening at one of the shops that's going on, and he is the one getting ambushed.
	You see Rosenbaum, you see one of these individuals go to the side, wait by the cars, wait for Kyle to go by, then get behind Kyle and chase Kyle.
	And again, it's part of Binger's MO.
	He takes everything the actual attackers did.
	Puts it on Kyle, takes everything Kyle did, sticks it on the people that he's now calling victims.
	Why does Binger love pedophiles?
	I mean, you gotta wonder about that at some point.
	Why does he want to protect these criminals?
	Who was the Nazi propagandist?
	It was Goebbels, right?
	I think it was he who was attributed with having said, accuse your adversaries of doing what you are doing so as to create confusion.
	It is not Alinsky from the Alinsky Rules for Radicals.
	I looked that up.
	It's unclear who that it is attributed to, but it is widely accepted that Goebbels said, This is the tactic of propaganda.
	Just accuse your enemies of doing what you're doing because it creates confusion.
	And then when they say, no, I'm not doing that, you're like, oh, you're lying.
	That's your defense.
	There's no question it's going on in this case.
	I mean, it's for anybody who knows.
	And even, you know, even the people who consider themselves lefties politically have to know that.
	But it is...
	The people that have actually done an honest breakdown in the video footage, people can just go look up, you know, Kenosha, August 25th, see what you find.
	You'll find liberals from Kenosha talking about how these were outsiders, these were agitators.
	I mean, you'll have pro-BLM people, very critical of the people who attacked Kyle that night, who said when they looked at it, it looked like as clean and straightforward as self-defense as possible.
	And that's what the judge is pointing out, is that whether who's a victim in this case is exactly what's at issue.
	So, now, in closing argument, he said you can use whatever language you want, but you can't throughout trial label them victims when legally that's what's very much in question or controversy.
	And if they engaged in riot, riot behavior, riotous behavior, arson, assault, battery, looting, then that can be pointed out.
	And that's up to the defense.
	He said that if the defense wants to use that language, they can.
	That's part of their defense.
	That's part of their argument.
	So be it.
	The prosecution has different obligations.
	Their duty is to do justice.
	The defense's job is to be a zealous advocate for the defendant.
	That's our adversarial system of justice, when it works correctly and works well.
	And Binger just wants to lie, and the judge is like, nah, I'm not going to let you get away with lots of lying in this trial.
	So now Nate Brody, who I had a Twitter back and forth with, and I want everyone to understand, I like Nate, we get along, so don't read too much into our Twitter disputes, although I think I'm right.
	He put out a video explaining that, yeah, ultimately the judge is ruling as to not call the victims victims and to allow the defense to refer to them as rioters, arsonists, whatever, looters, when the evidence is there.
	That is pretty par for the course, but my question is, when is the evidence sufficiently made such that the defense can then say, okay, we have enough evidence now, we get to refer to them as rioters?
	How is that made in the context of a trial?
	Well, partially it's that you can even say...
	That you think you'll be able to prove that in opening statement based on the facts.
	Because again, there's differences between the...
	The prosecution is not really part of the adversarial process.
	The prosecution's duty is to do justice.
	The defendant's job is the adversarial process.
	Unlike anybody else, prosecutors fail to appreciate this.
	But their only ethical mandate is to do justice.
	It's not to zealously advocate for the state.
	It's not to zealously advocate for conviction.
	It is solely and wholly to do justice.
	That's why there's different limitations imposed on them.
	Then there is on the defense.
	For example, the defense can comment on a prosecution witness taking the fifth.
	The prosecution cannot comment on the defendant taking the fifth.
	That's because we have a very different system of justice.
	We impose a whole set of different standards on the prosecution than the defense.
	And that's why it's consistent with it.
	And his point was, so that was part of his point.
	The other point was the issue of victimhood is in dispute, and once you come closing argument, you can make whatever argument you want.
	You want to call a prosecution, you want to call them a cold-blooded murderer, you do what you're going to do.
	Defense wants to call them a bunch of rioting, arsonists, looters, they can do that too, because that's the par for the course.
	But they can even talk about what criminal behavior these people were engaged in in opening based on that relevant evidence to the full context of whether it was objectively reasonable, his behavior.
	Because that's what's important.
