Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 6, 2021 - Viva & Barnes

03:09:29

Viva Frei SOLO Stream - AMA and more?

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hi, people.
	Am I good on the internet?
	I'm good on the internet.
	I've raised my computer so that it's roughly up to the camera.
	So that I'll be looking less down as I follow the chat and go live.
	Okay, so this, by the way, Robert is fine.
	Everything is fine.
	We have to postpone tomorrow's stream because Robert is traveling.
	And so we're going to do it Monday.
	And then we might have to postpone next Sunday because I might be traveling.
	So we'll see.
	If I can do it where I am, or I can do it, or we just have to postpone it to Monday, or maybe a Saturday night live stream next week.
	Because what a flipping week it's been.
	The world has gotten more interesting since discussing the legalverse on the interwebs has become a thing.
	Because now there's always something to talk about, and it's not quite as toxic as politics.
	It's not quite as divisive as politics.
	It's almost scientific.
	In its abstraction, like we can watch a trial and marvel at the trial without having these deeply quasi-religious political fights about politics.
	So it's just been a tremendous, tremendous evolution of the interwebs and the place of law on the internet.
	And what a freaking week it has been.
	So who has been following?
	I mean, who has not been following the Rittenhouse trial?
	Because it's an amazing thing to watch.
	First of all, it might turn people off of the practice of law, because what we are witnessing is the practice of law.
	And it's the practice of criminal law, which, you know, it's the practice of law, but for the criminal side.
	And what is at stake is literally freedom.
	Literally a human's life sometimes.
	But it's not LA law.
	It's not suits.
	And it's actually, I mean, it's almost humorous in its absence of glamour.
	You see people, you know, fumbling over technology.
	You see 10-minute recesses turn into 30-minute recesses.
	It's an amazing thing that people are now, you know, fully, it's not Judge Judy either.
	It's not courtroom TV.
	We're seeing it in all its glory.
	In all its tediousness and in all its boredom.
	So, the intro is...
	Stream is going to be Monday night with Robert.
	We're going to talk about, I mean, Alec Baldwin developments.
	We're going to talk about Kyle Rittenhouse developments.
	We're going to talk about the Ahmaud Arbery case.
	And we're going to talk about all the...
	There's been some big developments from the Court of Appeals coming out of the States.
	Vaccine mandate, lawsuits, etc.
	So tonight, I figured, Saturday night, who would have thunk we'd be sitting here?
	Aviation gin.
	Delicious.
	Talking law stuff.
	I figured I'll do an AMA, and Nate Brody is going to come in at about 8 o 'clock.
	And we're going to finally have our debate about January 6th being more of a setup than an insurrection.
	And the vaccine mandate debate...
	I'm not going to talk science.
	We're just going to debate this because here's the thing.
	Twitter is such a beautiful, vexatious tool of division that I think people agree more often than they actually realize, but they end up fighting even though they actually ultimately agree on the most fundamental issues or the most fundamental questions.
	I missed the 99 cent super chat, but tonight it was a super sticker.
	Tonight is not about the super chats because I'm taking some questions from locals.
	I said I would.
	And I'm going to do it.
	I'm going to take some questions here.
	And when I say AMA, I haven't done one in a while.
	Ask me anything.
	You could even ask me things that could be incriminating because I'll have nothing to answer that could be potentially incriminating.
	But we'll just do this for a bit.
	We'll bring Nate in and then we'll have an evening together.
	I was watching Nick Ricada all week and at one point someone said, put slow mode on your chat and he said, no, that's communist.
	I don't think it's communist.
	I just think it helps me read the chat.
	And also, I think it makes people less anxious when reading the chat, and I think it makes the chat actually more productive and more useful.
	Let's take one question here.
	Question.
	How does LegalEagle have 2.1 million subscribers, five times more than all of the other YouTube lawyers?
	How is this possible?
	He started...
	The obvious political answer, if somebody wants to go that way, is...
	He's a partisan yada, yada, yada, and he plays into the YouTube algorithm.
	He started early.
	He is methodical.
	He worked on branding, and he certainly worked on gearing content towards a popular spectrum of YouTube.
	So success leaves clues, even if you might not like, politically, the individual who has been massively successful.
	But he started first.
	Legal Legal has been, I think, among the first of the YouTube lawyers.
	He was doing things methodically and focusing on analytics from the beginning.
	And he had great branding.
	He dealt with trending topics.
	And then he got into the algorithmic good graces.
	And that's when your growth is beyond you.
	What video did I just put out?
	The Alec Baldwin video.
	Just breaking down that three-minute roadside interview.
	When YouTube picks up the video and the algorithm...
	The growth is explosive of the video itself and in terms of subscribers, so you just need to find a way to get into that good book, either organically, analytically, systematically, or preferentially.
	Okay, let's see what we've got here.
	I'm going to go to Locals, by the way.
	For anybody who doesn't know, Robert Barnes and I have a very wonderful community page on Locals, vivabarneslaw.locals.com, and they have some questions from Sophie Agape.
	Who says, can you talk about your spiritual journey, spiritual life?
	Which is an interesting thing because someone asked in here, who was it?
	I want to get the name.
	I'll know the avatar and then I'll be able to get the name.
	It had orange in the avatar.
	Oh, whatever.
	Someone asked if I was Jewish, okay?
	And I don't hide it.
	You can go back and you'll see videos.
	I made a menorah out of Roman candles back in the day, which was ironic.
	I didn't appreciate the irony of making a menorah with Roman candles, given the history of Israelites and Romans.
	So, religious...
	I'm Jewish.
	I'm not religious by any means, and I think most people can probably decipher that from my culinary tastes.
	And I don't really talk about it because...
	Unless it's relevant to understanding an individual, or unless it's relevant to a specific aspect of an individual's identity, or just understanding their history, their culture, when it comes to legal analysis, it's irrelevant.
	When it comes to political analysis, it's irrelevant.
	You know, the as a blank, and then to preface what you're about to say as though, as a fill in the ethnic, religious, identity politics bracket, Someone somehow makes what you're about to say more valid, or someone else not being as a makes their opinion less valid.
	I don't play into that, and I don't believe in it.
	So that's why it's not a subject of conversation, really, unless we're trying to understand why I can't do a stream on Yom Kippur, because my parents will kill me.
	Spiritually, it's an interesting thing.
	I don't believe in an organized religion God.
	I certainly would consider myself spiritual because this cosmos in which we live...
	Maybe an accident, maybe not, but there has to be something bigger than us out there to potentially explain how all this occurred, if only the original cause, like the original thing that brought into existence the cosmos as we know it.
	You know, the idea that the universe expanded from singularity, from the explosion of singularity, all was contained in one infinitely dense, infinitely small element that exploded into the universe, that's great.
	In what universe did that singularity exist?
	Spiritual, yes.
	I believe everything has a place on Earth.
	I don't believe in killing something if you're not going to eat it.
	And I don't believe in killing for pleasure.
	I know people know that I fish.
	So that's it.
	That's basically it.
	Spirituality, there's beauty out there.
	And the nature of the world is just a glorious thing.
	Are you reincarnated?
	Are you the reincarnated Malcolm X?
	When he was a kid, he wanted to be a lawyer.
	I think he would have been, I think he'd have been like you if, you know, the times back then, well, and knowing what we know now about the world in which we live.
	Yeah, the Roman candle menorah.
	It was great.
	You know, a big stick with seven, oh geez, nine.
	I believe it's nine candles.
	So that's it.
	Okay.
	Oh, let's just see here.
	If someone murders someone, should they get less of a sentence if they eat that person too?
	Okay.
	With the exception of higher order animals, which...
	Yeah, I eat cows.
	I eat lamb.
	I don't feel comfortable with the concept of eating dogs and intelligent animals.
	I appreciate people think...
	Where do you draw the line?
	I've seen chickens.
	I've stared into the eyes of sheep.
	And I would keep one as a pet, but I don't have moral qualms eating animals which would not otherwise exist if it weren't for farming for the purposes of eating.
	Okay, let's see what we got here.
	I'm going to go back to...
	I want to see if I can get some...
	Greg in Houston, I feel mostly the same way about killing, except for cockroaches.
	They really need to die.
	Cockroaches do not bother me.
	Silverfish do not bother me.
	And even if I see them, I would sooner take them outside than kill them.
	The only things I think actually deserve to be killed?
	Mosquitoes and ticks.
	Parasitic creatures that serve no purpose on Earth other than sucking the life out of their host.
	I appreciate they might be there to cull the weak of a species to make sure that only the strong survive.
	Mosquitoes and ticks, I have an exception for.
	They can be killed.
	Have I seen Dr. Strangelove?
	Bacon tastes good.
	Pork chops taste good.
	Sewer rats may taste like pumpkin pie.
	Well, first of all, I've seen Strangelove, but that's from Pulp Fiction, that quote.
	Dr. Strangelove is an absolute classic.
	I guess it'd be on my top 15 list.
	Great, great movie.
	Okay.
	You just described...
	Okay, no, I'm not going to get that.
	Oh, yeah.
	So, newsflash.
	Mandates got frozen in the courts.
	Something to talk about on Monday.
	Okay, now.
	Devil Dog on Locals.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com says...
	I'll stop saying that now.
	Can you please help 3M employees spread the word that 3M Company is mandating and threatening termination too?
	Our manufacturing heroes went above and beyond to make sure N95 masks, surgical masks, and other PPE were available to the frontline heroes.
	Video below made by 3M or thank you.
	Big protest planned tomorrow, November 7th at the headquarters in St. Paul, Minneapolis.
	Okay, I cannot verify the information in that message, but I promised that I would read the top comments on locals, and there it is.
	parasitic creatures, you mean like politicians.
	Politicians really are among the worst Among the worst.
	I just think, like, they lie.
	The montages of Fauci lying, Biden lying, Trudeau lying.
	Pathological.
	Pathological lying.
	And it's like people have just grown accustomed to it.
	Oh, it's funny.
	It's like the joke now.
	Don't expect truth out of politicians because they lie.
	I don't know if there was ever a time where they didn't lie.
	I mean, looking at...
	Oh, okay.
	Never mind.
	I won't go there.
	Anthony D says, I'm just pulling a question at random.
	If minor in possession charge is dropped, shouldn't case be a mistrial?
	Entire case so far has been tainted.
	Jury thinks he's been committing a crime that doesn't exist.
	I presume you're talking about Rittenhouse.
	We'll talk about it with Robert because I don't want to talk about the subject matter for our Monday stream without Robert.
	I will say one thing, however, because I was watching it yesterday and I like feeling not smart.
	I just love feeling that What I think I'm seeing is actually there.
	With the two witnesses, the sons of the car dealership owners, quite visibly uncomfortable to anybody who's paying attention to their emotional responses to the questions, quite clearly uncomfortable.
	And it became clear why they were uncomfortable from the line of questioning from the prosecutor.
	And I'm just sitting there watching this, and this is like basic stuff that if anyone had read one book of the behavior panel, Or one book on, you know, not reading tells, just understanding people, understanding human nature, you would have understood what was going on, why they were uncomfortable.
	And they were uncomfortable for two reasons.
	I'm fairly certain there is something that is arguably questionable about the corporate structure of the various businesses they have, which is why one is owned by the mother, one's owned by the father, one is in a different state, but probably, you know, set up lawfully by an accountant who wants to...
	Be as value-added as he can or she can for their clients.
	But they're quite clearly uncomfortable with the corporate structure to explain how it is and why it is that they have these various companies, different states, and moving inventory from one company to the next, which might not be able to or lawfully able to keep that inventory.
	But they were all so uncomfortable asking the answer.
	I don't know if we just went black there.
	Okay, let me see FFF.
	Are we back?
	I think we're back now.
	Kids might be using too much internet bandwidth.
	Let me just go to my phone.
	Okay, are we...
	YouTube attacked him.
	Oh, jeez, are we not there?
	Hold on, let me just see if we're...
	Okay, we're back.
	Okay, good.
	I'm going to pause this.
	No, I'm...
	No, okay.
	Sorry, what was I saying?
	So, the other reason why these two are very comfortable with the line of questioning is that if they did ask Rittenhouse to protect their property, they could be civilly liable for the death.
	And the prosecutor can't even read the response of his own witnesses, but it's also clear that...
	I don't know what level of prep went into prepping those witnesses.
	In the practice of law, you're not allowed telling a witness what to answer, period.
	You're not allowed...
	Guiding the witness's answer.
	But you can prep your witness.
	Ask them the questions you're going to ask them and make sure they have their answers fresh in their minds.
	Make sure they've reviewed the documentation that you're going to submit to them as exhibits.
	It seems to me that Binger didn't do that.
	Didn't even do that basic step.
	And certainly was not able to read the level of uncomfortableness of those two witnesses.
	Let me know if it's still lagging.
	Okay, and while we do that, I'm just going to see.
	I missed that.
	Rubles!
	We got a thousand rubles.
	I can't read your name.
	It sounds like Ebron Annikopa.
	The scariest idea I got this week from watching court proceeding.
	That Legal Eagle may eventually be right on hearsay evidence being just as good as any other type of evidence.
	In fairness to Legal Eagle, I think it was Nadler that said that as well.
	And sometimes it's better because you don't have the original person to admit the testimony.
	Yeah.
	Hearsay evidence sometimes is better than direct evidence when it's a deathbed confession and you don't have the deceased to testify in real life.
	Sometimes.
	The car dealership guys, you mean the inventory manager who knows nothing about his inventory?
	I started calling him Mr. Insurance Fraud and Mr. Tax Fader.
	I'm not saying that.
	You never make criminal accusations publicly unless someone has been convicted.
	But it doesn't have to be tax fraud or tax evasion to not necessarily wanting the IRS up your butt.
	You know, they may just go back and reassess and say, you guys owe X more.
	They may not want to get reassessed.
	Now they're on the freaking limelight podium of the most watched trial since OJ.
	I think this is more watched than Chauvin, if I'm guessing.
	Because 11,000 people watching Rakata and Legal Bytes watching it.
	I mean, that's more people than they've ever watched a criminal trial, I think, ever.
	Okay, let's see what we got here.
	If not by military means, revolutions will most likely be stopped by parents.
	If not by military means, revolutions will most likely be stopped by parents awake to the threat to their kids.
	Is Virginia Result Reasons for Hope?
	The United States is reason for hope because people follow the United States lead for good and for bad.
	And the United States, I believe, used to appreciate that.
	I believe the American people still appreciate that.
	I do not believe the political elite.
	Fully appreciate that, and I don't think they care either.
	You and Barnes need a separate internet from the family.
	Yeah, they're definitely, the kids are watching, they're streaming, so they're definitely sucking up the bandwidth.
	I think you need to invest in Starlink.
	I'll look into it.
	Hi, Viva.
	I have an urge to sniff strangers.
	Do you think I might have brandonitis?
	As a lawyer, you see there, as a lawyer, by the way, the sentence is as a blank.
	When you are relying on expertise, the as-a generally works.
	As a lawyer, as a doctor.
	When you are not relying on expertise and you are relying on elements of identity politics, like as a Jewish person, as a woman, as a cisgender man, you know, as a whatever, then it does not add strength to the statement.
	So the as-a, when it relies on experience to emphasize or at the very least highlight authority, it works.
	When someone is invoking elements of their identity as authority, That's when it doesn't work.
	So, as a lawyer, don't sniff people.
	Sniffing is, if not assault, it could be battery, which is improper touching.
	Some states don't have battery, or some provinces don't have battery as a standalone offense, but don't sniff people.
	Although, I say that, and then every now and again I hug someone and I say, my God, you smell good, because there's a perfume out there that I just love.
	Any thought that Zimmerman or Rosenbaum were ultimately responsible for sparking the violence?
	Any thought that Zimmerman...
	I think you mean the guy who fired the gun was named...
	It started with a Z, but it wasn't Zimmerman.
	Rosenbaum was not in his right mind.
	There's no question about that.
	And I have dealt with people with manic bipolar disorder, and the change is radical, especially when they're not medicated or when they're not on their meds.
	When they're not taking their medication.
	But even still, I mean, you know, Rosenbaum was unhinged.
	And he was quite clearly violent and prone to criminality based on his criminal history, which may or may not be admitted as evidence.
	There's no question that...
	What was the guy's name?
	Zemeckis?
	Yeah, Zeminski, Zeminski.
	There was no question that Zeminski knew damn well what he was doing when he pulled the trigger.
	He knew damn well what was going to happen.
	Because that started everything.
	Two and a half seconds between Zeminski pulling the trigger, Rosenbaum hyper-aggressive chasing Rittenhouse down, screaming FU, reaching for his gun, like that witness testified eloquently.
	That started it.
	Someone said that Huber might have thought he was being a hero by trying to disarm a guy because maybe he didn't know what was going on.
	Maybe.
	But...
	Can't find a feed on Locals, so YouTube just got 30%.
	What's up with that?
	Well, there's no direct...
	Well, I could have done the direct stream on Locals without going through YouTube, but then I wouldn't have been able to do it on YouTube.
	So Locals, hopefully with the merger with Rumble, are going to facilitate all of this.
	So hopefully they're going to be able to facilitate all of that, which is why I'm still...
	No, it was not Zelensky, it was Zeminsky.
	Zelensky is someone...
	Was it Zelensky?
	No, Zelensky's in Russiagate thingy thing.
	Fool's Russian.
	I mean, it's...
	We've watched now a ton of that footage.
	There were very few people out there actually protesting for racial equality, protesting for anything meaningful.
	It was just a crowd looking to cause mischief, to cause mayhem.
	And the police just let it happen.
	Oh, start a live chat on locals.
	Okay, sorry, hold on.
	Let me do that while we do this.
	Oh, how quickly can I do this?
	Gentlemen, ladies, I'm going to go start a live chat.
	Live chat.
	And now more options.
	Enable live stream.
	How do I enable...
	No, I don't want to do that.
	Oh.
	Does anybody know how to do that?
	How do I...
	How do I do a flipping live chat?
	Okay, I'll do it on my computer.
	But in the meantime, let me just get...
	A couple more questions from locals.
	Keep doing what you do, mate.
	Love your work.
	Thank you very much, hairy dairyman.
	I want to take some non-chats.
	Does Barnes wear pants during livestream?
	In as much as I know, yes.
	The question is, do I wear pants during livestream?
	Oh, and Kyle did not stalk him.
	So, Nate Brody, who shall be joining us very soon, everyone, put out a good tweet.
	And we talked about it early on.
	In opening arguments, the lawyer, the prosecution, Binger, suggested that Rittenhouse pursued and engaged Rosenbaum with a gun.
	So the prosecuting attorney outright made a statement that's factually incorrect.
	But he said it in opening statements.
	So, you know, he said, as the evidence will show, the evidence will show that.
	And it was quite clearly, totally, totally inaccurate.
	And people are asking, can you do that?
	Lawyers are not allowed to lie to court.
	Lawyers are not allowed to knowingly misrepresent evidence.
	Lawyers are not allowed to knowingly mislead the court.
	Lawyers are not allowed to knowingly allow the court to be misled.
	So, no.
	But go prove it.
	I mean, it's an argument.
	The prosecutor is saying, this is my interpretation of the evidence.
	The evidence will show it.
	The evidence will not show it.
	Therefore, it's not a lie.
	It's just not supported by the evidence.
	Here.
	Live chat, everyone.
	Let's do this.
	Live chat on.
	And then I'm going to go to this and publish.
	And this should work.
	Oh, live chat here.
	Publish.
	Okay, people, I hope this works.
	Looks like it's thinking.
	It's thinking.
	Auto-saving.
	And...
