Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 8, 2021 - Viva & Barnes

02:23:39

Ep. 86: Rittenhouse & Arbery; Project Veritas? Baldwin Lawsuit; Baby Shark & MORE! Viva & Barnes

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Can we just appreciate that there were 26,000 people watching a trial live on Nick Ricada's channel today?
	It's an actual beautiful thing to see.
	People want this information and they seek it out.
	And they don't even know the information is there to be sought out in the first place.
	And it's only as a result of this amazingly This magnificent ecosystem that we have created on YouTube, this legal ecosystem, that people are now discovering it, and you watched from day one.
	Wait a minute, am I live?
	Are we live?
	Okay.
	You watched from day one, when Ricada started streaming live, and he had his base and his subs that were watching, and, you know, everyone else who knew where to find it.
	As it goes along, and he brings in other people to his channel, you start spreading the tentacles of knowledge out there.
	And a week later, there were more people watching lawyers reacting to the Rittenhouse trial on Rakata's channel than there were on...
	I can't think of the other mainstream media channel.
	It was a mainstream media outlet.
	It was not the Washington Post or NBCUniversal.
	It had 19,000 people watching it.
	Point my mic up.
	Let me see that.
	What did I just see here?
	Okay.
	It was amazing, and it was fun to watch.
	I've been watching it through Rikada and periodically popping in for the last week.
	It's amazing.
	You post some clips on Twitter, and people are like, hey, where can I watch the trial?
	As if they didn't even know, because they didn't, that you could watch the trial in its native format, let alone in its entertaining format, which is watching real lawyers with real personalities.
	Respond to it in real time.
	It's amazing.
	Well, we've got a big stream tonight.
	We didn't do last week's stream.
	What am I saying?
	We didn't do the Sunday stream for last week's trial, so we'll recap the trial of last week, although I put out a Viva on the Street recap on Friday.
	We're definitely going to recap today, and then we're going to talk about some other things.
	On the menu, we've got some updates in the Alec Baldwin situation.
	We have got...
	What are the other ones?
	Project Veritas, man.
	Once upon a time, I don't know if I have become black-pilled like my shirt, jaded, cynical.
	Once upon a time, I think I trusted the FBI to be enforcers, not necessarily enforcers of law, but preventers or investigators of criminality.
	Where now I think I'm getting the impression that they might be the purveyors of criminality.
	Knowing what we have seen, In the Danchenko indictment, Russiagate from day one.
	And now, lo and behold, the FBI is raiding the offices of journalists of Project Veritas over a stolen diary.
	Nuts.
	Okay, so standard intros.
	By the way, YouTube takes 30% to Super Chat, so if you don't like that and you don't want to support YouTube, you can go watch us on Rumble.
	We're live streaming on Rumble as well.
	Rumble has the equivalent of Super Chats called Rumble Rants.
	Rumble takes 20%, so it's better.
	I feel better supporting a company.
	Very good these days.
	Or at least very good to some means not getting or not impeding them or, you know, striking them.
	Not so good to others.
	Eric Hundley had a problem with his channel, but that was more copyright abuse than censorship.
	Let's see, we've got Little Rock, and then the next thing is, I will not get to all your Super Chats, so if you're going to be miffed, if I don't bring it up and read it, don't give it.
	I don't like people feeling rooked, rilled, shilled, whatever it is.
	Or, what's Nick's word?
	Grifted.
	I don't like people feeling grifted, so if you'll feel miffed, don't do it.
	I genuinely appreciate all the support.
	Yes, you are live, and good evening, Viva Little Rock.
	I hope you're doing well.
	By the way, does anyone notice?
	I put it in 720 HD, and it's very, very smooth.
	It's like, whoa.
	Feels very much higher quality.
	Let me get some super chats while we get Barnes in.
	Oh, wow.
	The chat is a little...
	I put it on 15-second slow-mo just because I wanted to let a little more discussion in.
	Nick Ricada calls slow-mo commie mode, but I like it better.
	In his house at Early Aid Dead...
	Waits Dreaming.
	I don't know what that is.
	As someone from Wisconsin, I appreciate the different lawyers reacting and giving their views.
	Because, you know, by and large, you may lack the expertise in the specific interpretation of the specific criminal provisions at issue.
	You may not know exactly the procedure for any given state.
	But there's some stuff that's higher level stuff that is, you know, pretty much any lawyer who's got reasonable judgment.
	Reasonable credentials and reasonable experience can offer some reasonable insights into.
	What is crazy is that misinformation is still everywhere.
	People still say Kyle Rittenhouse carried a weapon across state lines or that had no right to be there.
	No right to be there, question of interpretation, question of opinion, right in the legal sense.
	He probably had the legal right to be there but had no business being there is probably more colloquially what people mean.
	Carried it across state lines might be somewhat semantics when we know that his friend bought him the gun and kept it in Wisconsin so he didn't cross over from Illinois.
	But yeah, misinformation everywhere.
	I mean, it's nuts.
	And the media not reporting on certain things.
	F for being 24 hours late.