	It's not just whether it was subjectively reasonable, it's was it objectively reasonable.
	For those that don't know what that means, or think subjectively reasonable is, I think what I did made sense under the circumstances.
	Objectively reasonable is, a reasonable person would agree with me.
	And for that, you need to know all the facts.
	That's been the law forever on self-defense.
	And just because you died while attacking someone, it doesn't mean all of a sudden the fact that you attacked them and everything you did that night is magically irrelevant from the proceedings, like being or tried.
	So that's why it was great rulings on that.
	I wasn't real happy with the expert ruling because in my view, the defense...
	What was the expert ruling?
	So the prosecution, basically, their expert stunk.
	So their expert, and it was late disclosure, probably only could have come in under rebuttal.
	And so there wasn't much risk there.
	Defense expert, top-notch guy, came recommended by multiple people, multiple places.
	Originally, he was going to be testifying on the objective reasonableness aspect under the circumstances due to his unique knowledge of geography, gunshots, self-defense, etc.
	Which is outside of the ordinary kind of the jury.
	You see that when you have jurors who think Kyle had a fully automatic machine gun, like you had a GAT out there or something.
	Other jurors who think an AR-15 should never be legal anywhere, anyplace.
	Both of those jurors were in the jury pool.
	Gives you an idea for what the uphill struggle you have in Kenosha.
	Because Kenosha barely voted for Trump.
	So it's not a liberal Democratic county.
	It's a blue-collar labor Democratic county.
	A lot of people I've known growing up over my lifetime and still have friends in Kenosha.
	But it's not a Trump rosy red county either.
	And so now the venue-wise, Kenosha was actually more fair than the rest of Wisconsin because of the media impact on the rest of the state.
	There was enough people in Kenosha that knew what happened.
	That were unhappy with what happened.
	So they were more fair than some of the other people who had no idea of the context and only believed the media lies and the binger lies and the prosecutor lies.
	But so in this context, the expert I thought should have been allowed to testify to anything that relates to objective reasonableness.
	For whatever reason, the defense decided to restrict voluntarily his testimony to just a few areas in exchange for the prosecutor's expert not testifying.
	You know, the prosecutor's expert was terrible and probably couldn't even go to a rebuttal.
	So it was just, you know, it was, I was, maybe they, again, maybe they know something I don't.
	Maybe they just think it's a slam dunk of a case.
	They got what they needed and now they can go do the rest on their own and Godspeed and God bless.
	I think the judge would have done a whole different jury selection and they told him, as I advised, to disclose to the judge that about two-thirds of the likely jury pool in Kenosha presumes Kyle guilty.
	So if he knows that, he didn't understand how bad the pretrial publicity was.
	But do you do that for a change of venue or what would be the objection?
	Because it was worse than the rest of the state.
	Someone had asked a question also now.
	If the judge seems fair, can Kyle now elect for a bench trial?
	No, not unless the prosecution goes along and there's no chance the prosecution will go along.
	Now they've gotten wind to reasonable objectivity of a judge.
	So that ship has sailed.
	That's interesting.
	So, you know, I hope he does.
	There's big strategic decisions upcoming.
	I hope we see a much better trial than we've seen than we saw in jury selection today.
	I hope it gets a lot better.
	I hope he got some, you know, God's grace shined on that jury.
	And I hope the truth comes out.
	And at a minimum, it's a mistrial and not convictions.
	But, you know, I did all I could do, and that's all I can do.
	And I wish the kid and his mama the best of luck.
	And if down the road they need my help, I'll be happy to step in again and help in whatever way I can.
	And it'll be easy for people to say what you should have done, could have done, what you did wrong, etc.
	Nothing easier.
	My father always said growing up, you know, those who don't do more easily find fault than those who did than those who did and actually, you know, knew what went into doing.
	So it's out there.
	People knew from the beginning that you were, you know, what you were doing.
	Your availabilities are out there for the Rittenhouses, if they so choose, and for the lawyers.
	Maybe it's a slam dunk and they know something, or maybe it was a money grab, or maybe it's a sabotage.
	Who knows?
	I would never have ventured into the other two until I've been sufficiently, I won't say black-pilled, but red-pilled by our history together, Robert.
	Okay, so that's it now.
	This week, what comes up this week in the Rittenhouse trial?