	I hope it worked.
	You know, and...
	One amazing thing is watching Reketa's live streams.
	Reketa is not afraid of the moments of silence, which is why he's so damn good at carrying a stream for eight hours.
	I, on the other hand, am not as comfortable with the silences as other people, which is why when I used to listen to Howard Stern, I used to realize and focus on how comfortable Howard Stern was with...
	Moments of silence on air, which...
	See, I don't like that.
	Makes me feel uncomfortable.
	My biggest takeaway from the trial this week is the judge loves food.
	Constantly talking about lunch.
	Everyone's going to realize how much time is wasted in an average court day.
	It's a lot of time is wasted in an average court day.
	Which perfume?
	I don't know which perfume, but it's my aunt from California.
	And whenever I smell this perfume, it brings back the best memories of my childhood.
	My aunt is still alive.
	She's actually very old but very healthy.
	But every time I smell it, it just makes me think of my aunt, which makes me immediately happy.
	I saw a question that was not a super chat that I want to get to.
	First of all, I'll bring you up there.
	Thank you very much.
	Nick rocks.
	There is no question that Nick rocks.
	Now, where was the question that I saw?
	But are you okay with Silence of the Lambs?
	No, that was not the question.
	How are so many people surprised that Kyle is 100% innocent?
	All the evidence was essentially available from the time of the incident.
	No question.
	But most people didn't care to look at it.
	Even less so that guy who has a Twitter following of a hundred and some odd thousand followers who tweeted out, white guy shot three black guys gonna walk.
	And I couldn't...
	I could not believe that he was serious.
	And it seemed he was serious, but either misinformed because he deleted the tweet subsequently after everyone let him know Rittenhouse's mixed race and the three individuals shot were all white.
	And two of them, you know, okay.
	Okay, I'm going to say this.
	Marcy Jones says, Viva, help, please.
	I am a trans woman.
	Help me abolish C-16.
	I'm sorry.
	I'm too poor to pay for a question.
	Truly, I'm sorry for that, but please help.
	So, C-16 is the...
	Jeez, Louise.
	That's the Jordan Peterson, the compelled speech bill that we were talking about a while back, which added transgenderism to aggravating factors for certain crimes.
	Unless I'm mistaken.
	I'm pretty sure that's what Bill C-16 was.
	So...
	Well, I mean, look, it's a constitutional challenge to these laws, and I'm not doing it.
	People watching this trial now are going to understand why some people just cannot stand the practice of law, but I know my limits in life, and I know what I'm good at, and I know what I can't do without crushing my soul to the point where I should not be doing it anyhow.
	Okay, let's see.
	My wife just remarked.
	I'm liking this Viva tonight.
	Mrs. Viva, look out.
	Viva after dark.
	Porkchop Express.
	I love that.
	What is C16?
	I did a video on C16 a while back when I was thinking that I would be able to remain neutral or at least not express my own opinion on subject matters.
	Unless I'm mistaken.
	But Bill C16 was...
	Adding aggravating factors to crimes, which included transgender as an aggravating factor for hate crimes, for example.
	And Jordan Peterson said this is going to lead to compelled speech, where people are going to get fined if they do not properly gender somebody who insists on being gendered a certain way.
	And then we found we had two cases in it.
	One was coming out of...
	No, both came out of British Columbia, very progressive province.
	One were...
	Involved sanctioning police officers who arrested a transgender individual, misgendered the individual, but there was always more to it.
	There was other ancillary harassment that was going on that caused this to be a situation of not just a simple misgendering someone, but other forms of harassment.
	And then there was a case that came out of a restaurant, it was called Buena Nutte, an Italian restaurant, diner, where the staff were...
	Fined for misgendering an employee who was there for a month.
	And again, in that case, extra facts, bad cases make bad law, but getting there.
	My whole problem is that to the extent that harassment already existed under the law, and criminal harassment, civil harassment, it already existed.
	So if the issue was misgendering someone to the point of harassment, you already had a sanction for that.
	You already had a remedy for that.
	And so just by adding another one...
	You're not, you know, more laws, less justice, to quote that Greek philosopher whose name I forgot.
	Okay, let's see what we got here.
	Bill 616 is an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act by adding gender identity or expression as a prohibited ground of discrimination.
	So that's it.
	Okay, now we're going to go back to locals, and I'm going to go to the questions that they had.
	Discard changes, yes.
	Oh, so hold on.
	We got the NB Labor Board case.
	The cease and desist order is going to set the standard and ripple through unions in Canada.
	Soon to be public sector to follow.
	Okay, so I'm not sure what that is.
	But if I'm going back to get some questions from locals at our chat board there, the prosecutor in Kenosha approved Kyle's case.
	I think many people are going to agree with that.
	This is from Sidewalk.
	Do you have any siblings?
	If so, what do they do?
	Are they also in law?
	Have they voted for PPC?
	So I don't know who people voted for unless they tell me.
	And I didn't even ask my own family members who they voted for because it's none of my business.
	I have three brothers and one sister.
	Four brothers and sisters.
	I'm the youngest of five.
	Of the five, four of the five have become lawyers.
	The oldest one works in the hotel industry, is an executive of sorts.
	So no black sheep in that sense, but did not become a lawyer.
	Of the five kids, all are married.
	One of my brothers has five kids.
	The other one has four kids.
	Another one has two kids.
	Another one has three kids.
	I am the only one who stayed in Quebec.
	Others went to other provinces in Canada and others went to the United States.
	I know politically we don't all agree.
	Other than that, I will reveal my own secrets and I will reveal my own private information.
	In as much as it's relevant for discussion, but don't get into other people.
	Let me see this here.
	Okay.
	Voted PPC.
	Well, look, I...
	You either voted PPC or you voted for the others.
	And between voting for Trudeau...
	Nothing nice to say about Trudeau.
	Or voting for O'Toole.
	I have nothing nice to say about O'Toole, but at least O'Toole...
	In some ways, O'Toole is even worse because he's deceitful in his chicanery.
	At least Trudeau lets us know who he is, and then it's up to us to vote or to not vote for him.
	And Jagmeet Singh, who let us know who he is as well.
	Yeah.
	Michelle Lin says, I agree.
	It's none of anyone business who I voted for, and it's rude to just ask.
	We've gotten, so I'm a small fry.
	Indeed.
	My father's also a lawyer, but I think most of you know that here.
	Viva, are you ever going to migrate to the US and become a citizen or what?
	They live in your avatar.
	It's not off the table.
	We'll see what happens.
	We'll see what happens.
	Never thought we would have gotten here.
	I like to think we're sort of on the upswing, on the other side of the hill.
	Quebec recently withdrew its...
	Not a mandate, rather, but it's order that it was going to fire healthcare workers who didn't get vaccinated.
	That's now off the table.
	Same for Ontario.
	So maybe the pressure is starting to build.
	Maybe people are starting to, you know, put things in perspective and put risk in perspective, but maybe not.
	I love my country, but at this point, if I leave to the States, I do not consider that I have left Canada.
	I genuinely consider that Canada has left me.
	Because when we talk about vaccinating teenagers in order to grant them privileges so they can have a normal life, when you talk about compelling an intervention for a demographic that is not affected in any meaningful way, that's not Canada.
	Call it what it is.
	It'll be Trudeau's Canada.
	I'll call that Trudeau's Canada.
	I'll call that Lagos, Quebec.
	But that's not what Canada or Quebec ever was.
	Alright, let's see what we've got here.
	That moved to the USA.
	I love my country and I'm afraid of my government.
	That is a more accurate way.
	I'm afraid of them because the lengths to which they're going are astonishing.
	And I also loathe them.
	Disdain for our government.
	The Trudeau government, if it were...
	A conservative government, any one of the five, six, seven scandals of Justin Trudeau would have been enough, and rightfully so, to sink a conservative government or a conservative leader.
	You imagine making it a national holiday?
	He has been flying our flags at half-mast since May for the indigenous situation, the residential schools, the discovery of the mass graves, all of which was well-known to this very same government.
	Until they decided, you know, we're going to call an election soon, so let's make it an election issue so that we can get our photo ops and exploit the Indigenous community even more than we've already done, you know, in the past.
	Our flag has been at half-mast for five months, to the point where you would think that Canada is falling or sinking into the ground based on the position of the flag on the mast.
	And he makes a national holiday for National Truth and Reconciliation Day.
	Justin Trudeau, this is.
	And on the freaking holiday, he ignores multiple requests, invitations to go celebrate the holiday with tribes in British Columbia and goes to vacation with his family on Tofino Beach, which is a very overrated beach in my home.
	That is enough.
	That is disqualifying for anybody.
	And this is not a liberal conservative issue.
	That is disqualifying for anybody.
	And that's just one of his...
	Egregious scandals.
	It's such an insult.
	It can't be an accident.
	It can only be, this is how lowly I think of you, and there's nothing you can do about it.
	Okay, anger over.
	Kal-El says, I hope you and Barnes are going to talk about the U.S. Supreme Court blocking the Biden vaccine.
	Was it the Supreme Court?
	I thought it was the Court of Appeal.
	First of all, we are going to 100%.
	We're not going to do the legal questions tonight because we're going to do it Monday.
	But yeah, I thought it was the Court of Appeal, but maybe it's the Supreme.
	Despise isn't too strong.
	It's...
	Yeah, no words.
	Keep fighting.
	Duslov Act Mandkari says, keep fighting.
	Build a get-home bag.
	Remember that...
	There are four lights.
	I don't know what all this means, but thank you for the support and thank you for the...
	Thank you for the chat.
	Little Rock, how you doing?
	Donation to the Viva Frye move to Arkansas fund.
	Arkansas is not on the list.
	Don't be offended.
	Arkansas is not on the list.
	But thank you very much, and I hope you're doing well, Little Rock.
	Okay, let's see if I can get another question.
	I'll get one from the locals.
	I hear a dog barking, but I'm not bringing him.
	So when am I moving to the U.S. from Bill Brown?
	Bill Brown, in our locals community, keeps posting pictures.
	He posts pictures of his...
	I don't know if you call it a hog or a pig.
	It's the most beautiful, massive pig on the planet, and I want one.
	And I mean I want one as a pet.
	Okay, I'm not sure that I can read this one because it looks long, but this is Sarah Vermeule who says, Viva Fry, chiropractors have been dealing with AMA and medical tyranny since inception.
	We've had a few wins and we are still dealing and we are still standing.
	Might be something relevant to today.
	Journal of Ethics.
	There's no question there, but thank you very much.
	Could you talk about your spiritual?
	Thoughts on Barry Sherman 2017 murder.
	It is my understanding his pharmaceutical company was biggest manufacturer of hydroxychloroquine.
	Is that the Barry Sherman, Was that Canadian couple?
	I'm not sure.
	I don't know enough about it to even venture a guess.
	But look, Eric Hundley and Mark Grobert just did a bit on the Alec Baldwin shooting and went into the interesting context of Helena Hutchins.
	And it's interesting.
	They put out the dots and said it's up to you to connect them.
	I do say at some point in time...
	When something like this happens, everyone involved in the story is going to have something of a connected past, so you can draw the dots if you want to, but it's interesting.
	Pigs are good pets.
	So we have a family friend who has one, and it's vicious, and the people in the house are living in terror.
	I just said, I made the joke, just eat it, but maybe they're not into that.
	Okay.
	25, just out of school.
	Excited to work, but finding a job that doesn't have mandates is really killing me, even in trades.
	Not loving Canada right now.
	Mandates.
	Can you imagine?
	And Nate, now you're going to talk about this, because this is one of our, you know, one of our debates, our ongoing Twitter debates.
	The Twitter debates always irritate me, because everything sounds angry on Twitter, and I don't mean it to sound angry, and I know Nate doesn't mean it to sound angry.
	My donation to the Viva and his Family Become American Fund, thank you very much, character holding.
	Let's see if we've got a question.
	Bring in some questions.
	Valerie Keefe.
	Valerie, David mourns the rights of the unjabbed, still gets jabbed.
	Valerie, do you respect my decision to do what I want with my own body?
	Because if you don't, then you're not actually espousing a position that's any better than the people who think that other people have to get jabbed.
	So I get this a lot.
	Anybody who mocks somebody for having decided, for whatever their reasons, to get vaccinated is no better than anybody who...
	Take away the rights from people if they don't get vaccinated.
	So just fully appreciate that because you're not the only person to make that.
	It's either a tongue-in-cheek joke.
	Maybe it's not meant seriously.
	Maybe it's meant seriously.
	But my response is the same nonetheless because this comment comes up a lot, especially on our locals board.
	And I don't block people.
	I don't delete comments.
	If I say things publicly, I have to be able to deal with those types of responses.
	I understand the responses, but understand my response.
	For anyone to shame someone for deciding to get vaccinated, dare I say even deciding to get their children vaccinated, even if it's not a decision I might make, are no better than people saying you're going to lose your privileges if you don't get vaccinated.
	So, in NDG.
	I'm in NDG, got Bell's fiber optic link.
	Oh, for better connection.
	Yeah, okay, fine.
	I know the solutions to my problems.
	I'm too lazy to do them sometimes.
	Okay, here we go.
	Ian Bruce, regarding the Danchenko interview, you left out the of distinction.
	He said he had, quote, known him a couple of years, but then he says, but I've known of him for like 12 years.
	Oh, maybe, maybe, I don't know.
	It's quite possible.
	But the point was to illustrate the tactic of eliciting more, eliciting or not eliciting, it is eliciting.
	More information from someone who's not giving it to you without getting aggressive.
	Repeat what they just said and then stay quiet.
	I'm not good at it!
	There's a lot of tactics that I know I should do that I'm just not good at because I like to be the hyper-aggressive young punk lawyer who's going to beat the truth out of them as opposed to allow them to reveal the truth.
	But yes, fair point.
	Not a material enough error that I'm going to go out and make a correction and apology or random, but thank you.
	The power grab in the U.S. with mask mandates will be just the start if we don't stand against it.
	Not about the jab.
	It's about future power grabs.
	It won't end here.
	Stand up, people.
	We're seeing it.
	We're seeing it in Quebec.
	And not that it gives me joy by any means, but when I see Anglophone Quebecers complaining that Francois Legault is violating their linguistic rights with Bill 96, which is an amendment to Bill 101, which is the language rights, language police, etc.
	It's too freaking bad.
	You guys didn't complain when he locked you in your houses.
	You asked for more of it.
	You thought he was going to stop at your mobility rights?
	Here we go.
	Question.
	This is a good way to do it, people.
	If there's a question, even an on-superchat, start it with question, and I'll know it's a question.
	What would you do for healthcare coverage if you left Canada?
	So these are the real questions.
	People think healthcare is free in Canada.
	It's not.
	And I don't know the numbers exactly.
	It's like 22% of the budget.
	So you assume...
	If you pay $100,000 in income tax, that's way too much.
	If you pay $50,000 in income tax, 22% of that or $11,000 goes to healthcare, whether you use it or not.
	So it's free, except you've already paid for it.
	So it's not free.
	Now the question is, in the States, it's not exactly the exact opposite because it's not like you're not paying in taxes for those things.
	So you're not saving whatever you would be paying for healthcare in Canada by way of taxes, but you would be expected to save that money.
	And use it for coverage, healthcare insurance, which costs an arm and a leg in the States.
	So there is something of a six of one way, half a dozen the other.
	The only real issue is, once you're going to pay up the wazoo, either by taxes or by private healthcare insurance, where are you going to get the better service?
	And there's a reason why people leave Quebec to go to the Mayo Clinic for emergency treatments, and nobody really comes from the United States to jump into the healthcare system here for...
	I hate musicals.
	As far as any entertainment goes, I hate musicals.
	I don't like anything that randomly breaks into song.
	It makes me feel very uncomfortable.
	The movie Chicago, I could not stomach it.
	Even cartoons that have, like, Frozen?
	I can't stand it when people start singing in the middle of movies or cartoons.
	So I do not go to musicals.
	I don't watch musicals.
	I watched Annie.
	Didn't like it.
	If I had to guess what Barnes's is, I would say Chicago.
	Because that's the only one I know offhand.
	Or Rent.
	I know the musical Rent because I listen to a lot of Lonely Island.
	Question thoughts on the Durham probe still does he arrest?
	Apparently the source is pointing to a connection with Clinton.
	Apparently it's in there.
	It's in there.
	And some people are going to say, nothing's going to happen.
	Nothing is going to happen, probably.
	It's in there.
	We know the facts now.
	And anybody who still wants to pretend that Russiagate was, in fact, Russian interference...
	To impact the US elections, except it wasn't Trump doing it.
	It was literally the Clinton campaign, literally hiring Danchenko to literally then give the information to Steele, to then literally leak it to the media so the FBI could literally take that information, knowing it was bunk, run to the FISA courts, get unlawful spy warrants to spy on Trump's campaign so they could fabricate the Russiagate scandal.
	Such that if he got elected, that would be the insurance policy to get him out of office.
	We know it.
	It's there.
	But try to convince...
	I hate doing the things along political lines.
	Try to convince a Democrat supporter that this is true.
	You could not get someone to admit that they had been lied to by their own party to such an insidious and sick level.
	Barnes strikes me as fiddle-on-the-roof kind of guy.
	Well, I'm glad you said Barnes and not me, because that would have been...
	A violation of Bill C-16.
	I'm joking, but Fiddler on the Roof.
	Okay, look, I saw my sister in Fiddler on the Roof.
	It's good, but musicals, meh.
	Let's see what we got here.
	Oh, let's see what this one says.
	I didn't believe in mandates before I knew who I was, especially for irreversible medical procedures.
	We're going to discuss this when Nate gets here.
	We've mandated measles, mumps, mubella.
	We've mandated whooping cough.
	We've mandated tuberculosis.
	All of those are fundamentally different than this.
	Contextually, risk-wise, and especially for demographics that they're now going to try to compel vaccination through.
	Okay, let's see if I see any questions.
	Q. Question.
	Followers.
	Oh, sorry.
	That's not a question.
	That says Q. Well, look.
	I don't get into the Q thing, but I'm not Q follower.
	I knew this roughly.
	I started discovering this when I figured out who Clinesmith was.
	I don't remember when that was.
	It definitely wasn't 2016, but it was close.
	Yeah.
	Long wait times in Canada and barbaric methods for treatment.
	Long wait times is an understatement.
	It's an understatement.
	For the most emergency treatments, sometimes it's just an understatement.
	Oh, Dusty Vicarri says, okay, question.
	What is the rules in Canada about police inspecting or searching evidence?
	It's a broad question.
	I'm not sure what you mean contextually, but if you mean like to ask for ID, it depends on the context.
	We passed a new drunk driving law, which allows the police...
	On suspicion or complaint to test you within two hours of having, it was either one or two hours of having driven a vehicle.
	And if you're over the limit within one hour or two hours, I forget which, of having driven a vehicle, you can be presumed to have been driving that vehicle under the influence for the purposes of a DUI.
	And this was apparently to counter a defense known as the Bolov.
	Someone's going to correct me in the chat.
	It starts with a B. It's the defense of downing a bottle.
	Once you get pulled over, so that the cops cannot be able to determine if you were drunk when they pulled you over.
	You're going to say, look, I'm drunk now because I downed the bottle in front of you, and what are you going to do?
	Okay.
	But there's a presumption of guilt for a very serious crime.
	So you have an angry neighbor who knows that you like to come home at 5 o 'clock from work and then have a martini.
	So they call the cops and say, hey, he pulled into his car, into his driveway, all swervy-dervy.
	Go check him.
	I think he came home drunk.
	And they know that you have your martini when you get home?