	So the jury selection, I don't know if it finished up today.
	I was through almost all of it.
	But at least the part that was publicly recorded, it looks like it may wrap up tomorrow.
	Again, that's way too quick in a case of this nature with the pretrial publicity this case had, with the deep political sentiments.
	I mean, people should listen to what some of those jurors said.
	They're like, there's no way we can get a verdict in this.
	This is going to split the country down the middle.
	I don't want to be publicly associated with this case.
	We're re-experiencing what we saw in the Chauvin case, and we know that did not produce...
	Whatever you think of Chauvin, and both of us had been critics of Chauvin, That trial did not inspire confidence in the jury process and the way that jury process was handled.
	And there's aspects of this where the jurors are warning everybody, hey, this is going to be hard to have an impartial jury.
	I think maybe the trial shouldn't have happened so fast.
	That was Mark Richards' choice, quite frankly.
	I think it's a little more time, a little more distance.
	Might have been a lot better under the circumstances.
	But, you know...
	You know, that ship has sailed, too.
	So it looks like my guess is the trial at this point will start Tuesday afternoon with opening statements.
	We'll see how good they are.
	I hope the defense is good.
	Binger will be better than people think.
	Binger is a very effective.
	Somebody who understands the court of public opinion as well as he did, who repeatedly lied, is going to be a good narrator to the jury.
	And he'll try to get away with a lot of lies, and he may do so.
	So we'll see.
	And he presents better, frankly, from a stylistic perspective, personability perspective, for most people that I've talked to, than Richards does.
	So hopefully we'll see a different kind of dynamic in the courtroom.
	Hopefully Richards knocks it out of the park and does the best he's ever done.
	And hopefully Kyle got some God's blessing on that jury and he gets acquitted and finally gets to go home and all this ends.
	But the rest of the trial should start Tuesday afternoon.
	My guess is it will last at least two weeks.
	It's scheduled for two to three weeks.
	That's nuts.
	And just in case it wasn't clear what I said earlier, my father said, those who don't do can easily find fault in those who did, like the person picking out a typo.
	Oh, there's a typo here, typo there.
	Yeah.
	How about you draft something and then let someone else pick away at your typos?
	So that's the moral of the story.
	Good question.
	Before we move on to Baldwin, is there still any opportunity for the judge to issue a directed finding of not guilty after the prosecution rests because the state didn't meet its burden?
	Good question.
	Yeah, a judge can issue a directed verdict.
	I know on Nick's show they're asking who does the sentencing as well, if hopefully that doesn't come about.
	But if it does come about, a judge can issue a directed verdict.
	And this judge, that's very unlikely.
	Even though the judge, I think, feels strongly about the case by the inclinations he's given, that he doesn't like, he thinks this is a politically motivated prosecution, as he's not so subtly hinted at.
	I don't think, and I talked to a lot of the reporters up there and everybody on the ground, and they gave me a lot of great feedback as well.
	They don't think, but then secondly, the judge does control sentencing in Wisconsin.
	That's not a jury determination.
	Now, if Kyle is found guilty of intentional murder, it's automatic life imprisonment.
	There's no discretion for the judge.
	If he's found guilty of something lesser than that, the judge has some discretion, and the opinion is that even though this judge is known as a harsh sentencer, that under the facts of this case, he would be unlikely to do that.
	It's also possible for Kyle to get bail pending appeal in that instance.
	There's not a lot of easy evidentiary.
	It's going to be hard to show errors at this point, but we'll see, other than legal malpractice, frankly, by the defense team.
	So I think the judge will dismiss the gun charge because the gun charge...
	He's already indicated that it's void for vagueness.
	I've publicly advocated that it's clearly void for vagueness.
	People say, oh, it's clearly illegal he had that gun.
	No, it's not.
	The law was written to deal with handgun violence in the city of Milwaukee, not meant to take farmers' kids away from having a shotgun or rifle out on the farm.
	Wisconsin's a very rural state.
	Still to this day, two-thirds of its population live in small towns and don't live in places with big urban, suburban counties.
	That's part one.
	Part two, as the judge noted, if a bunch of lawyers can't agree on what the law means, then there's no way it's not void for vagueness.
	It has to be void for vagueness.