	Hey, that's great sabotage right there.
	It will be challenged constitutionally if it hasn't already, but I haven't been following it.
	My donation to Viva Family, stay here and help us fight the brainwashed and lies in Canada alongside his fellow Canadians.
	We're not going anywhere anytime soon.
	But, you know, first of all, thank you very much, Shane D. But in Quebec, when you have François Legault talking about amending the Youth Protection Act to remove the primacy...
	Of parents' parental rights, the primauté parentale, parental primacy.
	You know what they're saying, and they're basically saying that it's going to be governmental primacy.
	And if the government thinks that if you don't get your children vaccinated, that's cause for taking them away, well, then you get the DPJ, which is the Departement de Protection de la Gemaisse, whatever.
	You get child protective services in, and that's it.
	Parents have no rights anymore.
	The children are...
	Property of the state.
	That's one of my lines.
	Have you seen Liz Corkin's Slave Princess documentary that just came out?
	I have not.
	I have very little time to watch adult stuff.
	George says, when the fully vaxxed are declared unvaxxed, many will refuse the booster and the whole project will die by the law of diminished returns.
	Right?
	I internally know that I...
	If...
	Well...
	The fully vaxxed, you know, vaccine passport doesn't affect me now because I'm not doing anything that requires me to show proof of vaccination except for traveling across the border and except for that one day, the bowling alley, so don't get on me about that.
	But I'm not sure where I'm going to go with the boosters.
	And that's going to be, I mean, that might be my limit, and that might be the limit for a lot of other people.
	Because it's like, once, it's like, I don't know how many times you have to get fooled, but once you start talking about...
	One dose, two dose, boosters.
	You're not one step off from an IV drip.
	My prediction.
	At Viva's favorite musical would be Let's Go Brandon the Musical.
	Well, if I'm making the score for that, I'll do it.
	Okay, let's see.
	Question for Biden.
	Box to the brief.
	Answer depends.
	Hardy har har.
	That's not bad as a joke, but I have been told that the whole crapping his pants was actually...
	Was actually a rumor and may not have actually happened.
	So, question.
	If Kyle is acquitted, will you shave your hair into a frohawk?
	No, I will not.
	I would never do anything in response to that type of verdict.
	I would do it for something that would be actually funny or a fundraiser.
	Mustang versus Camaro.
	I don't know much about cars.
	I just know stereotypically in movies I would be more of a Mustang individual than a Camaro individual.
	Yeah.
	People can read that.
	But when you have a Prime Minister talking about racism and then quite literally implementing racist policies.
	Yeah.
	Carol W says, for a fun family musical, see Seven Brides for Seven Brothers.
	Funny and amazing athletic dance moves.
	I'm not watching musicals.
	I can't do it.
	I can't do it.
	Okay, did I miss any questions?
	Could the prosecutor be holding back a video damning towards Kyle?
	Not if they're playing by the rules.
	Full disclosure and the evidence ought to have been disclosed already.
	I'm basing this on Canadian criminal law, but I know it's the same in the States.
	It's basically a positive obligation of disclosure of evidence.
	So they cannot be holding back anything.
	There's no trial by ambush and certainly not in criminal law.
	Okay, did I miss anything here?
	Is impersonating someone on Facebook fraud?
	Criminal, there'd definitely be a case.
	Civil, definitely, but it's also just against their terms of service.
	Impersonating someone, for sure.
	Especially if there's a monetary aspect of impersonation.
	Question.
	Chitty Chitty Bang Bang or Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory?
	I know nothing of either of those.
	The only thing I know about Chitty Chitty Bang Bang was in that movie, a Quentin Tarantino movie with the car and the guy who was driving the car to kill people.
	Oh, hold on a second.
	I think I see something here.
	Will you debate me for an hour without a one-sided presentation of your choice?
	BS?
	No, because if I feel, if I am coerced into debating everyone on the internet who says debate me, there goes my life in terms of content creation.
	But no, I'm not.
	You have your opinion.
	I have mine.
	And that's fair game.
	Question.
	Thoughts on the FBI raiding the home of Project Veritas staff looking for the Ashley Biden diary?
	So I saw it.
	It's very interesting.
	I'm just wondering if O 'Keefe is going to come back on for a sidebar or for an interview and discuss it, because I would love to hear it.
	I just would not like to get him into trouble.
	He's a big boy.
	He would know not to disclose more than he can.
	But I saw it.
	It's nuts.
	And now that we know what we know about the FBI, the FBI's lawyer, Clinesmith, Falsifying evidence in order to obtain unlawful FISA warrants.
	The FBI going after O 'Keefe.
	What was the other big FBI thing?
	Oh, the FBI Whitmer kidnapping.
	The FBI involvement in January 6th.
	And now the FBI, instead of going after, you know, Hunter Biden's criminal acquisition and disposal of a firearm, potential criminal lying on an application form for a firearm, instead of going after that, They're going after O 'Keefe because he was given allegedly a found or a misappropriated or just appropriated copy of Ashley Biden's diary.
	These are the setups.
	Go get a mole to send James O 'Keefe Ashley Biden's diary so the FBI can then go raid James O 'Keefe and politically persecute and harass him.
	It's crazy.
	And how many times does it have to happen before you're not a crazy person for saying that it might very well be happening yet again?
	Did the Karstoffs brothers perjure themselves?
	I don't know who's going to go after them for perjury in this case.
	You would be happy enough with contradicting themselves because then the defense can say, look, these guys are liars.
	They are clearly concealing the fact that they hired or asked for this security.
	You don't need to go after them for perjury because what's anyone going to gain from You know, pursuing perjury against two witnesses in a trial.
	But it will allow you to undermine them or even to use their own testimony for the defense of Kyle.
	When are you leaving Canada for somewhere saner?
	Check out the western coast of Florida for sunny beaches and freedom.
	Florida, Florida.
	Florida's a good place.
	Love the show's Pantelis.
	Maybe sidebar to give to him.
	Boosting subs.
	I think Pantelis and I are discussing whether or not we do something weekly, like a Canadian law, Canadian subject matter discussion.
	By the way, I have monetized my Viva PPC channel because it's up there with the subs, it's up there with the views, and I plan on turning that potentially into something of a more political opinionated channel.
	So stay tuned.
	But Pantelis and I are talking because it's amazing.
	We've become, you know...
	Good friends, and I like it.
	Would you watch Rambo First Blood, the musical?
	Yes, I would.
	Oh, yes, I would.
	There's an exception.
	Is there a musical to Rambo First Blood?
	Because I would watch it.
	Okay, let's see what we got.
	Preface with a question.
	What about South Park movie, Blaine?
	Oh, dude, I watched that movie.
	I took my parents to that movie when I lived in Paris, because I'm fairly certain that movie came out in 99-2000.
	South Park, Bigger, Longer, Uncut.
	I went to watch that movie with my parents.
	I laughed so hard.
	I mean, anyhow, I have a crude, crass sense of humor and will never apologize for it.
	But it was...
	Yeah.
	What was it?
	What about...
	It's great.
	I mean, I like that.
	And Team America?
	The vomit scene in Team America was one of those scenes where I laughed so hard I missed a good portion of the movie.
	Okay.
	Let's see what we got here.
	Odds on them getting a judgment on the merits for Kyle.
	I wouldn't bet on it, because I think it's immoral to bet on life-or-death situations like that.
	He's getting acquitted, but I've been wrong a lot in the past, so take it for what it's worth.
	No musicals.
	Don't like opera.
	Opera makes me uncomfortable.
	Question.
	Okay, anyone abuses the question?
	Now I'm burnt.
	Now I cannot know if the question is going to be legit.
	On a scale of 1 to 10, how innocent is Kyle Rittenhouse?
	Legally or morally?
	Here's the question.
	Legally, 10 on 10, in my humble opinion.
	Morally, I think, you know, morally, the only question is not whether or not he was morally justified in doing what he was doing when he got there.
	It's just the question, you know, would his life be better if he stayed home that night?
	Just from his perspective, not from law, not from my question of morality.
	Would Kyle Rittenhouse right now be happier if he had stayed home that night?
	Now, here's the thing about this question, though.
	Because you ask this question, and it has a question in the now, and then it's also going to have a question in 20 years from now.
	In 20 years from now, who knows what Kyle's going to be?
	And who knows where he's going to be as a result of the events of that night, the ensuing trial, the political revolution that may follow, you know, whatever.
	But right now, would Kyle have just said to himself, I wish I stayed home that night?
	I suspect the answer is yes.
	So that's what I mean by the moral aspect of the question.
	Would it have just...
	There might be two individuals who...
	At least one individual who might still be alive, who might still be doing very bad things.
	And so vigilante justice is not a form of justice, full stop.
	But you do a calculation.
	Maybe that guy who had a...
	Massively disgusting criminal past would have hurt a lot of other people had the events of that night not happened, but who knows?
	Sidebar with the law of self-defense.
	The other thing is there's too many...
	Oh, next week, by the way, Thursday, Five Times August is going to be on 7 o 'clock.
	It's not a sidebar.
	I just want to talk to Five Times August.
	I want to hear him.
	I may even want to hear him perform God Help Us All.
	I forget the name of the exact song, but Five Times August, Thursday.
	I don't know who the sidebar is Tuesday yet, and then we're going to have the stream Monday.
	Question.
	Excited about your channel growth and new access to large names, but are there things you miss personally from when your channel was smaller?
	No.
	No.
	I miss nothing from when the channel was smaller, and I actually don't like the big channel brand because I don't like thinking that I'm any more entitled or deserving or that I have a foot in the door for stuff that I...
	Didn't have access to as a smaller channel.
	The channel growth is an indication of credibility and consistent, I'll say quality for lack of a better word, but just consistency.
	And it's a sign of, it's an evidence of that.
	So in a sense, it's street cred that people know that I'm not going to sabotage them for quick growth because you'll get your quick growth, but then you'll...
	Stifle your growth overall because, you know, do that once.
	It works once or twice, but not more than that.
	So I like it.
	It's a question of credibility.
	It's a question that people are appreciating and getting something out of the content.
	But between being a small creator and a big creator, the sustainability is the biggest thing that I can continue doing this and I don't have to, you know, wake up sweating in the middle of the night anymore.
	Thank goodness.
	Thoughts on daytime?
	TV judge shows.
	As far as I understand, they were all fixed.
	I mean, they're all fixed in the sense that nobody was on the hook for any outcome, so it becomes totally falsified showtime nonsense.
	It becomes scripted, basically.
	Not real, and not how it actually happens.
	We're seeing how it actually happens now.
	It's a lot less glamorous.
	The judges, when they know they're being watched by a lot of people, might be a little more verbose.
	They might be a little more prone to showboating.
	But they're not like Judge Judy or Judge...
	Well, Judge Wapner was good, but...
	And then the other ones.
	They're not as much for the cameras as those judges, the TV judges.
	Question.
	Do I know you?
	No, Legal Beagle.
	I love your avatar, and I like your name.
	And you have thus far in the history of the channel and comment section, you've been value-added, and you have not been a negative force.
	Let me just see if...
	Let's do one thing here.
	We'll take a few more questions and then we're going to do this.
	We're going to do this.
	I'm going to get one more question or two more questions from...
	Let's see.
	Let's see.
	Let's see here.
	Do you have any siblings?
	Okay.
	I don't know if I'm going by likes.
	I'm going by likes.
	So let's see if I got a new question here.
	I can breathe both.
	I can whistle by both blowing in and out, by the way.
	Okay.
	Have you seen the UK online harms bill?
	I know of it, and I know of the idea that trying to criminalize speech is not the slippery slope, it's the freefall.
	Okay, it's a freefall because I am a firm believer in freedom of speech.
	Full stop, because the criminal code already has The requisite infractions that limit freedom of speech when it becomes criminal harassment, threats, incitement to violence.
	We already have those.
	And so any politician who's pretending we need more of those knows exactly what they're doing but does not want to admit it and wants to cloak their benevolence.
	Sorry, cloak their tyranny in benevolence.
	Question, how do you feel about Mel Brooks movies?
	I've never seen History of the World.
	So I've seen Blazing Saddles, which I never...
	It was not one of my favorites.
	I was too young probably to appreciate the humor in it.
	Spaceballs is a classic.
	But I like...
	Mel Brooks, he was...
	He made good movies and good comedy that could never be remade or even replayed today.
	Did you make Ostrich Meringue?
	I did not.
	That might be the next thing.
	We need to get another Ostrich Egg because...
	We need to get another ostrich egg.
	Question.
	How much money and what charity for a crazy haircut?
	The charities that I've been supporting lately, locally, Big Brothers Big Sisters of Greater Montreal and Centre La Salienne, but mostly Big Brothers Big Sisters.
	I believe charity local and charity starting young because you start with the kids and you give them the best chance they can get going forward.
	How much for the haircut?
	I could be convinced, but I need to grow it a little more.
	Maybe I'll do the beard.
	I was just going to do signing the billboards for my election campaign with custom messages on the back, but there might be a by-election in Canada, people.
	In my district, my riding, by the way, where Garneau won with 53% of the vote, he's apparently going to be appointed ambassador, which means that the seat will become empty, which means that within six months of the seat becoming empty, they have to call another election in my riding.
	And I will be compelled to run again.
	So I need to keep my billboards, but I could think about something for a fundraiser.
	We'll see.
	Don't get a haircut, not yet.
	And when it gets long enough that I can put in...
	I'm going to use my headphones just to show you what my style plan is.
	You know, the bandana thing, like that.
	Like, this is cool.
	I'm a cool old man now.
	Gray hair in a bandana makes me cool.
	Maybe not, though.
	We'll see.
	Okay.
	Let's see.
	We've got more questions here.
	We've got, can a lawyer be a person on a jury?
	Not in Quebec.
	I learned that.
	I'm surprised I didn't even know it, but I got summoned for jury duty, and I was very excited because I wanted to do it.
	And then I showed up, or it was actually written on the back of the form, and lawyers in Quebec cannot be jury members.
	I think it's the same elsewhere.
	Wife texted, and I have to head home.
	Still not driving, but hopefully soon.
	Have a good night, Little Rock.
	Thank you very much.
	Be well.
	Heal well, and we will see you on the interwebs sooner than later.
	Sure.
	I don't see anybody...
	I don't ban people.
	I don't block people.
	People want to troll.
	Unless it is a certain type of spamming and links to bad stuff.
	That's a no-go.
	Okay, that's what we got here.
	What change in journalism that makes so many journalists lie for a paycheck?
	I think it's the subtle and insidious dependency that happens over time and then you don't even know it.
	And you barely even notice the change in yourself.
	I think about Stephen Colbert.
	And can Stephen Colbert possibly be happy with himself?
	He might be making a butt-ton of money.
	And he probably sleeps on a mattress stuffed with dollar bills and it's very soft.
	Keeps himself warm in the night.
	Can he possibly feel good about what he's doing?
	And then I realize that he probably does.
	Because he probably...
	I think he does.
	And so it's like, it's a weird thing.
	Okay, reading some stuff here.
	Don't make me campaign for the Christian Heritage Party.
	Well, they already have a candidate, Jeffrey Wanji, who will probably have to rerun as well.
	And she's a good candidate.
	And she got booted from stage when we had our debates because of the vaccination requirement status.
	And I reflexively, proudly, although it was reflexive so I can't take pride in reflexes, was vocally outraged by what happened to her.
	So, the Christian Heritage Party already has a candidate in Westbound Notre Dame, but I'm sure they would not mind having other candidates elsewhere because I don't think they have candidates in every...
	Thanks for all you do, Viva.
	You're a valuable voice of reason in Canada.
	I'd love more Canadian-centered content.
	We've got to be realistic about it.
	I don't gear my content because of the audience.
	The audience has developed because of the content.
	I don't find a lot of the stuff coming out of Canada to be particularly interesting.
	By and large, it's not.
	Other than the biggest headline stuff, it's not all that interesting.
	And the stuff that is Top-line stuff that is interesting out of Canada is interesting even to Americans.
	But there's something of a forbidden fruit.
	I like informing myself of other issues, so I find the U.S. stuff to be more interesting.
	But also, look, at this point, I know the audience, and my audience is not going to be interested in talking about Balarama wholeness and the Montreal mayoral election, and I'm not even all that interested in it either.
	I will follow it.
	And I will still call into CJD to complain about, you know, a lot of...
	Journalism was common with newspapers, scarce with radio, and TV cable common, again, with broadband.
	Joseph and the Avatar.
	That is a good Avatar.
	Tropic Thunder is another movie.
	Could not make today.
	Canada is boring.
	And now, while some people think that all caps...
	Is a sign of aggression or shouting, my aunt writes in all caps because it makes it easier for her to see when she writes.
	And so this does not even elicit that reaction out of me anymore.
	Captain Murphy, I'm not saying you're old.
	I'm not saying you write in caps because it's easier for you to read, but it's possible.
	And so I don't read this as you shouting at me.
	Are you shouting at me, Captain Murphy?
	What did I do?
	Viewing from the UK, man, it's got to be late there.
	Okay, let's see here.
	I'm actually surprised how picky employers are.
	I'm actually surprised, we'll do this again, how picky employers are being after the vax mandates in regard to hiring new employees.
	I can't believe anybody thinks it's their business to ask you.
	People ask you who you vote for because people think it's their business to ask you if you're vaccinated.
	It's none of your GDB business.
	It's none of your business.
	Has anyone ever asked someone if they've been vaccinated for tuberculosis?
	And I've run into people, by the way, who are immigrants from foreign countries who are actually not vaccinated for things that we typically take for granted as everyone being vaccinated for.
	And no one would ever have the audacity or think that they have the right to ask anybody that question.
	And it's just this greater good concept that has been beaten into our heads that thinks that we now have the right to ask invasive questions to other people.
	Anybody who asks me, I wish it hasn't happened yet.
	Anyone who asks me in a context where I think it's invasive, I'm going to ask them if they've ever had herpes.
	Anyone who invites me over for dinner and asks me if I'm vaccinated, I'm going to ask them if anyone in their family has herpes.
	Because if I'm going to eat off cutlery in their place, I'm within my rights.
	There's some infinitesimal risk of transmission of something.
	The fact that anyone thinks that these are the business of your employers is shocking.
	But it's the new normal that has to get the old normal sooner than later.
	Political thoughts on real anarchists like Michael Kreckmer.
	Whoa, whoa, his name is not Michael Malice?
	Now I feel exploited.
	Future sidebar guest, perhaps?
	Oh, I would have Michael Malice on in a heartbeat and I would go on Michael Malice's channel in a heartbeat.
	And he has not invited me and I have not not invited him.
	Any day, any time, I'd love it.
	I don't know what a real anarchist is because someone's going to say, He's a real anarchist.
	Well, he's not out there, like, doing real anarchist stuff.
	I suspect he still votes.
	I suspect he still pays taxes.
	So, you know, I don't know what a real anarchist is.
	Anarchy, obviously, I don't even think I know what the concept means to say that it doesn't work because anarchy, by definition, is anarchy.
	But I appreciate some of what Michael Malice promotes by way of politics.
	Some of it's not realistic.
	Others is.
	That is it.
	You need to do more lip-syncing to obstacles.
	Valerie, I'll tell you what trolls are.
	Troll is not synonymous with someone who disagrees with you.
	I agree with you.
	And you need to tell yourself and your similarly hackish, grinning followers the same thing.
	Well, here's where someone crosses the line into trolling.
	You need to tell...
	Well, first of all, I have always said that, actually, Valerie, that trolls are not merely people I disagree with.
	So you pretending to put words in my mouth or pretending to read my mind is when you venture into the realm of trollness, in that you're not trying to have a discussion, you're trying to misrepresent my beliefs by telling me that I believe something that I have publicly stated I do not believe.
	And you are similarly reading the minds of people in the chat.
	Typing in caps, when you go from not typing in caps to typing in caps, does indicate yelling, and that does indicate trolling.
	So, thank you for your input.
	We've had an interesting discussion, and I hope the chat will continue to engage with you, because at this point, I think we have exhausted the discussion that we're going to have via chat here.
	You need to do some lip syncing.
	Okay, I'll do that soon.
	And now, I'm actually surprised.
	Okay, so now we've got it.
	But now I see...
	Speaking of debating people and speaking of disagreements and being able to love someone that you disagree with, Nate, how are you doing?
	I'm doing okay.
	I'm doing okay.
	Just another day of editing videos in the YouTube life.
	You know how it is.
	And the thing is, when you don't edit a video and when you don't put one out, maybe I'm projecting because I am.
	You feel like you've wasted a day.
	I feel like I've wasted a day when I put out content.
	It's because there's so much together here.
	I don't know.
	It's been a while.
	It's been a while.
	Is that me or is that you?
	I think you got the robot going.
	Johnny5 is not alive.
	Johnny5 is not alive.
	I think I'm taking over, guys.
	I think Viva is on stock.
	They got him in a really weird spot, too.
	Let me see if I can just...
	No, on the other hand.
	Here it is.
	gotta put them in the right place Cole.
	Take it, Nate.
	Take it.
	How's the chat going today?
	You see, I'm listening in the background.
	I'm hearing all you guys arguing with my man Viva.
	I think I got a text message.
	He says, my computer has failed me.
	Nate, the stream killer.
	I'm the king of trolls because I just took over the stream, right?
	This is the ultimate troll.
	You guys, you trolls in chat need to get your troll game up.
	This is how you really troll.
	You take over and you're the only voice.
	Nate's solo streamer is right.
	I'm taking over.
	It's all she wrote.
	Viva.
	Move.
	I know this has happened to me so many times.
	It's so bad because when it happens to you, you're like, ah, I got a great stream, but it is.
	So yeah, so this is now the Nate Brody channel.
	I want everybody here who can hear my voice to understand.
	Taking over forever.
	I have the passwords and I'm not giving them back.
	So we go from a Jewish Canadian to a black man from Harlem.
	I think I'm going to have to change my name now.
	What about Nate Viva?
	Nah, I think it would be better than Viva Brody.
	Alright, oh no.
	I'm back into my stream.
	Okay, sorry about that.
	Welcome back, welcome back.
	Well, I hope that everyone had something to watch.
	I think people were watching you.
	I could see it on my phone.
	Okay.
	Sorry about that, people.
	Do you know how much I'm sweating from those mere 30 seconds?
	I think we're back at it.
	Stop watching the internet.
	Hey, stop watching the internet!
	You're freezing up again, man.
	You're freezing up again.
	A while now.
	Yeah, we haven't done this for a while.
	I think that's what you said.
	Still not good.
	Viva!
	I think internet is...
	You know, it's okay.
	I think we may have to do this one again.
	I think it might be me.
	I think it might be me.
	Now, I'm not streaming.
	I'm cutting the Rittenhouse video.
	My Rittenhouse video is going to be fire.
	I had to move away from the soccer stuff because I can't wait.
	Steven C., you're funny.
	I like that.
	See, that doesn't bother me.
	I don't know.
	It always amazes me how people get so worked up over words.
	You know what I'm saying?
	It just doesn't make sense.
	All right, I'm going to ask this in the chat.
	For the people who are in the chat, how many of you think Kyle Rittenhouse is not guilty?
	I'm raising my hand.
	Because I don't believe Kyle Rittenhouse is guilty.
	I think he's not guilty.
	Please let me know in the chat if you agree with me and think Kyle Rittenhouse should be found not guilty in self-defense.
	That's what I believe.
	So we may have a difference of opinions.
	We may have a difference of opinions.
	Because see, I've just been arguing with people about this.
	And for some reason, people don't think self-defense is a thing.
	I don't know why, but I believe he's not guilty all the way.
	Nate, can you see me now?
	Okay.
	I can't, I can't, I can't.
	I'm streaming off my phone now, so this is going to be...
	I can read the chat.
	I won't be able to respond to it as much as I ordinarily would.
	You know, we can do this again some other time, especially if you have problems.
	This has been great already.
	There are people here.
	Nate, we have two discussions that we have to finally resolve once and for all in real time with everyone watching.
	Okay.
	So let's see here now.
	Let's go, Brandon.
	This is very...
	If I tap on my screen, here we go.
	I can see this.
	BlackRockBeacon says, slight modification to the assertion you made about trolling.
	I believe it also requires intent.
	Many do what you said without intent due to poor communication skills and lack of critical self-examination.
	Just saying cheers.
	It is a fair point, which is why I will always respectfully engage with everyone, even if I think that they are in fact trolling me just out to insult me, like a lot of people on Twitter.
	Okay.
	You hate Twitter, but you love it, though.
	It's like a love-hate relationship, you know?
	I love it, Nate, but when I hate it is when I think that it creates tension between friends.
	Because when I read my tweets and I say, I don't mean my tweets with malice.
	And I read your tweets and I say, I know you don't mean your tweets with sass, snark, this or whatever.
	And I know that people read them that way and I know that sometimes I read them that way despite me saying, don't read it that way.
	You know what?
	I think...
	But I think I'm one of the few people where you can read one tweet that'll make you so happy and so proud and, you know, gets all these likes.
	And that same person can read the next, my next tweet and be so mad and so upset and hate me to death.
	I don't know what it is.
	I don't know how I move people so emotionally from one end to the face or another.
	It's crazy.
	But, you know, I like to be honest.
	Don't get me wrong.
	Sometimes I know that certain things are going to get me in trouble.
	But I like to just be honest with people.
	I don't want to just fool you and make you think that this is the way I am.
	Here it is.
	And take it for what it is.
	And at least you'll know every time that I tell you something, I'm just going to be honest with my assessment.
	You know what I mean?
	Where's my lens on this?
	This is the lens.
	Okay, so I've got to focus to stare here to make eye contact with everyone.
	The one tweet where you said, bring me better arguments.
	And on Twitter, in the written word, that sounds sassy.
	But in real life, if I heard you say it, bring me better arguments, I wouldn't take it as sass.
	So it's the nature of Twitter and the nature of the written word on the internet, if it can be interpreted negatively with negative connotations and sass, it will be.
	So then I go back and I read my response, and I say strawmanning on both ends.
	And here's why.
	But then I read it and it's like, okay, straw manning on both ends.
	Is someone going to read that as Viva Frye being a sassy, snarky ass?
	Or are they going to read it with the tone in which I write it?
	This is why I think people end up fighting with each other on Twitter.
	Even though they disagree with each other.
	Well, the one thing, and I'll say just about Twitter, it's not made for context.
	And especially when you're having these delicate legal discussions, you're trying to put a lot of these concepts in 150 characters or less, and that's extremely difficult.
	And so sometimes you're using shorthand for things that already have shorthand.
	So straw man, for instance, and this and this, and you're trying to convey a message.
	And at some point, it's just not going to work.
	And I think it's our attempts to...
	I'll continue to do it, you know, which is fun.
	But as long as you know that there's no malice behind it, right?
	And I think that's one of the pieces.
	If I'm wrong, I'll say I'm wrong.
	And I do it all the time, so.
	No, but the other thing is, it's not just like there's no malice.
	I know there's no malice, but then you get, it's like Twitter games, like the Nate gang and the Viva gang.
	In the responses, they go at it.
	Nate, so let's hammer the one that I think we are ultimately going to agree on.
	January 6th, the theory was...
	My theory was that, based on the evidence now, this looks more like a setup.
	And now that I have more than 150 characters, I can qualify the setup as being overt, false flag, allowed to escalate, or weaponized afterwards and exaggerated afterwards for political purposes.
	Whereas, so I say that on Twitter, and everyone's like, Viva's gone off the deep end, he's an Alex Jones conspiracy theorist, as if that would make me...
	Less likely to be right.
	Whereas you say it was a violent riot and there was no setup, if we agree on that, to the situation.
	Do you still stand by that name?
	So you're saying, do I believe there was no actual setup, right?
	Do you believe that it was...
	Well, let me just...
	Let me just let you know exactly what I believe.
	That'll probably work better.
	Instead of you trying to pick one out, do you believe this?
	I'll just tell you exactly what I believe.
	I believe January 6th had multiple elements.
	It had a high element of incompetence, it had some elements of a setup, and it had some elements of political leanings.
	And I'll explain each one of those.
	The first thing of the setup, and in one of my videos, I even mention it.
	When this first happened, a Democrat said, it's likely a setup.
	The Republicans said it's likely a setup.
	And now if you say it's likely a setup, they say you're crazy.
	But that's exactly what they said.
	And I have the video, and just go watch my two videos on it.
	One video, you have the Democratic congressman saying, I think this was a setup.
	So this is not like this was something strange.
	Now when I said that, and I said it could be a setup, I did agree.
	This looks like a setup.
	You know you're going to have these people there.
	You know what the plans are, because in the video, I showed the plans, right?
	There's the plans.
	I show the permits, right?
	I show all of the things that will make you say, well, if I know these people are coming, and I know these people are coming to riot, to take over the building, to stop the vote, then I would have more than five officers waiting for thousands of people, right?
	That just makes sense.
	So in that instance, I think, yes, there's an element to it.
	This happened.
	And I hate to say that there was a setup based on this circumstantial evidence until I had evidence of it being a setup.
	And that was my pushback to you was, yes, these things are tangential and these things can lead you to a circumstantial conclusion, but I just don't think it's enough to get you to the point where I can say this was obviously a setup because that's what the commission was for or something.
	But yes, if you're asking me, if I'm a betting man...
	I would put my money that this was, I'm not saying, I don't even know if I'd say set up, but there was obviously a high level of incompetence or set up.
	But one of the two have to be true.
	I told you we would ultimately agree with each other.
	You're right.
	There are all these elements.
	But here's the thing.
	Once you have one of the elements of, if it's not an overt, like, orchestrated by the FBI, for the FBI, but if they know about it, don't do anything, allow it to happen so they can then weaponize it.
	Once you have one of those elements, It's sort of like a superseding element.
	Is it a superseding or a...
	It's a trumping element.
	It's like...
	Yeah, it's a superseding cause.
	Once that gets in there...
	Okay, fine.
	There were people...
	There were criminal elements there.
	There were rioters there.
	There were people who out there...
	They wanted to smash some windows and they wanted to break some buildings.
	Fine.
	But once it is either known that they're going to be there and nothing done to prevent it, or even worse, instigated and exacerbated, or even worse, let them in.
	And then charge them with the full extent of the law.
	Once you have any of those, then even if it were organic, you know, rioting to begin with, it becomes a setup.
	The problem is, like, these words are nuanced in that they do have multiple facets to them.
	And when you say setup, people think, like, oh, the FBI is going to sit around the Oval Office and say, how do we set up a riot so that we can then use it against Trump to impeach?
	But, like, it's political convenience to allow things to escalate.
	Or even to invite them to escalate.
	And that's what I mean.
	And I think at this point in time, we have enough evidence to say that elements of that occurred.
	And to the extent that elements of that occurred, it taints the entire thing.
	But you still have people calling it an insurrection.
	Yeah, see, I don't...
	Like, even with the insurrection, it's like, just let's look at the facts that we have.
	We do have a fact.
	There were people there...
	For an insurrection, right?
	People, because we have the plans, right?
	We have the plans and we know the police know about the plans, right?
	It was posted like weeks and days before the thing happened.
	There were plans.
	So, and those people who were dealing with the plans, some of them got arrested and they were like, hey, here are their plans.
	So, I don't know.
	To say, I don't think it's an either or.
	I don't think it's either it has to be this or this.
	I think it can be a multitude of different things.
	Just like with BLM, you can have a riot.
	And you can have a protest, but those two things can happen at the same time, but they're not mutually exclusive.
	Well, while you were talking, Nate, I'm not going to be able to stream off my computer, so we're doing it like this now.
	Reketa joined the house.
	Can we hear Reketa?
	Hey, what's up, guys?
	Oh, yes, we can hear him.
	I can yell louder if you want.
	No, no, you're good.
	You're good, man.
	Nick, January 6th, if you had to qualify it, how would you qualify it?
	Well, I was listening to your discussion and no, I think you're right.
	The problem with all of these things, as we've seen with the benefit of hindsight, right?
	11 months of hindsight now is we get to go.
	We know there are state instigators.
	At these things.
	We don't know exactly which ones.
	We don't know exactly how many.
	But when you had the celebrate January 6th, like, protest that was just, it's like a Fed pool party.
	Like, that was hilarious.
	And then, to me, this tells me that we have, we don't get to trust anything about any narrative about any of these protests anymore.
	Because you've got, oh yeah, go ahead.
	Just can you turn your volume down just a little bit because you're blowing up my earphones a little bit.
	Sorry.
	You better be lying.
	No, no, no.
	I'm not lying.
	It was a little hot.
	Because I know I feel like I'm a little lower than you.
	Okay, I'll back off the mic a bit.
	Nobody in the chat has complained about your volume, Nick, but I think they might be traumatized to even dare talk about your volume.
	They better be.
	Look.
	Beatings will continue until morale improves.
	No, so it's this thing we saw with BLM and Antifa rides during the summer, and we got some precursors to this in the past couple years leading up to it, but I think we've really seen it over this past year.
	We don't know.
	Who is changing these things from a bunch of people out who are mad about something into severe damage?
	And it could be internal elements.
	It could be instigators inside Antifa, BLM, or right-wing elements in January 6th.
	I mean, certainly possible.
	But we also have to now consider the possibility and the reality that the state is involved in these things.
	Even with Rittenhouse, we find out that there's an FBI aircraft watching this happen, and no one knows about it until, what, a week before the trial?
	We're suddenly hearing about this.
	Or no, I guess it was about two weeks before the trial.
	We're suddenly hearing about FBI aerial FLIR footage, and the defense is even like, what the hell is this?
	What are you talking about?
	Where's this coming from?
	Nick, not just drone footage of the entire aerial.
	Of the entire evening.
	Then we find out they deleted the HD version of the video.
	I would say this.
	You have to be crazy not to, at this point, immediately think the state has an involvement in all of these mass events that they then use.
	Yeah, and you can almost guarantee that one of the reasons that there's a Fed plane or helicopter or drone or whatever combination that they have up there, whatever there is, that's probably because they have elements on the ground as well, somewhere.
	They had indications that this is going on.
	Well, heck, they had, what, a whole day of rioting prior, and then I think a day before that as well, where the things kind of kicked off after Jacob Blake.
	They've got people.
	So then you ask, okay, who on the ground is Antifa, BLM?
	Who's a Fed?
	Who's watching this business?
	Are they recruited?
	These people don't know each other.
	We learned that from Ryan Balch that none of the people gathered there seemed to know.
	They came in twos, basically.
	It's like, oh yeah, we're all just suddenly here to protect this one business that apparently the guy who owns the business's son Who allegedly communicated with all these people, says, oh, no, no, I never knew how any of these people got here.
	It's like, we all talked to you.
	We all talked to you.
	You gave us the keys to your place.
	We were inside your business.
	You drove us there.
	We got in your car and went there.
	It's like, no, no, I don't remember that.
	So, Nate, January 6th, I think we'll all agree.
	And I brought up the chat from STFUFFS, which means shut the F up for F's sake.
	He says, you know, advanced knowledge and then not doing anything is...
	I mean, that's a setup.
	That's as much of a setup as setting it up yourself.
	Knowing that someone is on their way to commit a terrorist act, not doing anything to stop it, so you can allow it to happen so that you can then pass a certain law, set up.
	So Jancic...
	Yeah, I agree with that, but I would also say, too, it's like...
	If I know they're coming to rob the bank and I don't do anything and they still rob the bank, the people who let that go are responsible, but then that doesn't alleviate the people who actually rob the bank, right?
	The people who rob the bank, they're still in trouble.
	Yeah, right.
	Yeah, for sure.
	But what we're learning with Rittenhouse is also...
	The feds are everywhere.
	Someone said if they released the HD footage, it would reveal the feds in the crowd.
	They'd all be glowing everywhere.
	It'd be weird.
	No, that's one of the things.
	The main thing for me with January 6th, since I strayed off topic a little bit, but the main thing there is I want to know who knew.
	I want to know what orders were given behind the scenes.
	Because we have some pretty interesting indications that Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, right?
	Who have some level of command authority over the Capitol Police.
	Well, at that point, it was the Republican guy in the Senate.
	Because Chuck Schumer hadn't gotten...
	McConnell.
	Yeah, yeah, McConnell.
	Mitch McConnell.
	So I want to know if...
	Because I don't trust Mitch McConnell either.
	I mean, I trust him as far as I can...
	Throw him, but the guy's a snake.
	They throw weird.
	I want to know if Pelosi or McConnell got a call.
	Told him to stand down, told him to wait.
	Oh, maybe we'll do something.
	I want to know who talked to the National Guard elements, because what I saw from a whole bunch of news reports that subsequently came out was that it appears that Trump had delegated all of the National Guard authority to local command, either of the D.C. police or some military guy who was there, and that guy didn't intervene.
	Probably because Trump says, I'm going to be giving a speech.
	I don't know.
	What am I going to do?
	Would I just stop talking?
	Can't do that.
	I talk wonderfully.
	Beautiful speeches.
	But that is the question.
	Who had the authority?
	From what I understand, Nancy Pelosi didn't have the authority to call in the National Guard.
	It was Capitol Police who made their own decisions and apparently, for reasons of optics, made certain decisions which did not involve a serious police presence.
	But above and beyond all of that, we've seen the footage of the police opening the doors and letting people in.
	How do you account for that?
	Yeah, and the hard part about that is, so they open the doors and let some people in.
	How do we discern and separate the people whose actions are maybe permissible by police from the people who weren't?
	And that's trial, right?
	That's where the person has to try and raise at trial, which is a very unfair place, in my opinion, to have to do this.
	They would say, no, this Capitol Police officer opened the door or pulled back the rope or whatever, let me in.
	But then you got someone else who busted in through a window or who charged in through a door that was maybe open for one person was closing.
	Who knows?
	After Capitol Police have retreated, people flooding in, how do we discern those people from the people who were let in?
	Do we get to?
	Do they get treated equally?
	And I don't know.
	Like, that's a tough question.
	Because if you see five people get let in, does that mean 100 people get let in?
	I mean, these are weird things.
	And I think some of the biggest injustice that has followed is how long these people are being detained without bail and without trial.
	And I mean, we're talking for D.C. trespass charges on some of them where they've already exceeded.
	Waiting for trial, their maximum mandatory sentence for the crime.
	There is nothing that can justify that in any civilized society.
	And I only think back to the two lawyers.
	They're the New York cops, the Molotov cocktail cops.
	Oh, you mean the attorneys?
	The attorneys.
	Yeah, sorry.
	Attorneys.
	First of all, how long were they detained for before they were released?
	And what did they ultimately get?
	Have they been sentenced?
	Yeah, I haven't seen that thing.
	One of them had a plea agreement, and I think it was embarrassing, like six months probation or something on that one.
	The other one had a little bit of a harsher charge.
	I think only one of them got disbarred, and the other one did not.
	But I don't remember.
	But it is out there, the results of what happened to them.
	Because I remember reading it on a stream, I don't know, a while back.
	But it feels disparate.