	How's a 17-year-old kid supposed to know what the law means if the lawyers can't agree on what the law means?
	So I think that statute, I think that charge will be dismissed before it goes to the jury verdict.
	And I think it will only be the reckless endangerment, reckless homicide, intentional homicide cases that reach the jury.
	And it will probably reach a jury sometime around Thanksgiving on current schedule.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Well, I think that about covers it.
	We're definitely going to talk about it.
	If we don't cover it on Wednesday, who do we have on Wednesday again?
	We have...
	Greg Hartley.
	Greg Hartley.
	Okay.
	Another behavior panel specialist.
	So we might talk about this.
	We might also talk about the Alec Baldwin, which is a good segue, Robert, into Alec Baldwin.
	It shouldn't take us too long to cover.
	What is he doing?
	Why is he doing it?
	Does he not have a PR team and a lawyer saying, just be quiet and lay low for a little while?
	Do you view his behavior as irrational as others?
	Do you think it's calculated?
	Do you think he's trying to fight a public opinion battle here?
	Or is he just a malignant narcissist trying to convince the entire world and himself that he is innocent here?
	I think it's all of the above.
	My guess is, as he himself repeatedly stated, it is probably the case that both his lawyers and his crisis communications team, which is very good, by the way.
	If you want to see how you do good crisis communications, watch to find all of the misdirections that took place and planted stories after this story first broke that managed to divert attention from Alec Baldwin.
	Maybe it was this person over here.
	Maybe it was that person over there.
	Maybe it was this thing over here.
	Maybe it was something over here.
	Very, very well done.
	And a lot of misinformation put out there by somebody, most likely Alec Baldwin's people.
	And so, I mean, apparently, the best breakdown of this, if you wanted the full breakdown, it's going to be a three-part series, is Eric Hunley's America's Untold Stories with Eric Hunley and Mark Robert.
	Mark Robert has a long history in the movie industry, has a lot of contacts, and so if you want a breakdown of all that happened, that's the place to go.
	Mark Robert is to entertainment what Robert Barnes is to law and history.
	I mean, amazing.
	Crazy amount of knowledge.
	Crazy amount of knowledge.
	It's so much knowledge.
	It's almost a little bit like listening to Alex Jones' theories, which you then have to go fact check afterwards.
	And then you turn out like, they all sounded crazy, some of them.
	And some of them turned out to be very, very accurate nonetheless.
	Crazy accurate.
	Yeah.
	So Grobert and Eric on his new channel, which I said was going to be a net positive since the copyright troll incident.
	Has been a net positive.
	They're over 2,500 subs now.
	Great stuff.
	They've done two of the three parts, and it's phenomenal.
	But yeah, the question is, we do not yet know the answer to this particular question.
	Apparently, he was taking out the gun and trying a certain form of draw and somehow fired it.
	So, it's the firing part that's like, how did that fit into that draw?
	I think, obviously, he's forgetting the Fifth Amendment.
	You had the pot lawyers.
	Those guys are classic.
	By the way, that's good advice for everybody out there.
	Anybody knocks on the door.
	Anybody wants you to testify in a trial.
	No, no, no.
	I've been through this many, many times.
	It is almost never the case that a person testifying in their own defense at any level, at any time...
	And here's the problem.
	The more innocent a person is, the more they think their testimony will help, and it's more likely it won't in exactly those instances.
	The best witnesses for themselves are the pathological Clinton-style liars because they know how to lie.
	They've been planning their story for a long time.
	They know where the holes are, all of that.
	The innocent people don't know that, don't understand that, and thus get ambushed.
	And so, you know, that's where clearly he's not helping himself, but I'm sure he thinks he is.
	Well, I mean, you might have dealt with this more, but I mean, I'm listening to the book, Six Minute X-Ray, you know, the deceiver trying to add additional details to, I want to say disarm, but now I've been reading some of the comments and I don't want anyone thinking I'm making that joke as a joke.
	But, you know, the deceiver adding additional details.
	Emotion.
	Shame, guilt, accusations.
	When you watch what Alec Baldwin is doing, it's like classic manipulation.
	But the question is, is it having the desired effect?
	I read some of the responses on his tweets.
	A lot of people think he's a victim in all this.
	He should rest up and heal, and he did nothing wrong.