	And then when you see people in Seattle who are trying to burn down a federal courthouse, who are looting and breaking buildings, and you go, okay, some of them are...
	Getting charged.
	But there's a lot of people doing damage.
	And it looks like with January 6th, they went for everybody that they had on camera doing anything.
	And they swept him up.
	And then with these other protests, they might get one or two people who do a particularly egregious act.
	Like the kid who threw the firebomb at the courthouse in Seattle or Portland or whatever.
	His grandma ratted him out.
	That was the funniest thing that could have happened.
	That he got, I mean, he got federally charged with serious charges, right?
	Like he could go to, it's like attempted arson of federal property.
	He could go to prison for years and years and years.
	And that happened.
	But it's like, okay, but what about all of the other people who are doing basically the same thing that you also have on camera?
	Are there attempts to identify these people?
	Like what's going on?
	It's a weird seesaw back and forth between how they're doing enforcement.
	One thing we should remember is there were people complaining about some of the treatment during the summer riots where people were being, you know, basically brown bagged and thrown in a van and just taken away.
	And no one knew what they were being, who was arresting them.
	Yeah, no charges.
	Like, where are they going?
	Ah, shut up.
	They're in the van.
	Wait, I've read this book.
	That doesn't turn out well either.
	I do remember watching the footage of that.
	During those riots, I mean, there were a couple of incidents, but the van did look like security, but even still, I mean, habeas corpus is a very important principle.
	And they may have gotten full due process rights.
	We actually don't know.
	Like, that's the big problem with what was going on.
	There's so much confusion about it.
	It's these officers who their departments and their jurisdiction isn't...
	Clearly apparent.
	Are grabbing people and throwing them in vans that they rented because they were bringing in a bunch of law enforcement and they didn't have enough squad cars or whatever.
	So they did this.
	And so it's like, maybe they just went straight to county lockup, got booked, got released the next day and everything's fine.
	We don't know.
	And the double problem of that is the Antifa people were all trying to be as incognito as they could.
	So we couldn't even identify the potential offenders.
	In that way.
	So it's a mess.
	It's always tough when you have these protests, these riots.
	But the thing that usually keeps them in check is just how many offices you got there.
	And the one thing about January 6th, the one thing that is most troubling is that just six months earlier at the BLM protest down there, there was boodles of security and they expected less people.
	Right?
	So you expect less people, and you're going to have all the security, but for January 6th, you got almost no one out there.
	So it's just none of that, none of it actually makes sense.
	And I do want to say, too, I don't, I don't, I, it always, especially as someone who's been in law enforcement, you do pick and choose what you do, right?
	Like, it's the whole speeding on the highway.
	The argument, right?
	I can't catch everybody, but I caught you.
	And then you got the person that says, look, everybody got the next 10 cars speeding.
	Well, there's only one guy here.
	So I do understand you have to kind of understand what your resources are and who you can prosecute because a lot of people don't realize the majority of crimes go unprosecuted, right?
	The majority of crimes, most people aren't getting arrested for, right?
	What does it sound like?
	80 to 90%.
	If people really understood that, that would shock their minds, right?
	It's just like I remember with the Gabby Petito thing.
	They found like 10 bodies.
	You know, that shows you most murders, there are two people that found like 10 bodies.
	I don't mean to laugh at that.
	It is just shocking that in the pursuit of one crime, suddenly they start discovering, you know, the remains of other people.
	It was shocking.
	But I got to bring this one up.
	JM says, and I find this to be quite funny, guys grabbed by the vans are informants being picked up.
	I mean, name one person that credibly came forward saying it happened to them.
	And this is where, when you get into this level of false flags and conspiracy, I say conspiracy theories in the non-offensive way, I have no trouble believing the plausibility of that statement because it's true.
	How many people, I remember the shock and outrage at the videos.
	Nobody's come forward.
	There have been no civil complaints for which amendment violation is it?
	Well, they're...
	It'd be fourth, fourth and fifth amendment violations, right?
	Because there's a seizure and then there's due process.
	Dead men tell no tales and make no lawsuits, you know?
	Well, no, it's so true.
	My constitution law and my national security law professor, the same guy, a guy named John Radson.
	Fantastically interesting guy.
	Wonderful teacher.
	And he also is a nationally renowned and highly quoted expert on the drone programs.
	All of the various U.S. drone programs.
	You can see him in L.A. Times, on PBS, or on NPR, and stuff like that.
	But anyway, he talked about this a lot.
	It was the difference between Bush and Obama in a lot of ways.
	He said, George Bush put people in jumpsuits and put them in Guantanamo, right?
	So the news runs all these sob stories about these Guantanamo guys.
	He's like, Obama put a missile into these guys and smiled.
	And there is no orange jumpsuit when you have a dead body, right?
	You get a one-time story, someone was killed, and then it fades away.
	I mean, look at what happened in Kabul, right?
	Where we droned a family.
	A peaceful, innocent family, like, what, seven adults and three or four kids?
	No, I think it was the other way around.
	I think it was a couple of adults and seven kids.
	It was an entire family.
	And then they tried to explain the secondary explosions as being a propane tank that went off after the first explosion.
	And it was news for a week, and then disappeared.
	And then we're back to...
	They quietly released a confirmation and, like, an apology.
	Just like this last week or the week before.
	It popped up on my newsfeed.
	They confirmed that they...
	They did do that, and they felt really bad.
	It was just an accident, kind of a routine error that led to this explanation.
	I'm like, okay, you got away with this.
	But if they would have arrested that family, if they would have gone into Afghanistan with Marines, grabbed these guys, brought them to a military brig, and put them in some sort of jumpsuit or whatever, and were keeping them in a brig on a base in something near Afghanistan.
	What am I, geography?
	But if they were doing that, you know, New York Times, Washington Post, they would have a war correspondent over there.
	They'd be filming these people.
	These kids are in jumpsuits.
	It would be a story every day until something was done.
	Once they're dead, you know, it's gone.
	And that's been a wild difference.
	So yeah, dead men tell no tales, for sure.
	I'm going to bring this up just to highlight that as of now, I'm looking at the wrong camera.
	As of now, the question followed by the question rule no longer applies, but I'm going to take this one last question.
	Nate and Nick just finished two-year paralegal program.
	Should I get two-year expansion and take test or start pre-law now?
	Go ahead.
	I'll just give the advice I usually give to new students.
	If you want to have a real leg up in law, take $1,400 and take a bar prep course.
	Take something like Kaplan.
	I'm just saying, and you're not taking it for the bar.
	You're taking it because it's going to allow you to get that.
	And some people say, well, it's only two months.
	They give you six months.
	You can do it nice and slow at your own pace.
	But it'll allow you to understand how to think like a lawyer, how to do the legal test.
	Some of the legal writing, what's expected, and things of that nature.
	And it'll give you an extremely high leg up when you go.
	Everybody who has done it has done extremely well in law school because it's just about understanding how to not only understand the law, but how to apply it to facts.
	That would be my first thing.
	The part you'll probably struggle on is the essay portion, but just the MBEs and just understanding what those legal tests mean would really, really help.
	The other big question here, so if you've got a paralegal, two-year paralegal, I'm assuming you don't have a bachelor's degree yet because you mentioned going to pre-law.
	First of all, I don't know that a pre-law program is all that valuable in general.
	What I would do, and you may hate the pre-law aspects of it, what I would suggest is that if you want to go to law school eventually, Do something that you like for your undergrad and that you're good at and that will keep you interested and that you can excel at.
	And then go to law school after that.
	I mean, for me, I personally think you should finish undergrad, have a little experience of some sort before starting law school.
	But that's usually based on the idea that the person coming out of undergrad is, what, 24?
	23, sometimes 22 years old.
	And I can't imagine them going from undergrad to law school and then getting out and helping people navigate a divorce or like a business acquisition or separation.
	It's like you don't know anything about the world at all.
	You haven't interacted with enough people in adult situations and you're going to come advise them on it.
	Personally, I just think getting out there and living a little more is helpful.
	But I don't know what that number is.
	But if you've just got your paralegal now and you haven't started undergrad, you might want to get started on that undergrad because you've got a ways to go.
	It's an amazing thing.
	In Quebec, the French universities are much more lenient in terms of allowing or granting, admitting students without an undergrad.
	So you have a massive amount of young kids.
	18. And they're lawyers by the time they're 21, 22. And you try it.
	It's not going to be a question.
	You have no business experience.
	You have no life experience.
	And you're out there trying to make legal determinations, you know, without any meaningful life experience, which makes it much more difficult to do.
	So, yeah, some education experience and then some life experience, like work in a business and do what Gary Vaynerchuk said, you know, just like work for free, get the experience, learn a business, and then you can apply it later on in life and it'll be invaluable.
	Yeah, I read that question totally wrong because it said, you're right, it said pre-law.
	I thought the person was going to law school.
	It's my fault.
	But yeah, for pre-law, don't take the bar course.
	That's the wrong advice.
	And Nick is 100% right.
	You should actually do whatever you want on undergrad because it doesn't matter.
	Having a pre-law and going into law school, they don't get you extra points.
	So make sure to be something that gets your GPA high.
	I think the pre-law might actually be limiting.
	Because law schools like people who are engineers.
	They like people who are writers.
	They like people who are going to come to law from different angles.
	And if you just got a pre-law where it's like, oh, you spent four years incompletely learning what you're about to learn now, it's not the best selling point.
	I think it's a scam, personally.
	Here's a question.
	Nick, I know it came up during your streams.
	And by the way, pat on the back if I could reach you that way.
	It's been amazing stuff.
	Viva Fry, Nick, and Nate, in my opinion, the DA seems to be purposely throwing the case, have thought maybe charged and litigating Kyle to pacify the riots, thoughts.
	So, there are a number of theories going on here.
	Like, what's the conspiracy theory?
	Is he maliciously prosecuting because he wants to get, he's running for office or something?
	Is he maliciously prosecuting so that when they lose, it'll give rioters an excuse to riot?
	Is he throwing the case because he knows it's so garbage, but he needs to make an effort so that he doesn't get harassed by the mobs?
	There's a number of variants that you could go for if you want to go for this.
	Bottom line, and between the two of you, you can probably explain it, Binger's decision to ultimately prosecute, is it his decision alone?
	Whose decision is it?
	Is there any plausibility to the idea that he's throwing the case, or is there a plausibility to the idea that he's pursuing it due to political pressure?
	Well, he's an ADA, so he has a boss.
	So his boss is the one that gives some cases and is going to tell him, hey, listen, we're going to run with this one.
	Now, if he says no, it's probably going to be handed to somebody else, and they're going to be told to do it.
	Because that's generally the way it goes, right?
	So, you know, but taking the case and, you know, it's, yeah, I think this case is going to be tried no matter what.
	I agree.
	Yeah, I agree with you 100%.
	And again, I keep telling people, look, I don't think the case should have been tried personally.
	However, at the end of the day, you still have two bodies and you've got a guy whose bicep was perforated and you've got...
	This in the context of massive unrest and national attention.
	That's just a recipe for a prosecution, even if the case is ultimately weak.
	I don't think he's throwing the case.
	Binger does appear to be running for office.
	He ran and lost for district attorney of Racine.
	He ran and lost before.
	He's likely trying to run again.
	That said, I don't think he's throwing the case in the interest of justice.
	I think the biggest problem that Binger has is what has become apparent over the past two days.
	First two days, he was great.
	He did really well.
	Second two days, he has really bad days.
	But the reasons are that he's got bad facts.
	It's nice to be good in opening statements when nobody challenges you, when you're making assertions of what the evidence will show before you get into what the evidence will show.
	So Binger had a great opening statement and they had a great back and forth and he got a lot of video evidence, at least viewed if not admitted, in his opening statements.
	But then you actually have to get to the evidence and the evidence is not showing.
	What he said the evidence will show.
	Sorry, Nick, I cut you off there.
	But yeah, that's the distinction.
	That's it.
	And that was the frustrating part on the first day of witness testimony.
	Why anyone on my show, I don't even remember who was on that show at that time, but we're all screaming, object, object, just object, object, object to this.
	And the reason we wanted to see some objections is you start to see that in the next two days.
	When they do object, Binger goes from being a cool, collected storyteller to having real trouble getting mad at the judge because the judge is overruling it or is sustaining their objections.
	One of the best moments was when his Binger's co-counsel, who I just learned his name and then I just forgot it earlier today, but the larger guy whose suit is like attacking the back of his head, that guy, he got objected and Schrader ruled against him and he gave a look at the judge like he was going to kill him there in the courtroom.
	These guys, the moment they got challenged and they got their flow and rhythm broken up, it was really, really disturbing.
	And so it's exactly like you were saying, Nate.
	It's really easy.
	Or was that Viva, I guess?
	It's really easy when your opening statement isn't challenged and you get to tell a story.
	Well, this is extremely concerning to me on two fronts because this is not the second time I've seen this happen.
	The cop who was in the Atlanta cop, the one that shot Rayshard Brooks.
	Yes.
	That is a totally justified shooting.
	Unfortunately, I understand he died, but this guy beats on two cops, points a tase at him, shoots and then goes and runs back, points a tase at him and shoots at the cop again.
	Everywhere in Atlanta, this is a dangerous thing.
	Matter of fact, they just charged cops two weeks ago for literally tasing somebody and people have been tased to death in Georgia.
	And they still charged that cop with a homicide.
	And it was 100% political.
	And why?
	Because, like you're saying, he was so proud to charge the cops, he was just pointing a taser at somebody.
	Now when somebody's shooting at a cop with a taser, he doesn't want to, you know, it's not enough.
	So this is when these things start happening, because obviously this guy is in a democratic city.
	With a whole bunch of Democrats, and he has to, he wants, and he was doing a re-election.
	And when your politics start becoming, starting to make choices about justice, that's when you're getting in trouble.
	And I think that's what's happening with this Kenosha case.
	This Kenosha, Wisconsin, is a very heavily, the longest serving mayor in history is a Democrat, right?
	It's a Democrat.
	And that person knows his job.
	Oh, go ahead.
	Sorry.
	No, I'm saying, and they know their job is dependent on the people like him.
	Now, when they took the poll in Kenosha, I think Barnes was saying, Robert said it on one of your live streams, when he said like 64% of the people already thought that Kyle was guilty and, you know, they agree with it.
	But you know what?
	I bet you that number is the number of how many votes that Democrats use, the percentage of Democrats who live in Kenosha, right?
	If you are a Democrat, you think Kyle is guilty and he's a racist.
	But if you just look at the facts, you know that's not true.
	So I think this guy who wants to be DA, wants political answer, I believe he's a Democrat.
	I believe his boss is a Democrat.
	And those people know these Democrats are going to vote for us, and we don't want them to look at us and say, kick them out because they didn't charge this guy.
	They want to have somebody they can point to.
	It was the jury's fault.
	It was the court's fault.
	We did all we could.
	And that's the scapegoat.
	Two things, by the way.
	Just so everybody knows, my audio is crap.
	It is, because I'm on my iPhone leaning against my computer.
	I'm going to try to reboot my computer now.
	I'm with Nick.
	Unfortunately, two people were killed and one person was maimed.
	There has to be a prosecution.
	The DA has made the determination it was bona fide self-defense.
	If you did that...
	You would have political outrage because people would be saying, not understanding the criteria that is required to prosecute, they would say that's the decision for the jury, not for the district's attorney.
	So, when you have two dead people and one maimed, you have to prosecute.
	It should be a dismissal.
	And maybe Binger, you know, he's doing the best he can with his own file.
	If you were, however, I would never have called the two brothers, period.
	Or Rosenbaum's girlfriend.
	Never.
	I wish they would have gone further into that.
	I know why they didn't.
	Or I think I know why they didn't.
	She's dismissed.
	Yeah, they've examined her, cross-examined her.
	Were they bringing her in for character?
	The best I've seen on theories on that, and I think I agree, is they brought her in to testify that his water bottle in his bag was empty.
	Okay.
	Which is like...
	Okay, so it's empty two hours before he gets to the thing.
	I mean, that he would then spend a couple hours that night doing other things.
	Like, what use is this testimony?
	The defense did not pursue it as hard as I think they should have and as hard as I maybe would have.
	The big clap that they ended on was good, though.
	What medication was he taking?
	Gabapentin.
	Do you know what for?
	Bipolar disorder.
	Yep, we're done.
	And they walk away.
	Yeah, it's a good get.
	I mean, I think they could have gotten more about the hospital, the pending domestic violence charge, maybe could have gotten to his real criminal history, but this guy's got bipolar.
	He's just got out of the hospital, and he comes back, and he's bipolar, and he goes to this thing.
	We see him acting crazy.
	All night long.
	We've got testimony from Balch and from others that they particularly remember this guy because he's always the aggressor and agitator.
	And then when he tells Kyle Rittenhouse, if I get you alone, I'm going to kill you.
	And then what happens?
	He gets Kyle alone.
	He tries to kill him.
	It's open and shut self-defense.
	You can't write this stuff.
	I couldn't write a better case for a defense attorney.
	It was funny because I said it on my stream the other day.
	I said, when I see these facts, if I'm the defense attorney, give me a condom because I'm excited.
	This is a great case for me.
	I've never said that in my entire life because by the time it would have taken me to say that, I would have been done already.
	The question is this, though.
	I would have asked the question as to why he could not stay with her.
	I would have gotten in the pedophilia conviction, one way or the other, and if I would have had to have been reprimanded by the judge, I would have gotten that in.
	Because hyper-aggressive...
	Manic bipolar, why couldn't he stay with you?
	Why couldn't he stay with your kids?
	He was...
	There was a way to finesse that in, and it wasn't.
	And I didn't realize she's not being called back.
	So, okay, maybe a miss.
	But yeah, manic bipolar, apparently on his meds, but still acting erratically.
	And I say this with full...
	This is a non-judgmental thing.
	This is just understanding what happened that night.
	But you need to get the criminal history in because otherwise the full cocktail does not come to explosion until you throw in his proven criminal history of the worst order.
	Yeah, and I think if they could have gotten that in, I mean, the moment they do, the jury goes, oh, dear God, right?
	Like, they don't...
	People have very little sympathy for...
	Perpetrators of that crime.
	For the sake of the algorithm.
	Unfortunately, this defense team doesn't seem to be at the second level of analysis here.
	Because they've made so many...
	Just stupid missteps that would make their case so much better.
	Like even with this whole character thing.
	You let the aunt say whatever she wants up there.
	And then if she brings up character and you let her say what she wants, then you let the girlfriend say what she wants.
	As soon as she says he's a good boy, then you come with, okay, your honor.
	I want to challenge whether if she knew this, because she's up there saying she's a good boy.
	And that's how you get the character in.
	That's how you get character in.
	But they objected.
	Before she was able to say it.
	And then you saw the prosecutor saying, well, no, we're not going to say he held the knife to his brother's throat and said he's going to kill him all and all this stuff.
	No, that's not going to come in.
	But it could have come in if they would have just waited and been a little bit more tactical.
	Apparently Nick comes with a trigger warning.
	Viva Fry, the solo stream should come with a trigger warning when you bring that lawyer from Minnesota.
	Did you?
	Someone sent...
	Someone sent me a chat saying the same thing about you.
	They're like, if you're going to put a Canadian on this stream, it better be a trigger warning.
	Humor is humor.
	It's context.
	You just fill in the blanks.
	That joke writes itself regardless of the demographics.
	Go for Nick.
	Go for Nick.
	No, no.
	I was just going to ask Nick.
	Nick, I saw your stream with Uncivil when y 'all were talking about the hip pocket service.
	You guys do discovery without filing in court?
	You guys have discovery, even your discoveries within the pocket?
	Wow.
	Yeah.
	Now, a lot of times, discovery will come after because someone's going to file a motion to dismiss or something like that.
	Once you have something that the court needs to adjudicate, then you've got to file everything.
	But yeah, with the pocket service, you, in theory, can get served.
	You can answer.
	You can have discovery and then you can just schedule it when you want to go to trial.
	You know, you file it when you want to go to trial.
	Because I would say, like as a litigator, I would never let my client concede the discovery without a motion to dismiss them.
	We got to at least go through the motion to dismiss.
	But maybe that's just something that this gives me.
	Well, but once you get that motion to dismiss, I mean, you take that to court and then you can schedule discovery and all of that stuff at that point.
	What was I just about to say, Nick?
	That you were giving me your channel.
	It's a weird thing.
	You brought me on just to say, and I was going to split it with Nate.
	No, first of all, what I love is the...
	I've been watching you, I've been watching your streams, and I love when people say...
	Guys, be quiet.
	I want to hear the trial.
	And you're like, dude, you're here for the commentary.
	If you want to hear the trial, go to law and crime.
	You don't need to be here.
	It's on the screen.
	Where are we watching?
	Go there.
	So on Monday now, starting Monday, do we have gross crumbs?
	I believe so.
	I believe so.
	Oh, can we take a break, though, just for a second and go back to how...
	Devastatingly bad their DNA expert witness was.
	I missed that, and I only learned what I missed from the comments, so fill in my crowd who may not have seen it.
	Okay.
	I'm now resolved.
	Right after this show, I'm going to clip out the testimony and commentary of each witness and put them up individually in my Rittenhouse playlist.
	I have to hurry up and put this video up.
	It's going to take me time.
	It's going to take me plenty of time.
	You're fine.
	You can probably upload it next month and I'll still have not done it.
	They bring a DNA expert on the stand.
	You kind of get an idea why they brought this person, but you're like, I don't know.
	Is there something we don't know?
	The whole purpose was to show that they did not find DNA on the gun from Rosenbaum or Huber.
	That was the idea.
	So she goes through and she testifies to all her credentials.
	She gets wadiered and is basically an expert.
	And then they have her testify about all the different swab locations.
	And then they say, you know...
	We have one in 60,000 times more likely that it's someone else than Joseph Rosenbaum's DNA on the trigger.
	It's a quadrillion times more likely that it's someone else's DNA than Huber on the barrel shroud or whatever.
	But then they get to the magazine and she says, we can't actually determine.
	Whose DNA is on the magazine?
	We know it's two.
	We know it's two people.
	And so if it's Kyle Rittenhouse, the other person's indeterminate.
	And it's like, oh, okay.
	And then there was another spot on the gun where they couldn't determine if it was Rosenbaum or Huber or someone else.
	They just weren't able.
	They got inconclusive results.
	And then, for some reason, the prosecution doesn't object to this.
	They bring a picture.
	Of Huber grabbing the gun from Rittenhouse, right?
	And they have a great...
	I don't know where they got this thing, but it's like a high-res photo.
	Huber's got the...
	Rittenhouse's gun is out like this.
	Huber's hand is on the barrel and pulling it.
	And he goes, would you agree that Huber, the deceased, that his hand is on this gun?
	Yeah, it appears so.
	He's pulling it, right?
	He's pulling on the gun.
	Yeah, he's got it in his hand.
	Yeah.
	And you didn't get any DNA from that, right?
	Yeah.
	So is it safe to say that even if someone is actually physically grabbing the gun, that your DNA test might not actually show someone grabbing the gun?
	And she's like, yes.
	And the state is just sitting here letting this witness testify to something she has no personal knowledge of, has no reason to be.
	She's not a witness that day.
	She shouldn't be testifying to this picture at all.
	And then she does.
	But, Nick, she was testifying as to the presence or absence of DNA on Grosskraut's gun or on Rittenhouse's?
	Rittenhouse's gun.
	They were trying to make the argument that because his DNA was not in the gun that he actually didn't grab the gun.
	Because the self-defense claim is that he shot him because he was grabbing the gun.
	But you can clearly see in the pictures he was grabbing the gun.
	So they were trying to walk you down that line.
	I think that's dishonest.
	At a point, there's things that are just dishonest.
	If you have the picture of him grabbing the gun, why bring the DNA person?
	That's just trying to confuse the jury.
	I think the biggest problem is it bored the jury.
	She's testifying.
	My eyes are glazing over.
	This is technical stuff.
	But then at the end, you're left with this idea.
	Oh, our testing was completely useless, and there's a picture that shows that he was grabbing the gun, and the DNA expert who tested it said, yeah, we couldn't find any DNA, but, you know, right there, we can see him grabbing the gun.
	So, you know, I guess he did grab it.
	And you're like, why would you bring this person?
	My highlight of the week, a highlight of the trial, because I don't think it's going to get any worse, and if the defense does not...
	Do they get to replay video of the testimony to the jury during closing arguments?
	Oh.
	No.
	No, I don't.
	So they'll have to quote, I forget his name, McInnes or Guinness, whatever the guy's name, where he says, where Binger says, so you don't know what was going on in Rosenbaum's head.
	You've never discussed with him.
	He's like, no.
	But he said, F you, and grabbed, reached for his gun.
	All right.
	Well, I mean, what more do you need?
	And then, I mean, the first time I heard it, I thought he meant he grabbed for Zeminski's gun.
	I didn't realize he said, F you, after we hear a gunshot two seconds earlier, and he says, F you, and we heard him say it.
	It's crazy.
	Reaching for his gun.
	And the guy's like, no.
	And that was the prosecution's witness.
	And that's what the defense has to make sure they nail that narrative on close.
	You know, we brought some witnesses, but don't take it from us.
	Don't take it from what we've said.
	You can watch the videos.
	You can decide for yourself.
	But let's go back to the state's witness, Richie McGinnis.
	Let's go back to what the state asked him.
	You heard Attorney Binger say, you can't know what's going through his head, can you?
	And he said, no, but I heard him scream, F you and reach for the gun.
	That is...
	If that is not self-defense, what is someone supposed to do when a crazy person is running at them, screams at them, and reaches for the gun?
	What would you do?
	I'll quote you, Nick, but the alternative is lay down and die because that is the only alternative.
	But I'm going to say this, though.
	I don't think this is going to...
	It's hard for me to understand how could this go to the jury because there's no way the prosecution is...
	Okay, so someone had no way.
	So I think we have a...
	I think you can...
	For the murder charges, directed verdict is highly, highly likely.
	Nate, what's a directed verdict?
	Someone had asked, can they make a motion to dismiss?
	What's a directed verdict for those who don't know?
	Essentially, that's a motion to dismiss.
	It's just like after the prosecution's put on his case in chief, the defense is going to make a motion for a directed verdict.
	In other words, saying that even if you accept everything the prosecution said, they have admit they're buried in the proof, and therefore the defendant should be...
	Should be found not guilty because they haven't met their burden.
	And I think in this particular case, you have that.
	I think you have it in spades.
	But, you know, I don't know, Nick.
	Everything I've seen, everything you've said, hand on a gun, this, this, this, it just, it seems like, it just seems so much, like there's no, there's no facts here that would lead you to believe it wasn't self-defense.
	You know what I mean?
	Except for the fact.
	Except for the fact that we've been discussing with Nick throughout the week.
	He shouldn't have been there with a gun.
	He might have been underage, holding a gun, and yada yada.
	Although the cops saw him.
	That's all irrelevant.
	That's all irrelevant.
	Age is irrelevant.
	To the actual self-defense claim, his age, whether the gun was illegal.
	Let's say if he stole a gun and he was a felon, he still had that self-defense claim is immune from that.
	That's what people do not appreciate.
	Even if he were a felon in illegal, unlawful possession of a firearm, he can still use it in self-defense if he needs to without being guilty of murder.
	He'll be guilty of an underlying gun charge, but not murder.
	Yeah, and so I was looking it up.
	Wisconsin has a motion for dismissal can happen at the close of the plaintiff's evidence.
	Motion for directed verdict would come at the end of all evidence.
	Or you can motion for dismissal.
	So they actually have a couple options here to move for dismissal and directive verdicts at various points during the trial.
	And with the way this judge is treating their motion practice, the way the judge is treating their objections, the defense would be stupid.
	To not do this.
	I mean, so you can move, it says you can move for dismissal for insufficiency of evidence.
	And I think right now they cannot prove, there's no way you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not engage in self-defense on Rosenbaum and Huber at this point.
	Like, he's got them.
	They've got the evidence from the state.
	They've got the evidence from the defense with the various pictures.
	You've got them.
	So I don't know how you get there.
	So Chaos Orr says, but then consider the jury.
	I hate to say it.
	Facts don't matter.
	So this is the thing, though.
	The difference in the jury in this case versus Chauvin is that I think everyone could picture themselves being in the shoes of George Floyd.
	No, Floyd, yeah, you're right.
	And so everyone said, I've done bad things.
	I've had bad days, yada, yada.
	I could more easily picture myself in the shoes of George Floyd.
	In this case, very few people are going to say, could I put myself in the shoes of Rosenbaum?
	Could I put myself in the shoes of Huber?
	Of the other guy, Grosskreutz, who shows up with a gun to a protest.
	So the positioning of the jury themselves is going to be different from one case to the next.
	I think a lot of them are going to have a lot easier time saying...
	I could put myself in Rittenhouse's position.
	I'm getting attacked by a mentally deranged individual, hit over the head with a skateboard by another individual, and another guy has a gun with a bullet in the chamber ready to fire.
	Who do I want to pretend that I am and sympathize with more?
	So I think it's fundamentally different, but ultimately, you never know.
	Look, the biggest problem in the Chauvin trial was it was the same thing always.
	The day...
	That George Floyd died.
	And that video came out.
	People are probably going to rewrite this memory in their head.
	The overwhelming majority of people went, that's effed.
	That is no...
	You're watching at the time like seven and a half minutes.
	He's kneeling on this guy and he dies.
	And everybody's like, that's wrong, that's wrong, that's wrong.
	Then all this stuff comes out.
	Floyd's passed.
	It becomes political and people make their sides.
	And for what it's worth, I don't know if Chauvin could get a fair trial in Minneapolis, but I think Chauvin got the result that is not surprising at all in this case.
	Because when you've got, essentially, when it comes to trial, nine minutes of him kneeling on a guy while he's dead, you know that the other guy said, hey, I don't have a pulse, and he kneels on him for another three, four minutes.
	Everybody's shocked about the Chauvin conviction, and I'm like...
	You've got a jury sitting there watching a cop kneel on a guy who's basically dead for three minutes.
	I know about the fentanyl.
	I don't care.
	But that's the ultimate hurdle, is what I'm talking about with a jury, is they have to watch this man die for nine minutes.
	Rittenhouse, the reason that Binger keeps showing the body of Rosenbaum...
	He's going for a George Floyd moment.
	Right.
	He's doing that.
	But the hardest part of that is that it happens in less than a second.
	All four of those shots go into this guy.
	There's no drawn-out thing.
	Kyle doesn't look like a smug prick on top of someone.
	There's nothing going on like that that's at all comparable to what's going on in the Chauvin-Floyd interaction.
	And that is crucial.
	And it's like, even from the, make sure everyone sees it, victim perspective of George Floyd versus Rosenbaum.
	It's, George Floyd was sobbing.
	I can't breathe.
	All this other stuff.
	Rosenbaum is...
	F you.
	I'm throwing stuff at you, chasing you down, and bang, bang, bang, bang, bang.
	And then it's done.
	You don't get the same emotional reflex that you got with George Floyd, for right or for wrong.
	With Rosenbaum, you're like, this guy was asking for it, and Nick, I can't repeat some of the jokes, but ultimately, he's suffering.
	He's suffering a bunch of groaning that is over in 30 seconds.
	It's just fundamentally different from all...
	He was literally going around saying, shoot me!
	Gunshot goes off, F you!
	Should we ask Richard what he said?
	Should we ask Richard what he said?
	Oh my god!
	Nick, all I can say is I pulled up your tweet where you retweeted that video and a member of my family heard it that shouldn't have heard it.
	Sorry!
	When I heard Richard say that in opening, I was like, dude, I know what you're trying to do in terms of points.
	It's not going to be heard that way.
	Not good.
	It's funnily different.
	Someone just said in the chat, the jury is hoping for a directed verdict so they don't have to make the decision.
	It seems like a no-brainer.
	It seems like a no-brainer.
	Rittenhouse is to be continued, but Nate, you're covering now relatively thoroughly.
	The other one.
	Ahmaud Arbery, yeah.
	Ahmaud Arbery.
	I see the other lawsuit, but it's not ever going to have the same public interest, I don't think, as Rittenhouse for a number of reasons.
	I don't think it's as clear-cut.
	I think it's more of a clear-cut case or at least less controversial.
	Am I wrong?
	Well, I think it still has the same controversy in it, but we learned a lot of facts at the opening statements that I just didn't know.
	I didn't know that they knew that, what's his name, Arbery, had been in the house four times and never stole nothing, right?
	The owner told, well, because the owner had called police, and the police said, no, I'm here with the owner, and the owner says the black guy has never stole nothing.
	He actually thought it was two white people who were stealing it, and that's what they were looking for.
	It was like some white person stole something from the house, but the black guy, he's always a man.
	He never steals anything.
	Okay, they knew that.
	And then when the cop told them that, told the McMichaels that, You would think, because one of them was a former cop, he said, okay, so can't we get him for criminal trespassing because he's just trespassing?
	So they knew that he wasn't committing burglary.
	They knew he was just doing criminal.
	So this whole thing about burglary, burglary, burglary, they were the ones who asked the cops, well, at least can't we get him for criminal trespassing?
	And they were like, even that?
	No, because there was no signs, it was an open house, and they didn't even really know if they can even get him for trespassing at that point in time.
	With the facts that have just been coming out, the facts of, you know, that obviously the prosecution is going to try to play the race, it's playing the race game a little bit with the, you know, they got in the fact that they had a conservative flag on their vanity plate and things of that nature.
	But I think this case is just going to come down to, it is a self-defense claim.
	They're making a self-defense claim.
	But their self-defense claim is based on one simple fact, is that they were making a citizen's arrest.
	And based on that citizen's arrest, that's how their claim is going to stream out.
	But the problem is that if you're going to arrest somebody, there's one key fact that they can't avoid.
	You have to know what you're arresting the person for.
	You have to have seen the person commit some crime or have some real knowledge that the person had just committed a crime.
	They have admitted already that this crime didn't happen in print.
	They didn't see him going to the house.
	They didn't see him do anything.
	The reason why they chased him down...
	And was trying to effectuate an arrest.
	The only knowledge they had at that time was that he was running down the street and they saw someone pointing at him.
	And they went and grabbed their guns and chased after him.
	So if that's the only thing you had, that just seems hard to then justify that you're arresting him for a burglary.
	And when asked, right, why were you chasing him?
	They said because he was running down.
	They didn't say we were chasing him for a burglary.
	And let's juxtapose...
	Can we quickly juxtapose that with Kyle Rittenhouse?
	Because that's Huber and Grosskreutz.
	They did not witness Kyle shoot anybody.
	They had no idea what he had done.
	All they know is people are pointing and saying, this guy just shot somebody.
	And so then they're chasing and engaging in a physical confrontation.
	Binger has laid out that Huber was heroically...
	Heroically running after Kyle Rittenhouse in this way.
	It's not quite the same because there's no indication they were going to do a citizen's arrest, but they were quote-unquote trying to stop an active shooter.
	They were going to do a citizen's execution when they were chasing Rittenhouse.
	By the way, Nate, I think you said conservative flag, and I think you meant Confederate flag on the McMichaels license.
	Yeah, Confederate flag.
	I'm sorry, Confederate flag.
	Just so nobody thinks that that was not a jab.
	That was not a jab, everybody.
	That was just a mistake.
	That was a mistake.
	And I just want to clarify so that nobody mis-thinks things.
	Nate, yeah, the situations are not analogous, but one question I have, matter of fact, in Ahmaud Arbery, I do believe I remember reading at the time, That McMichael, it was the one who starts with a T, Trevor, or what's his name?
	Travis.
	Travis.
	After Travis shot Ahmaud Arbery, he uttered an ethnic slur as he was dying.
	Do we know that that's true or not?
	Supposedly they have him on body cam saying that, saying it.
	But even with this case, though, I think...
	I understand the race angle because you want to make it seem like they did this because he was black.
	Obviously, you know, they thought it was white people sitting around the place, right?
	And they knew that he was back there.
	So it's difficult because essentially what the defense is trying to do now is what they're trying to do is trying to say, well, these guys were former cops and former law enforcement and they relied on their training.
	So they were out there trying to make an arrest relying on their training.
	But the one thing that the prosecutor was getting over is that, well, even in law enforcement, you have to get trained every year, right?
	So let's say every year you have to go recertify for your firearms, you got to recertify for your use of force.
	So if you're 10 years out, you can't say, you know, that, yeah, I'm relying on my training because you haven't been trained in 10 years, right?
	You certify every year.
	And another thing is that they weren't cops.
	If they were police officers.
	And somebody's pointing and pointing at a guy.
	Get him, get him.
	He's running.
	Police officers can make a Terry stop.
	They can't even make an arrest.
	They can only make a Terry stop, which is they can believe criminality is afoot.
	We can stop them, but they are authorized by statute, insured, and all this other stuff where they can make that type of stop.
	They're constitutionally allowed to make that type of stop.
	Private citizens are not.
	Private citizens, if you're going to stop somebody, if you're going to detain them, you have to have probable cause for a citizen's arrest.
	They didn't have that.
	Nick, glad to see you didn't die of alcohol.
	Friday was rough.
	Did you go through an...
	You don't even want to ask.
	Never mind.
	I'm not even going to ask incriminating questions on the interwebs.
	It was this much.
	That's half a bottle.
	It's a little more than half.
	What's the percentage?
	It's 40. Okay, fine.
	You're not getting nailed on the inadvertent...
	I didn't realize it was 48% because that makes a difference.
	Let me tell you something.
	Like, yeah, I've had some 60% stuff, and it gets pretty heavy.
	My rules are getting modified, we'll say, on Monday, because Friday was not a fun evening.
	Nick, I don't know if I want to ask the question.
	I know you have five kids, and I know we all know this is a job, even if people think we're just talking to cameras.
	Do you ever get in trouble for doing that for eight hours straight?
	My wife and I, when I decided to do YouTube full-time, it was such a good, positive move for both of us because it meant I was going to be home all the time.
	And so, you know, for...
	I'm usually not doing this during the day.
	Usually it's at night after the kids are asleep or at least in bed.
	Little dumb bags.
	But they go to bed.
	And so I'm not usually doing that during the day.
	So this is like a one-off type situation.
	And I didn't mean the alcohol.
	Just so nobody thinks that that was a judgmental question.
	I didn't mean the alcohol.
	I just meant the consistency.
	No, the 10 hours of streams.
	Yeah, 10 hours of streams.
	So, because it's the other thing.
	And I think we all probably have the same dilemmas.
	We're home.
	We are more accessible than most parents will ever be.
	But we're on our phones.
	But we're on our computers.
	But we're in the kitchen trying to upload a thumbnail.
	And the question is, like, the balance is just a different type of balance now as if we were just, you know, out of the house for eight hours a day.
	No one would see when we're not, you know, paying attention in the moment.
	But, no, man, the streaming for The Rittenhouse is just outrageous.
	And it's going to be the same.