	But what he says, that three minutes on the side of the road in Vermont, where he says, how many bullets have gone off in Hollywood?
	Billions.
	Way over the top.
	But the whole point is, I mean, there, if I'm watching this, and I'm a prosecutor, and I'm saying, okay, this guy's now admitting to knowledge, you know, the propensity to use real firearms on set, that he knew they were real firearms, that he knows how this works, that they oftentimes use bullets, and he's doing a cross-draw with a weapon without checking to see if it's loaded, because somebody who's not the armorer specialist gives him a weapon and says it's cold, and he doesn't do any checking before, you know, and then...
	I mean, I don't think he's doing himself any favors.
	The only question is, do you think any prosecutor is looking at this looking for guilt, or are they just trying to hope he shuts up so they can get away with not pressing charges against him?
	Well, what Mark Robert pointed out is that you have a Santa Fe Liberal Democrat Soros-backed DA, and so do the math on whether a Liberal Democrat fundraising guy like Alec Baldwin using this as a pretext for more gun control is going to face prosecution.
	I mean, that's the ultimate sick thing in all of this is that he says, yeah, it was an accident.
	Now bring in more regulations.
	Bring in rubber bullets, rubber guns.
	First of all, I'm the idiot on the sideline who thought they were already using plastic and replicas, not actual operational firearms, let alone with real bullets.
	Oh, by the way, Robert, we just broke 10,000 viewers live on YouTube.
	Everyone, explode the comment section with, um, I shouldn't say it like that.
	Overwhelm the comment section with your favorite, um...
	Emoji.
	Don't do emojis!
	Don't do emojis!
	Jokes.
	I've screwed everything up.
	Robert, what was the question I was about to ask?
	Oh, I talked myself into forgetting.
	I mean, but I don't think there will be criminal follow-up.
	I think there should be.
	There are some good arguments made by the man who wrote Law of Self-Defense.
	He's going to be covering the Rittenhouse case.
	Probably one of the best people to follow.
	Did a great job covering the Chauvin trial.
	Really smart.
	Really savvy.
	He broke down why he thought Baldwin could be prosecuted.
	I think he could be, but he won't be.
	I do think the civil suits are going to be coming from every which direction.
	Extreme negligence at a minimum here.
	Now, people think the civil suits are going to be covered by insurance.
	Robert, there's going to be a cap on his insurance, and they're going to be able to go after Baldwin, I say personally, but above and beyond what the insurance covers.
	Baldwin could be held to that, in theory, or not?
	And you had, I think, seven different production companies, according to Grobert, at least that.
	So you'll have the various bond completion money that's applicable, whether it's applicable in this context, is open.
	They have a lot of creative structuring.
	Grobaric was one of the first people to put it bluntly, but I've explained it for a while.
	The leasing company operations, we've talked about it before here, that they're basically tax devices that were just legalized many years ago by the courts.
	The court said this is an okay structure for actors to use.
	So that can always throw in a bit of an issue, exactly who is liable.
	Are there entities that are basically shells that have no assets in them?
	So that can make it tricky.
	Some of the individuals are clearly being sued.
	Some of the people they're connected to.
	There's issues about whether some of the people involved might have been on set for reasons other than their skill set, given their TikToks and things like that, and some of their tweets, which are unfortunate.
	So I think there's going to be a lot of that.
	And there's always the possibility of some backstory that we don't know about, some mystery-level theater kind of stuff.
	But I don't think you'll face criminal prosecution.
	I do think a lot of big checks are going to be written.
	Now, but hypothetically, if the rumors are true and they find out that they, including Alec Baldwin, were firing live rounds as target practice on set in between shoots, all of these words now have bad meanings in the context.
	If they find that out...
	They're all Michael Malice jokes.
	Michael Malice will have a lifetime of Alec Baldwin jokes.
	By the way, Robert, maybe one day we'll get Malice on.
	Is his last name actually Malice as in M-A-L-I-C-E?
	Or did he spell it that way?
	As far as I know it is, yes.
	Okay, because I thought maybe it was malice, because the malice I know in Montreal is M-A-L-U-S, and I think that's the more typical way of spelling it.
	I mean, he was originally Russian, so it might have been adapted.
	Okay, well, that's fantastic.