	Nick, Nate, you're going to be doing Ahmaud next week, the Arbery trial next week, or are you going to be doing some of the Rittenhouse?
	Yeah, I had always planned just to do the Ahmaud Arbery trial.
	It's just the Rittenhouse trial just kind of popped up.
	And I joined Nick the first day on his thing, and I was like, oh, this is cool.
	But my plan was always to do Ahmaud Arbery.
	I think the first day McGinnis came on, so I was like, oh, if McGinnis is coming on, that's the guy.
	That's the main guy, right?
	He makes the case.
	So I bounce back and forth, but now I'm strictly with Ahmaud Arbery.
	But I'm assuming that that's going to be like a two-week trial because it seems like from what is going on, they may have given up a lot, but they're really going to be pulling on the heartstrings of the joy.
	But I want to see if it's going to work because you never know what these joys are going to do.
	11 white juror members, one black juror member.
	And do we know of the 11 white?
	Is there subdivision of race?
	Are there Latinos?
	I don't know.
	I'm not even sure.
	I don't know.
	They've been saying women.
	I don't even know how many women versus men.
	But one thing I will say is it bothers me a little bit about this whole race of the jury.
	Because let's say if it was reversed.
	Let's say if it was 11 black jurors and one.
	White juror.
	Are we really supposed to believe that that jury would be more unbiased than a jury where the race is reversed?
	Now, I understand the reason why the defense made the challenges because I've seen that happen in court in New York.
	I've been here in New York and I've seen it happen the other way where they strike all the white people.
	And yeah, all the black people on the jury, right?
	Because black people are more, you know, more skeptical of cops.
	So the defense attorney's striking all the white people.
	Yeah, these white people, they gotta go.
	And so I understand the tactic.
	But the media playing it like a white, you know, a white jury in today's time can't be fair and honest.
	So you can't trust them.
	It's concerning because it's making the exact opposite.
	It's discriminating the exact opposite way.
	Don't get me wrong, I'd rather have diversity on the jury, but I just don't think they're wholly suspect if they were all black, if they were all Latino, if they were all white.
	I don't think that just inherently makes them suspect.
	Am I making any sense?
	And I do want to make sure I understand the history.
	We have a history of this.
	If this was 1960 or 1950 Alabama...
	I'm not saying, you know, this is, I'm having a totally different, yes, that was wrong.
	What they were doing was wrong back then.
	All men, all white, and they were letting, you know, Emmett Till, for instance, that was totally wrong.
	Yes.
	But today, we're talking about a whole, we're talking about a different world, a different time, and if we're going to say they have to be all black to be fair, I just think that's wrong.
	Or if they're all white, they're unfair.
	I think that's also wrong.
	I think, does anybody else find it interesting that, I do it.
	I don't know if you guys do specifically, but we all say jury of our peers, but there is no jury of your peers.
	That's not in the Constitution.
	It's not in any of our founding documents.
	I'm pretty sure it's not even in writings contemporaneous to the Constitution.
	It goes to the Magna Carta because they had...
	Classes of citizenry and so that you had to have a jury of your peer classes.
	What that is translated to for us is a jury of your fellow citizens.
	And so it's kind of interesting because it's ingrained into pop culture, like when you have a time to kill, right?
	And Samuel L. Jackson walks into the room, it's all these white jurors, he goes, a jury of my peers, right?
	And the same thing in this Arbery thing, that's part of the question.
	Is this a jury of the peers?
	With Chauvin, it was a question.
	People were thinking, you know, if there were not as many white jurors, that that would not be a jury of his peers or something like that.
	But that's not actually a phrase in the United States.
	But we use it constantly.
	It's crazy.
	I, I, I, I'll show my Canadian naivety or my, what's the word?
	Stupid optimism.
	I don't see it as being racial because the racial presumes the underlying political.
	And it is true.
	You can gauge politics based on race.
	But I would be much more interested in the political ideological breakdown above and beyond race.
	Race gives you, you know, certain statistical orientation.
	I wouldn't care if it's 11 white people and one black person if those 11 white people happen to be, let's just say it in the Ahmaud Arbery case, Biden vote.
	So, again, it's not race to me.
	It is politics.
	It's underlying ideology.
	You can get a gauge for it based on race, religion, etc.
	But that's what's easy for the media to digest, to spit back out, and so people can understand.
	Only one black juror?
	I would be more interested in the political leanings of the 12 than the racial leanings of the 12, or the racial identity.
	If the one black juror was, what's his name?
	Brandon Tatum.
	That would be good for the other guy.
	I'll take the amazing Lucas.
	The one black juror is amazing Lucas.
	I'm already happy with that jury member.
	If the 11 white members are the people I know from down the street, from PYT, they're on my side.
	So, you know, PYT, they're on your side.
	Oh, yeah.
	But no, I think we three agree that Ahmaud Arbery case, by and large, We're not expecting any upsets in terms of what we anticipate being the outcome.
	It's going to be the Rittenhouse.
	This is only argument.
	This is only opening statement, so you really don't know because some bombs can be shown.
	But if you're asking me for Rittenhouse, I'll take a $50 bet right now.
	That I think a directed verdict is coming on the more serious charges.
	Like, I'm confident on that one.
	But even if it doesn't, I still don't think you can get a conviction.
	I think Rittenhouse is innocent legally, you know, based on the law.
	But I think if it goes to a jury, that jury is probably going to acquit him.
	In this case, I think a conviction, I'm thinking everything I know now, unless the defense can show me something different, I think you can convict them on all charges.
	But, again, we got to see what they come up with.
	Yeah, I think Rittenhouse, I'm still confident in the acquittal.
	I know a lot of people were doomsaying after the Barnes stuff initially.
	And then, of course, it coincided with the initial bad days, right?
	The two bad days that they had.
	Well, I don't think the first day was bad.
	It just wasn't ideal.
	The second day was actually bad for the defense, but then the next two were phenomenal for the defense, and that's been good.
	I'm not going to defend Barnes because it's not a defense.
	Barnes is right objectively.
	The defense had absolutely no legitimate, strategic, legal reason to not have behaviorist...
	Behavior specialists come on and assist with jury selection.
	There's no strategic reason to turn down additional knowledge, additional expertise.
	Period.
	So the defense may win to pretend it was a...
	If they don't bring in Greg Hartley or Chase Hughes from the behavior panel, behavior panel, they don't want to show their cards.
	They don't want to tip the process.
	There's no strategic benefit to that type of conduct.
	So they might still win, but for their...
	Yeah, and I'm not saying that Barnes is incorrect.
	I mean, pretty much everyone I've talked to agrees.
	If you have a ton of expertise that is going to assist with your case for free, you take it.
	Even if you don't listen to it, you take it and you add it and inform your decisions.
	And I think what everybody should note...
	If you're watching my streams on this Kyle Rittenhouse case, especially when we get two to three other guests in there, and we're all looking at this, and we're seeing different things, and one of us will point out something, someone else will point out something.
	There's so much going on in these trials.
	You can't rely on one person.
	This is a high-profile murder trial.
	It's in the media.
	You've got Binger and the state.
	They're going to...
	Put forth.
	I mean, they're trying really hard on this one.
	But ignore this case and think back on Chauvin when, you know, Nelson, who did a great job, is doing it basically by himself.
	But the state had 12 attorneys.
	12 attorneys researching and writing on it.
	That's why you bring in the behavior panel.
	That's why you bring in Barnes.
	I think he said he had several attorneys that were willing to help.
	So I'm not being critical of Barnes' statements at all.
	I'm just saying that after those statements, a lot of people were saying, oh, it's lost.
	Everything's bad.
	And then they had...
	They had the opening day, which was weak, and then they had the second day, which was terrible.
	And after that second day, I was like, I don't know if Kyle's going to be off.
	But the next two days, they've done really, really well.
	Prosecution has done better defense than defense attorneys.
	Law says, yeah, why such a small defense team?
	And this is not to be cynical, but...
	You know, the practice of law is still a business.
	So the more people you bring on, in theory, the more expenses, the less bottom line.
	I don't know that that's the case, and I'm not speaking from any privileged information.
	It's just common sense.
	But who's in charge of the fund?
	Is it somebody...
	This always bothers me.
	If the lawyer's in charge of the fund, then it gives you a little too much.
	But if the lawyer's not in charge of the fund, then I'm paying you a retainer, but now I can choose.
	Let's do this behavior.
	If there was a cost to it or whatever.
	No, the behavior panel was allegedly, according to Barnes, he was on my stream right after the second day, and he came on.
	We had a great talk, and he said that all of that was going to be free service.
	They were donating their time.
	And so, again, it makes it all the more confusing.
	And that was for Joy Selection.
	Their time makes lawyer time look cheap.
	I'll just tell you that much.
	No, I could just say a behavioral specialist in the courtroom with Joy Selection, that's a huge win.
	That's not even like a little win.
	That's like a bomb win, right?
	Because, you know, oh my God.
	And they turn that down?
	That makes no sense.
	Well, we don't know if they turned it down.
	They just didn't accept it.
	And by the way, Nick, I wasn't suggesting you were criticizing Barnes.
	It's true.
	People, after day one, some Barnes haters are going to say he's just jealous.
	He wants to be what Richards is.
	You may or may not be right.
	I mean, there's no doubt Barnes would rather be there because Barnes knows how he drives a car and would rather be behind the wheel.
	But it was never a question of that.
	Then you got the people with all sorts of...
	Different theories.
	Bottom line, Barnes, in as much as I know him, and I believe him, is interested in nothing more than Kyle Rittenhouse and his fate.
	So, whatever he says, agree with it or disagree with it, it's not self-interest motivated.
	And it's not financially motivated.
	Yeah, I don't think Barnes needs...
	We know Barnes would have did a better job.
	Dude.
	Barnes, you look at it this way.
	He might have done such a better job that the jury would have said, why does this kid, if he's so innocent, need such a good lawyer?
	And maybe they would have derived a negative conclusion.
	I mean, there's always...
	No, but Barnes would have killed it.
	No, yeah.
	Barnes, I agree.
	He would have killed it.
	There are a lot of lawyers who would have killed opening statement, who would have done a better job than Richards.
	But...
	I do have to go a little bit back and just say, on cross, most of the time...
	Richards has been very good.
	And that's one thing Barnes gave him praise on.
	He says he's got a mind that is great with facts and factual recall.
	And he's able to grab stuff that was said, grab something from some report.
	And I mean, he's sitting there at the table doing this.
	And then he gets up on cross and he's like, now in this FBI interview that you did, do you remember that one?
	The guy's like, no, I don't know.
	And he's like, well, here's what you said.
	Like he has.
	Well-researched the factual realities of all the stuff that we really haven't seen.
	All these reports, all of these interviews, and he's good with it.
	So, you know, it's...
	We do need to criticize Richards for that opening statement, and I think he should lean on Sharafisi for stuff like that, because he's got a better flow to speaking, he's a better narrative storyteller than Richards seems to be.
	But Richards does seem to have a real good grasp on the facts of this case, and no one should suggest that he doesn't seem like he's working really, really hard on it.
	And where he's strong, he is strong.
	I don't know how to say this.
	BBOBJS says, is it possible that keeping a small team is a strategic choice to gain favor with the judge by expanding the profile of the case?
	No, there's no strategic decision to not have people, at the very least a team, to take notes of how the judge is reacting to every moment.
	How the jury members, and as much as you can see them, are reacting.
	To take notes to the witnesses.
	You need to have a half dozen people.
	It's just...
	Bottom line, you need people taking notes, people paying attention to different things.
	Oh, damn it.
	I forgot the thought that I was just about to say.
	Your Honor, objection.
	He's saying he has a thought over here, Your Honor, and that's tainting some prejudicial aspects for the jury.
	I'm going to have to ask you to strike that, Your Honor, if you would.
	Nick, you did remind me of it.
	I was not as upset or disappointed with Richard's opening presentation as other people were.
	I was only irritated that he did not vehemently and vigorously object to the video that had militia every time you put it on pause, to the video that had the commentators.
	But as far as Richard's opening statements went, it was factual.
	It set in my mind the fact that these people were out for no good, and it was just the opening statements.
	It was just what he didn't do during Binger.
	And Binger is such a snake.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	No, no, I'm just saying, if you talk about criticizing Richards, he's got to learn, he's got to at least play the game objections or something, because he doesn't know what the hell the objection, or that team has to, at least because there were so many objections that were just so obvious, like the hearsay objection.
	There was one objection, and I was saying this on the extreme the other night.
	Hearsay, just so everybody understands, hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the matter.
	So in that instance, they had someone on the camera saying, hey, Kyle, hey, aren't you the guy who pointed the gun at me last week and did this?
	And they had it all on the thing.
	And the guy's like, yeah, this guy pointed the gun at me when I was down the street, right?
	Now, they let that in because that was an out-of-court statement and it was being offered for the truth of the matter.
	The fact that Kyle actually pointed the guy at this black guy in yellow pants.
	That's an objection, right?
	That's not supposed to come in.
	Then the guy says it again.
	Then Binger says it.
	Then Binger has the witnesses all four times.
	They never object to it.
	It wasn't to make it.
	He just wants to set the frame of mind of reality.
	Which makes no sense.
	They didn't object.
	They didn't object.
	Those disgusting Super Chats in the video itself left his trash taken out.
	Look, I'm going to defend one of those Super Chats.
	Just one of them.
	I can't have not laughed when the Super Chat came in and he found out.
	I was like, oh, come on!
	I didn't know what that meant.
	And then I found out what it meant.
	Still, man.
	You know what?
	Craig Shiver read your mind, Nick.
	He knew you were going with that.
	It was mostly the not objecting to what should have been objected to.
	His opening statements were weak.
	But the bottom line, the facts will come out and the binger can only do what he can do with the facts.
	That video, though, with the militia said five times, if you want to know what a cunning lawyer binger is, like really.
	What happened at that moment, they objected at the first, I think the first or the second time the militia was stated.
	And they're like, we don't need this.
	This is, we got to bring this guy in if we're going to have him offering testimony via video.
	And so he's like, oh, okay, well, we'll just go to these other points and I'll mute it except when the defendant is speaking, right?
	So because you're going to get adverse party statements, that's going to be admissible basically entirely.
	He skipped, I believe, five times in that video.
	He skipped to five different timestamps, and in every single timestamp, the word militia was spoken to the jury.
	It was amazing how he made it.
	I'm just going to where Rittenhouse talked, militia.
	Militia.
	Militia.
	So someone did say that apparently whenever they paused it, the title of the video would come back up and the title of the video had been modified to, yes, militia.
	That's something that, in my opinion, they should have, on cross, they should have asked the police officer who titled those videos.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	You're testifying that you went to Twitter and you went to YouTube and you downloaded these videos.
	Does that mean that you wrote the titles of them?
	And then they could go, well, you know, I didn't write the titles.
	They come when you download them.
	And then you go to the video on there right now, and the titles are different.
	You go, okay, explain it then.
	Explain it to me like I'm dumb.
	This is where...
	Don't let me dumb.
	Just a five-year-old.
	But this is where having a big team would be a bigger team.
	Have someone go and find out that apparently...
	Maybe the titles on the YouTube videos have been modified, but maybe they haven't.
	But they're not the same.
	So if this guy pulled it from this guy's account, but the original title or the current title is different, who changed it and when?
	And this is where you just don't have the manpower.
	Richards may have his strengths.
	I don't trust him to simultaneously multitask to go to internet and find the original video with the original title.
	And they should have done this earlier because they've got an evidence list with those titles.
	And they should have been verifying.
	And you would hope that that evidence list would include a URL to the original source of the video so they could verify there's no editing.
	He said he had seen that particular video.
	He said he's watched it.
	But maybe he wasn't looking out for the title because maybe it didn't occur to him that it was going to pop up on the screen every time because that only happens in Windows Media Player.
	It doesn't happen in VLC, which they use for a different video.
	So you're right.
	It's that thing.
	And that's why I was saying when you're watching the streams with the different lawyers.
	We're all bringing in individually different points.
	A stronger team of a lot of eyes, if you can afford it, can do you a lot of good.
	As long as you can manage any competing egos on the team, keep clear who's the lead on the case and that they're delegating tasks appropriately.
	But that's why you always have co-counsel too, right?
	Because co-counsel generally, especially in a big case like that, you need two people just so when things happen, you can always be spitting out these facts.
	Because that's what happened on the last day, right?
	With the character evidence, right?
	The other guy was like, no, no, no, no, no.
	We can bring this in because of this.
	And that's when they had to go through that whole thing.
	I want to add to Nick's description of Binger as evil.
	I will say judicially evil.
	Because this is what makes me, I can't deal with it.
	I react very aggressively when I hear it.
	When Binger says, okay, I can't do the Minnesota accent, but Binger doesn't have one.
	He says, okay, so, Your Honor, it would have taken me a long time to go edit out the sections that I want to use for evidence, which you should have done from the beginning.
	But wherever they use the word militia, I'll just bleep it out.
	And that's like saying, when we were kids...
	And we want to say, instead of saying F-U, like F-U-C-K-U, we're going to say, I love you.
	And you say that to your parents, and you say like, hey, I'm not saying F-U to my brother, I'm saying I love you, but they know what you're saying.
	So bleep out militia with a hockey buzzer, with a bing, bleep it out with silence, you know damn well the word that is being edited.
	And the impact is exactly the same.
	And Bing is like...
	I will accommodate you and your wishes, Richards.
	I'll just bleep out militia with something that will be as equally indicative of the fact that it's militia that's being bleeped out, and therefore there's no bleeping out.
	I can't put up with that crap.
	But that's good lawyering, I guess.
	And that should have been handled, frankly, as a motion in limine.
	They had a motion in limine on all sorts of evidence.
	If they had actually listened to the videos that they knew were going to be played by the prosecution, you make a motion in limine and you say, look, we want all of this audio of this guy commentating stripped out except when he's speaking directly to the defendant.
	And actually, we want his audio stripped out entirely.
	We just want the defendant's statements.
	We don't even need his questions.
	If you want to bring in his questions to the defendant, bring him in, subpoena him, put him under oath, and we get to cross.
	And that's the big problem.
	I can't believe they admitted to the foundation and authenticity of all these videos when the foundation is, I'm a cop who went on social media and downloaded it.
	And the content, the lasers, the, okay, no militia, but the discussion, anything.
	You get the dude who shot the video.
	I want to bring this one up because this is a beautiful one.
	Having found all three of your channels separately, this confluence of favorite, of favorite, of my favorite, honest, good faith argument seekers is an oasis in the desert.
	Thank you for all you do.
	Viva Nate and Nick.
	Thank you very much, Gino.
	Yeah.
	Those videos, it's not hard.
	You know who posted them on social media, subpoena them, and then get them to say, hey man, what happened that night?
	You called them a militia.
	That's easy to say.
	I've been in some of those situations where you had to subpoena some of those, and from those social media companies, they give you hell.
	But no, but the accounts themselves.
	No, but the accounts are known.
	People know who the rundown is.
	Yeah, because sometimes when you subpoena, especially like Google and all these things, what they do is they'll wait for the last possible day to answer the subpoena.
	So they force you to wait to 30 days.
	Like, they really make it a little rough for you to get it.
	And it's not that easy, right?
	So it's not as easy as I think a lot of people think.
	I've done it a couple of times.
	It's been very tough.
	Some of the accounts were known, and if it's not easy, that's fine.
	Some of the accounts were known, but it's just tough sometimes.
	Yeah, and you're right.
	It could be very difficult.
	There's two arguments that you go with.
	One of them is, well, I'm sorry, the state, that it's very difficult for you to get evidence.
	But if you can't bring the evidence, then my client's not guilty and you know it.
	And then the other hard part for them is, well, you got Corey Washington in here.
	You got this guy.
	You found him.
	You brought him in.
	He's here.
	The rundown, you could have found the rundown.
	People were telling me in the chat about the rundown.
	I've never even heard of this guy.
	They're like, oh, the rundown is blah, blah, blah, blah.
	And I was like, oh, okay, whatever.
	So you could get one guy.
	You can't get the other.
	Where's all this video?
	Now, a lot of the video they used is from Corey Washington.
	That's what I found to be interesting.
	He had so much video that night, and he was there for a lot of it.
	So that's that.
	The other thing is, you only really need to get to people who are strongly editorializing their videos.
	Corey Washington had a lot of commentary about what was going on, and the rundown guy, though, is narrating the whole thing, and it's like, you gotta get that guy in, or you've gotta object to all of the audio of his videos.
	But that's Preston's impression now.
	Say that again?
	No, but I'm saying, it'll be tough if he's recording himself, his impressions of the thing in the moment.
	Oh, Preston's impression.
	That's the person's impression.
	He's like, oh my god, the person just got shot.
	It's an exception to the hearsay rule.
	It might even come in.
	I'm going to bring this up just because I saw it and I don't want to pretend that I didn't see it.
	How do you split the Super Chats with your guests?
	Full disclosure, only Barnes and I split the Super Chats for our weekly streams and the only reason I don't split Super Chats for these spontaneous streams, it becomes immensely complicated.
	And so what I just take for granted is that when I go on with Nick and I punt on there or I go to Eric Hundley, none of us ever talk about splitting Super Chats because it becomes impossible to manage otherwise.
	And this is a mutual community that we hopefully, you know, raise each other's ships in the rising tide.
	So full disclosure, with Barnes and I, we split them every week and that's just because it's easy to calculate and it is not, you know, immensely difficult.
	Okay, now we're going to keep it under three hours, people.
	So another 12 minutes, and then we're going to...
	I don't know.
	So next week, what do we expect?
	What are we waiting for?
	And how many weeks was the Rittenhouse trial called for?
	Two weeks?
	Two weeks.
	So it should, in theory, be wrapping up Friday.
	Nick, you're hoping it does not go on.
	I'm hoping it goes forever.
	Look, it's...
	It's good.
	Go ahead.
	I was just going to ask Viva, you're going to follow up on the Trump dossier thing?
	I just found that so fascinating how that indictment kind of just slipped right under the radar.
	It was just like, oh, just by the way, this person got indicted.
	Like the guy from the dossier, that guy got indicted?
	I'm so naive.
	I'm so naive.
	I'm so stupid that I don't put together it came out on November 3rd and not...
	November 1st.
	And I'm thinking like, oh, they timed it for Rittenhouse and Auburn.
	It's like, no, dude.
	They just had a fucking...
	Oh, I just...
	I did it.
	Damn it.
	Aboard!
	Aboard!
	Clip it!
	They just had an election.
	And, you know, they had a one devastating defeat in Virginia.
	And they had a near defeat in New Jersey.
	If this comes out the day before...
	Oh, yeah, you know, that small thing about Russiagate?
	Yeah, there was Russian interference to effect the election.
	It was just the Hillary...
	It makes me feel crazy because I try to explain this to people and they don't understand it.
	They don't understand that the Clinton campaign, and they just say, oh, her emails, her emails.
	It's not about her emails.
	It is about operatives within the Clinton campaign orchestrating with Russians, Danchenko.
	He was an analyst, not a Russian, though.
	Dig up, and by the way, dig up, falsify fake information to feed it to Steele, so that Steele then leaks it to the media, so the FBI runs with that story to get the credentials they need to get a FISA-approved warrant to spy on the Trump campaign.
	And if I say this, I'm the crazy person.
	Nick, Nate, you need to help me.
	How do I convince people that this is actually what happened?
	I don't know.
	I don't know.
	Out of all of Russiagate, we have one conviction and one pending criminal case, and they're both against FBI agents.
	Klein Smith is an FBI lawyer who admitted to falsifying evidence to fraudulently obtain a FISA surveillance warrant against Carter Page.
	Sussman, I don't...
	Fully appreciate the details on Sussman, but apparently he lied about the involvement of the Clinton campaign in this dossier.
	Danchenko was literally mandated and paid for by the Clinton campaign to dig up dirt on Trump, who then fabricated the information that he said he got.
	He said he got it from an anonymous call from somebody who was within the Clinton campaign.
	It was a lie.
	He basically made up fake information, fed it to Steele.
	Steele then prepared this dossier, gave it to the Clinton campaign, leaked it to the media.
	The feds then said, hey, look what's been reported in Yahoo.
	We're going to go to the FISA courts to get a warrant to spy on Trump.
	And I'm crazy.
	I'm crazy because nobody understands that this...
	I think it's just too complicated.
	I think the way you simplify it is just that...
	Because you've got so many different facts that lead to the conclusion.
	That's where it's going to break people up.
	I'm just trying to figure out how to simplify this.
	But you simplify this.
	The Clinton campaign paid for the fake dossier.
	But then nobody believes that.
	Nobody believes that.
	But that's a true fact.
	That's a fact though.
	That's a fact.
	It's something I tweeted about Rittenhouse earlier.
	It's the same thing.
	The media will spin Rittenhouse so hard, and they have been, and not only spinning Rittenhouse, they're spinning the trial so hard that when Rittenhouse walks, everybody's going to be freaking out.
	Oh, I thought the prosecution was killing it.
	Blah, blah, blah.
	This is injustice.
	We had this thing.
	It's the same thing with the Clinton email thing, or not the Clinton email thing, but the Russiagate stuff.
	They ran so hard on this narrative that it was all true, and they just, you know, what's his face?
	Mueller does his investigation for 17 years, and they're like, well, I mean, he found everything.
	Where's the prosecutions?
	Where's the prosecution?
	He couldn't prosecute anybody at all.
	But you're supposed to believe it still happened.
	It was the Washington Post.
	Yeah, they got that George Stone, but they got Roger Stone.
	They got Roger Stone and they got Papadopoulos, whatever his name was.
	George Papadopoulos, right?
	It was like both of those were lying to the Fed's charges.
	Well, but this is where I have to be sufficiently self-reflective.
	I don't much believe in the lying to the Fed's charges because it seems they can make them up against anybody.
	And maybe they made them up against Danchenko.
	Maybe.
	So I've got to approach it with the same skepticism.
	But the idea that everything they accused Trump of having done is what they did themselves.
	And that's the summary.
	But nobody wants to hear it who doesn't want to hear it.
	Yeah, I don't try to convince people.
	I always find it funny, though, when Democrats try to get that moral high ground with Joe Biden.
	And I'm like, have you guys ever looked into the past of Joe Biden?
	Like, if you're saying we compare Joe Biden to Trump, have you guys ever really just look at law school?
	Joe Biden has a history of really bad stuff.
	But I think what happens is we get on teams.
	And it's just like, whatever our guy says or does, we're just going to love it.
	Because it's like, you know, it's funny.
	I sent somebody that, I think, was it you, Viva?
	Eric sent me the video on the whole law school thing, where he was lying about the law school when he first ran for president.
	And I sent it to someone else, and that person was like, I'm not voting for Joe Biden.
	I was like, you never heard about this?
	He's like, no, why are they playing this?
	He's like, you know what, because this is oppressing.
	Nobody wants you to hear this, right?
	It's just the way, it's unfortunately the world we live in.
	The world we live in is one.
	That is just pure narrative and no facts.
	And if you want the facts, you've got to come to a place like this.
	And then it's like, you know, well, we're not a credited source.
	But the only thing we're telling you are things that are actually factually true.
	We're not spinning anything.
	To answer your question on the Rittenhouse thing, the big thing that's coming is Monday.
	That's what everybody needs to know.
	It's Monday.
	Gage Groskowitz.
	That is the...
	Big, that's the big item, big ticket item for next week because he is the prosecution's star witness.
	That's who they want.
	It's probably the last witness they're going to call.
	This is the last impression the prosecution's case-in-chief is going to leave with the jury.
	And it has the potential to be pretty explosive on cross-exam as well.
	Why'd you bring a gun?
	Did you purchase that gun legally?
	I cannot believe that they're actually going to call Gross Crowder.
	As a witness.
	If I'm prosecution, never in a million years.
	And I would object to him being called by the defense in as much as I could possibly object to that happening.
	And they're going to impeach him on cross.
	You've got to call him.
	Yeah, but they're going to rip him up on cross because of his city lawsuit.
	They're going to be like, oh, you got a big financial payout coming out on the outcome of this case, don't you?
	You're going to let that in?
	I think so.
	Explain what you're talking about right now, Nick.
	Gage Groskowitz has sued the City of Kenosha Police Department for allowing the events of that night to go on and allowing Kyle Rittenhouse to cause...
	I think it's a co-suit with maybe Huber's estate or something like that.
	So one of the things you can do to impeach a witness is you can bring up where they may have a financial interest in the outcome or the statements that they're making under oath.
	Say, well, you're saying all this because it's going to play well in your lawsuit against the city, right?
	How much are you suing the city for?
	Those types of questions might be brought up on cross.
	It could be a very fiery examination and cross-examination.
	That's the big look for you.
	I'm just asking Grocery, why do you come to a protest with a concealed firearm?
	Bottom line.
	I can tell you why.
	If you look on YouTube, New York Times, Kenosha, or New York Times, Kyle's shooting.
	And he's in there.
	He gives an interview.
	And he says why.
	He says that it's his constitutional Second Amendment right to have a gun.
	That's what he said.
	And if that's his answer, so then you say, so Kyle has the same right, right?
	And if you pull your gun on him, does he have the same constitutional right to kill you in self-defense?
	I mean, it writes itself, because if that's his answer, I have a constitutional...
	But by the way, in Kenosha, does he have the right for a concealed carry?
	I think he has a permit, right?
	I think he has a concealed carry license.
	I've seen a picture of what alleges to be it.
	And that's one of the narratives that has been confusing on the internet because everybody says that Groskowitz is a felon and can't own a firearm.
	Yeah, that was my next question.
	But I do not believe he's ever been convicted of a felony and has lost his gun rights.
	I think he's been accused of and maybe arrested for, but he got dismissals or something.
	But I have not seen a conviction for him.
	And Anglo Zonk says, Viva, are you any relation to Binger?
	Bit of a haircut and a shave, and you look similar, greeting some torn away Scotland, loving the stream.
	I assure you, I have no relation to Binger, either tangentially, and by the way, if you shave everyone bald, everyone looks quite the same.
	That's why they do it as part of the process of indoctrination and transformation.
	But before we go, I do have one question.
	Do you think Rittenhouse is going to testify?
	Because his attorney made it seem like he was going to testify in opening.
	He was like, would you all hear from Mr. Rittenhouse?
	I was like, you're going to hear from Mr. Rittenhouse?
	What the hell are you talking about?
	But it seems like they're putting him up to testify.
	I hope that was just a misspeak.
	Like, I cannot see any benefit.
	The only thing I can see you calling for is his state of mind, but we all know his state of mind.
	His state of mind is implied by the fact that he's claiming self-defense.
	We don't need him to testify to these specific facts.
	I think it's a bad move if they do.
	I can't figure out.
	Maybe he's going to testify to crying about shooting people.
	But even if he does something like that, you're straying into character evidence.
	They're going to get in the fight.
	They're going to get in that video of him saying at a CVS that he would shoot those people.
	And that stuff just doesn't need to come.
	I'm going to say it right here and I'm going to clip it for tomorrow.
	They're not going to call him because they're going to see the social media and the aggregate knowledge of the internet saying, do not call him because there's no practical benefit to calling him.
	And if they do call him and he gets exploited by prosecution, they will have been warned.
	He should never testify.
	I am thoroughly convinced by the explanation given by a lot of people who I think are smarter than me on the subject.
	He should never testify.
	I don't think he's going to testify.
	I don't think they're going to need him to testify because they might get it dismissed before that even comes up.
	But even then, he should never testify.
	The only question is this.
	Nick, Nate.
	Nick with the koof there, that's going to jump over Nate and get to me.
	I'm joking.
	Predictions.
	Conviction, Rittenhouse.
	Conviction, Ahmaud Arbery.
	Although Arbery is much earlier on the stage, how do you think it's going to go?
	I think Rittenhouse wins on all his major charges, either through dismissal or acquittal, or at worst, a hung jury mistrial.
	I think...
	Unless he can get the gun charge dismissed, which is still technically pending before the judge, I think he does get convicted of the gun charge because very quickly, the jury instructions are basically, is he under 18?
	Does he have what is a dangerous weapon under the statute?
	A rifle is.
	So that's why I think he's got to get that one dismissed, and I think it should be, but we'll see.
	It's a misdemeanor, so if he is convicted, it's probably not going to be that big of a deal.
	And I think they nail him on the curfew charge, obviously, because he was...
	Clearly violating the curfew.
	He'll pay the fine.
	Yeah, and I don't think they're going to try and make a massive First Amendment right argument on the curfew thing.
	So that's my prediction, is that they'll nail him on curfew, they may get him on the gun unless it gets dismissed, but all other charges he wins.
	Yeah, I'm in lockstep with Nick.
	Except I think I would...
	I would underhandedly try to get the curfew charge thrown out, because I would have asked everybody who was there, everybody who they brought up on the stand, who was at the event, hey, you've been obviously charged with violent curfew, right?
	No, okay, you've obviously been charged too.
	So all those people that the prosecution has up to give the jury the chance to nullify that, to say, hey, if they didn't charge anybody, why are they charging this guy?
	You know, that type of thing.
	But yeah, I think it's right with all the charges.
	With the stupid curfew thing.
	I mean, the cops saw him there with a gun within 30 minutes of curfew and nobody said anything.
	I mean, that's...
	I won't say tacit acceptance because you can't actually override the law, but that creates an expectation that you're not going to be prosecuted or even fined.
	No, I think we're all in agreement on...
	Yeah, Castle Rock v.
	Gonzalez.
	The police don't have to arrest you.
	They don't have to do anything.
	It's the scarce resources of the state.
	Even if there is a court order that says the police shall go through everything to enforce this order and they don't, it doesn't matter.
	But how about if they implicitly allow you to be there?
	I mean, the cops tend to win on selective prosecution all the time because the idea...
	30 people are speeding.
	Why'd you pull me over?
	You're not pulling anybody else over.
	But you were speeding.
	What I love is that both of you go to Castle Rock and I have no idea what you're talking about.
	It's a Supreme Court case.
	Yeah, it's a Supreme Court case and I think you and I disagree on one point of it because I'm pretty sure you said that it was a brilliantly written Supreme Court case by Scalia.
	I like Scalia.
	And I go, it's one of the worst cases this scumbag has ever written.
	Even though I love him.
	I love Scalia, but man, I hate that.
	It's just such a horrific and ugly case that you hate it.
	You should read it sometime, D-Vet.
	Just not on stream.
	No, for sure.
	It might be what I do when I want to fall asleep tonight or when I want to convince my wife to avoid me for the next week.
	No, if you're doing that, just watch my live stream about it.
	Because I read through the whole case.
	I can do that.
	Nothing like your voice and my wife's ear before we go to bed.
	That's what I'm working on.
	Can a judge overturn jury verdicts?
	Yes.
	But now the question is this.
	Ahmaud Arbery, we haven't gotten into the facts too much.
	Just making a random petition.
	Nate, I know what you said on Twitter, but repeat it so it can be held for you or against you.
	Well, right now, based on the facts that are now, which if they do change, my opinion is going to change.
	But based on the facts I have now, I think conviction is probably likely.
	I think the conviction on the murder, because this is more or less a self-defense claim too, but their self-defense claim is built on the whole theory that they were conducting a citizen's arrest.
	They said that even in opening, but you can't make a citizen's arrest if you don't know what you're arresting a person for and based on the fact that they're running down the street and someone's pointing.
	So I think if that's all they got, then self-defense, it's legally tough to overcome.
	So if the facts don't change, I see a conviction of felony murder for all those guys.
	Yeah, I think right now I agree.
	When I talked to Andrew Branca about it months and months and months ago, there were some...
	There were some different facts than what we've got now as things have become a little more clear and things have come out.
	And he had made a very compelling case for self-defense.
	I think he might actually still be on the idea that they're going to get off.
	Basically on the fact that Arbery charges McMichaels.
	But I see a lot of evidence of provocation that involves them basically chasing this guy through a neighborhood.
	And they may think that they're justified, but that's going to come down to what Nate said.
	If they think they're making a citizen's arrest, they have to know what they're arresting for, and they apparently don't.
	I think they're going to nail them, all three, the McMichaels and Roddy or whatever.
	I think they're toast.
	I'll only make the one minor prediction is that the Roddy guy who was filming it, he might get off.
	But McMichaels, the father and the son, felony murder.
	Now that we know what we know about felony murder, given the showman trial.
	Yeah, one for murder.
	I know you guys hate felony murder.
	I want to bring this up.
	I remember when I told him about felony murder.
	He was like, is that for real?
	No, no.
	Now that I know felony murder, I won't say preposterous because under this circumstance, I can sort of understand it, except with the guy filming.
	But when you're all here, please talk about...
	Oh, while you're all here, please talk about OSHA vaccine management circuit.
	No.
	Because we're doing that Monday night with Robert Barnes.
	Tonight, this will end the evening.
	I could do this forever, people.
	I could do this forever.
	And with gentlemen like you, it would be easy.
	But I hear footsteps upstairs.
	So this might be the time to call it a night.
	Let's go.
	Nate, where do people find you?
	Because everyone knows who you are.
	But just in case they don't, where do they find you?
	Nate the lawyer.
	That's it.
	Type in U.S. soccer.
	I'm equal to you.
	You can find me at uswomensoccerdoesntdeserveanymoney.com And you'll see my picture.
	Yes, yes, yes.
	But Nate Deloria, that's it.
	Just type it in Google.
	You'll find me.
	And hopefully you guys will enjoy my stuff.
	Nick, everyone knows you, but just in case...
	You can find me at Ricada Law on YouTube.
	And I will be covering, again, if you're looking for full coverage of the Rittenhouse streams, they'll be starting.
	I try to start them at 8.45 a.m. Central Time on Monday.
	And we will be trying to watch every single minute of this trial.
	And lots of times other lawyers join me.
	So hopefully more will join on Monday.
	And yeah, come check it out.
	Awesome.
	And Nick, I will be there if I can and if I'm invited.
	And everyone who's watching this is wondering why it's sideways and not like this.
	Oh, look out.
	I don't even know what just happened there.
	The internet sucks in Canada.
	It might be Trudeau trying to shut us down, but I don't know.
	That's right.
	I've been on my iPhone the entire time, so I've been having trouble getting the chats in, but I think I've done my best.
	Gentlemen, thank you very much for coming.
	This has been a wonderful Saturday night.
	I would say stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.
	I'm going to try it.
	If we lose each other, my apologies.
	But everyone in the chat, Monday morning on Nick's channel, Rittenhouse.
	Nate, you're covering Ahmaud Arbery Monday morning.
	Ahmaud Arbery.
	Whichever trial you're more interested in, you have your two lawyers.
	I might try to do something at some point during the day, but whatever.
	We'll see what happens.
	Everyone, enjoy your Saturday night.
	No stream tomorrow with Robert.
	It's Monday evening, 7 o 'clock.
	So, gentlemen, guys, stick around.
	We'll see if we can say goodbye.
	But otherwise, everyone else, peace.

▲