	Now, what was I going to say?
	If they find out that they were shooting live rounds on set, and Baldwin was partaking in this, does the prosecution not then become somewhat more compelled to press charges, even if it's for the least of the charges possible?
	I don't know.
	Reckless discharge of a firearm causing bodily harm.
	No.
	I think Santa Fe is liberal enough.
	The prosecutor is political enough that they can completely avoid any prosecution of him if they politically so desire.
	Okay.
	And we all agree.
	I mean, Robert, you agree.
	On the normal run of things, he should be being quiet and laying low and not showboating on the side, like giving a performance on the street as to his innocence and how much he loved the person that he actually killed.
	Yes, agreed.
	Okay.
	And the body language panel can have a field day with that interview by the side of the road.
	Well, I think we'll try to touch on that briefly on Wednesday because I'm curious to know if I don't have the words, I don't have the expertise.
	I just know when I think I see something that would raise flags for me.
	I'm curious to know if they see the same things.
	And speaking of killing people, Andrew Cuomo, not going to jail for that, not getting arrested for that.
	That's all is forgiven.
	Because it was a pandemic and we didn't know that sending COVID-positive patients, compelling nursing homes who you had just immunized the executives for, for any liability, compelling them to take back COVID-positive patients was not going to be problematic.
	And as Rachel Levine out of Pennsylvania said, we weren't bringing in COVID because it was already there, so nothing wrong with doing it.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	You know, this I'm pretty sure was Stalin.
	Kill one person, you're a murderer.
	Kill a million.
	It's a statistic or you go down in history.
	Cuomo is being taken down literally for the inappropriate touching stuff.
	As relates to an incident in December on his executive mansion.
	So I didn't know that there was a total debacle or kerfuffle or miscommunication in terms of the charges being pressed and released.
	Were you aware of the backstory as to how those charges got?
	Approved and then disclosed to the public before it happened?
	Yeah, no, I don't know how that happened either.
	So, I mean, it's not terribly uncommon, but, you know, they usually in these kind of high-profile political cases, they manage it in a way so that it doesn't get out.
	But it is tough once anything's in a court filing of a high-profile person, period, that it will get leaked.
	It almost always does.
	And if the charge is, it's a misdemeanor charge for inappropriate sexual touching.
	I mean, misdemeanor means...
	Well, as the great Kyle Dunagan explained, as you pointed out in the video, Cuomo is just speaking Italian.
	Yeah, Kyle Dunagan, for anybody who doesn't know, the fresh prez of Bel Air and his Cuomo stuff, it's this type of humor I would laugh at, but I would not make myself, which, you know, but it's, yeah, he's Italian.
	You go back now and you look at things Cuomo said when he probably should have just been being quiet.
	And his excuse is, I kiss everyone on the forehead, on the cheek.
	I do the same thing in private.
	Dude, it's inappropriate in public.
	It's even more inappropriate in private.
	I mean, where do you think this goes?
	More charges?
	More criminal charges?
	Because the Attorney General report had many more incidents like this.
	This is the first.
	Do you think it's the first and the only or the first of many?
	I think it's probably maybe the only one on the criminal side.
	He's going to face a lot of civil suits.
	And the state will, too, because he was a state actor at the time.
	But I think this probably might be the scope of the criminal cases unless a bunch of people come forward because of this criminal case.
	All right.
	Yorktown, Saskatchewan.
	Saskatchewan.
	Beautiful.
	Welcome, Christopher and Robert.
	You have to go back and watch Viva's obstacle course videos from 2014.
	Robert has seen them already.
	He shared them on Locals.
	Oh, by the way, do we know more on Andrew Cuomo?
	There's nothing really more...
	If anybody has any questions, let us know.
	But Robert, vivabarneslaw.locals.com, if anybody wants to find us there, was just acquired by Rumble.
	And so people are nervous.
	People have a bunch of theories, a bunch of fears, and a bunch of concerns.
	People think it was an acquisition as in they bought it out.
	But in reality...
	The shareholders of locals are now shareholders in Rumble.
	So it was sort of a share acquisition deal.
	It was a merger, really.
	So it probably should have been more described as a merger than a buyout.
	Robert, do you have any concerns about the structure of the deal, the deal itself, the fear that we might be censored or that the locals will be hampered by Rumble acting like Google?
	I saw Ian, who we met.
	You know, last week or the week before, whenever it was, with Tim Poole at TimCast, which was a lot of fun.
	Yeah, Ian's a nice guy.
	I think he misinterpreted the locals' Rumble merger because, one, it was not a buyout.
	It wasn't a bunch of cash.
	Dave Rubin isn't hopping on an island of the Caribbean saying bye-bye, everybody.
	So, you know, that's not the case.
	It's about two – I mean, you know the Rumble CEO.
	You were one of the first people to promote him.
	This is someone that's very reliable, very trustworthy, has the same agenda, same objectives as the locals people.
	And rather than locals trying to recreate Rumble backend technology, you might as well, and rather than Rumble trying to create locals backend technology to enhance the customer service experience for both of their content creators, it made a lot more sense to just merge.
	And some of the people that helped invest in that stock are committed to it for political reasons and enhance the level of political protection that both of them now have.
	Locals always had it.
	Now Rumble has it too.
	And I think that's good.
	I mean, whenever I go live on, in fact, it was the best.
	When I went live yesterday, it's the best it's been.
	I mean, so it's because, you know, that aspect they've been adding, that Rumble makes that really possible.
	And for people that don't know, we own the Locals data.
	All the content is ours.
	Locals doesn't own it.
	We own the data concerning the audience, the data concerning every content, every piece of content we create.
	Locals doesn't own it, so they can't sell it.
	We can walk with it anytime we want.
	That's the great protection in Locals.
	We own it.
	Locals doesn't own it.
	Rumble doesn't own it.
	We own it.
	They own the technology that allows us to upload it and keep it in a certain place.
	Then we can take it down and move it.
	They don't have any right to it, any title to it at all.
	Totally different than YouTube.
	And Rumble's going to honor that, respect that, incorporate more of it.
	They couldn't do otherwise because that would breach the contract and also changes the technology.
	So there's no negative.
	The assumption that Ian had were just mistaken because he doesn't know the story that we both know.
	And, you know, I'm going to read this just before it disappears and I don't want to lose it.
	Hey guys, my birthday is this Saturday and I wanted to spread the cheer.
	I also wanted to wish Robert good luck on Kyle's trial.
	Go back and watch the beginning of the stream if you missed it.
	I'm rooting for you and I cannot read that without getting cancellation on the social medias.
	But I think we all have come to the conclusion that that was a bona fide case of self-defense.
	Anybody who knows better.
	But Robert, what people don't appreciate...
	First of all, Rumble...
	I've been on Rumble since 2014.
	I've only been actively involved, you know, not involved, actively promoting it since the exodus from YouTube because it's become the free speech platform.
	And one of our concerns was that Rumble would go the way of Parler, which they don't have the same problem because they actually own their servers.
	They own the cloud infrastructure, so they're not as exposed as Rumble, which I think Locals has hedged their risks, but was not as much the case with Locals.
	Correct.
	They had about 80% protection.
	Rumble had 100% protection.
	Now Locals has 100% protection.
	So this was about back-end technology to merge people who had the same political agenda to maximize a free speech platform, and they're not going to deviate for that.
	They functionally can't because all the content creators own their own data.
	But what Rumble's talking about is advertising.
	That's 100% owned by the content creator.
	They're figuring out new and enhanced ways to expand your audience, to monetize the information in ways that are consistent with the best values, not the worst values, that have content creator control, curated content creator control, with maximum free speech, that unless you're violating the law, literally the law, you can't be removed.
	And I'll give Rumble credit.
	Rumble approved that over the last six months by promoting Alex Jones.
	They did so without leaking twice.
	I know that there are people who have complained that Rumble has taken down videos and this and that.
	And the problem is, it's not that I believe or don't believe anybody.
	Before I take a position or publicly defend anybody, I will need to know firsthand what the content was that was taken down.
	When it comes to certain creators that I know, like Eric Hundley, who, until I am shown otherwise, I will vote for any content he puts out because he's not that type of person.
	But other people...
	Even a Crowder, I could see some content that Crowder puts out there being legitimately taken down for violating certain terms of service.
	So when I hear the stories on Rumble, I don't jump all in and go say, Rumble, what are you doing?
	Because I don't know the details.
	I can't know the details of everybody's fight.
	I just know Chris Pavlovsky.
	Never met him, but I think I know him as well as you can know anybody who you've never met.
	He does have the same values.
	I always said with Chris, the risk was not that they go the Google buyout route.
	The risk was that they get taken down by dirtier means by the people with the power who know how to fight a very, very dirty war.
	And Chris is a smart guy and has been covering his bases.
	So I didn't see any risk in the merger.
	I actually saw it only as a good thing because if they divert or even make it easier for the hundred and some odd thousand subs I have on Rumble to find us on Locals, it's a net positive for everybody.
	So I didn't see any risks knowing that the shareholders and locals are now shareholders in Rumble.
	You get the same interests and they now get to exercise some control, albeit presumably minority shareholder, over Rumble as an entity.
	I see it as a win-win-win.
	Massive win.
	If Dave Rubin's goal was to make money, he never would have given content creators control over their own data.
	It's that simple.
	It's not like YouTube or someone else is so eager to have locals' technology.
	Everybody has some version of that.
	They're the big boys.
	The value to these networks is potentially the content creators' information and the communities they create.
	Locals doesn't own that.
	Locals can never sell that.
	This was about back-end technology that Rumble needs that Locals has, and back-end technology that Rumble has that Locals needs.
	That's all this was.
	So there's no risk at all to the communities, no risk at all, in my view, to the rest.
	We were both apprised of it in advance, had no issues, no concerns.
	This is a better situation than it was yesterday.
	And just so no one thinks I had any...
	I was not consulted.
	I only got a courteous call the night before.
	I talked to the CEO the week before.
	First of all, I'm a simple person.
	It's none of my business.
	The business does what it wants, and afterwards, if I don't like it, then I'll make my decision.
	So I got heads up by about 12 hours, and that was just so that I wasn't totally caught off guard or panicked, but I wasn't going to be anyhow, having known what was explained to me the night before.
	But Robert, speaking of outrages, and something I still don't think I understand, Biden talking about paying Illegal...
	I don't even know what the proper...
	I know what historically was the proper word.
	Unlawful entrance into the United States who were separated.
	The talk now is to give those families, and there might only be only a thousand of those families, half a million dollars for the separation of the families.
	It's a big issue.
	And the funny thing is, I watch Fox News.
	I watch like...
	Two or three episodes on this.
	I still don't understand the substance of it because all they do is give their opinions without actually explaining the facts.
	What is going on on the factual level, the legal basis for which the Biden administration would pay upwards of $450,000 to illegal immigrants' entrants who were split up?
	I mean, I don't even understand the legal basis for the action in and of itself.
	And then get into some more questions I'll have.
	Sure.
	So, I mean...
	The spending clause power is limited.
	For example, the Biden administration is being sued by a bunch of attorney generals in Georgia.
	They filed suit in Georgia on behalf of a bunch of attorney generals.
	Governor DeSantis also filed suit in Florida on the grounds that the vaccine mandate is a misuse and misappropriation of executive power and the purchasing agreements.
	Basically, the entire legal pretext that Biden had for these federal contractor mandates was that his control of spending in certain limited capacity to make sure that the purchasing policy of the federal government was maximally efficient supported the mandate, which makes absolutely zero sense because you have less efficiency.
	You're firing people with long-time experience and not able to replace them quickly.
	I mean, so there was nothing about this that was a lie from the inception.
	But that gives some illustration, some context to the limitations in general.
	The executive branch doesn't get to spend money that hasn't been specifically authorized for that purpose.
	Remember all the disputes with Trump trying to get a little bit of money for the wall?
	How is it Trump couldn't spend money on the wall, but Biden can start writing half a million dollar checks to illegal aliens who broke the law and entered the country?
	No, he has no such constitutional power to do that.
	It's a complete abuse of his position of power.
	Now, it has not yet gotten challenged constitutionally.
	There's no pending lawsuits.
	It was, what, an idea that he floated?
	Like, what's the context of even floating the idea?
	And what impact does he think that that's going to have on any potential caravan of people now saying, holy crabapples, not only do we get to cross the border, but if we do and suffer any hardship, we get to potentially get remunerated upwards of 100 times our annual salary.

▲