	Just kidding.
	Just glad you guys didn't skip this week entirely.
	No, we can't.
	There's just too much.
	I feel like I want to complain about something out of Canada.
	Is there something to complain about out of Canada?
	We had our mayoral elections yesterday.
	I'm in Westmount, so not, strictly speaking, Montreal.
	So we don't have the same mayor because Westmount is its own city.
	Montreal is its own city.
	But it's more of the same in terms of local municipal politics.
	Was going to comment, but you confirmed it.
	Looks much better.
	Thanks.
	Okay, Letharon Prom, thank you very much for the advice because it feels better.
	It feels smoother.
	Although maybe now you're seeing too much of my blemishes.
	Pimples.
	A 40-year-old adult gets pimple.
	42 years old.
	This has been a glorious week of law to live through.
	Can you and Barnes go over all the pills and meanings?
	Red pill, blue pill, black pill, white pill, etc.
	Blue pill.
	You go back to living in your willful blindness, comfortable reality.
	You're unaware of the actual reality.
	Red pill, you come out of your perceived reality and you realize that there's a system that you have been pacified into being a wheel in.
	Black pill is having lost faith, where you are red-pilled and you discover reality and then black pill, you no longer have faith in reality or you no longer have faith in anything.
	White pill is when you get your optimism back through an event or a moment.
	That leads you to believe that even though the reality that you've been brought out of is, what's the word, is, you know, full of delusion, lies, deceit, and corruption, that there is still some hope and salvation in it.
	And let's see, that's it.
	And then there's another pill, Jagged Little Pill.
	That was Alanis Morissette's introductory album, which was a great one.
	All right, well, I see Robert in here, and I don't want to waste too much time.
	No rant this week, people, because we've got to talk some law.
	Robert, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	Everyone, tell me if the audio is bad between the two of us.
	It sounds good to me.
	Robert, I presume, I mean, there are some of the lawyers who are doing the YouTube commentary who don't practice law on a daily basis.
	I know that you do, and quite thoroughly.
	But you're staying up to speed on everything that's been going on in Rittenhouse?
	Yes, yeah, and McMichael, because of the certain legal and political parallels between the two of them, though I believe Rittenhouse has a stronger case, as I've said all the way through.
	I mean, I think it's twofold.
	What the law of self-defense guy said before the trial started was that the only way he saw Kyle getting convicted of anything meaningful Was if either Kyle testified and it went sideways for some reason, or there was a rogue jury.
	And that was my view, of course, as well.
	And now people have seen why I believed what I believed.
	In other words, my view was that even a mediocre defense presentation wouldn't lose the case as long as the jury selection was good and there wasn't an undue risk of Kyle testifying, because what everybody's got to see...
	I already knew.
	You know, the state does not have a single good witness.
	It just doesn't.
	Well, okay, let's not get too far ahead of it, because we'll start from the beginning.
	I want you to explain directed verdicts to everybody, what the origin of the word means, but before we can get there, opening statements, day one and day two, people think you have a personal grudge against a lawyer, which you might, but that doesn't mean you're wrong.
	Uh, I think pretty much the consensus day one and day two went not well for the defense, but it's the time when the prosecution can say what it wants until such time as the evidence shows that the evidence shows what the prosecution says, the evidence is going to show, which brings me to the opening statement,
	When he says the evidence will show this, what for anyone who's been paying attention is an outright Falsehood on its face from the get-go.
	Are there ethical issues?
	Was Binger pushing the line with that particular statement, that one particular statement?
	Well, he's a prosecutor, so he lies.
	That's basically what the job is.
	And he's been lying about Kyle all the way through trial, all the way up before trial.
	I mean, he lied about him, about the Proud Boys.
	He lied about him, about the militia.
	He lied about him, about his use of gestures.
	He lied about him, about...
	Bail issues.
	I mean, he just lied and lied and lied and lied and lied.
	So, no shock.
	I mean, what I think I said before trial, Binger will lie at trial.
	That's what Binger does.
	Unfortunately, there's rarely consequences in Wisconsin or anywhere else for prosecutors that get caught lying.
	So, he will interpret the video, which apparently the FBI has now found the HD version of, that they had lost.
	They're like, golly gee, look at this.
	We don't all take aggregate credit, but is there some element of now they're feeling actual public pressure to actually not conceal things that they might have gotten away with concealing but for the massive amount of attention on this?
	Yeah, credit to Jack Posobiec in particular who highlighted this.
	Will Chamberlain at Human Events who highlighted this.
	So this was the kind of evidence that was only going to be turned over.
	If there was enough blowback in the court of public opinion that made the FBI look bad.
	And there was.
	And they can watch the case like anybody else.
	Both the McMichael case and the Rittenhouse case, much more so even than the Chauvin case, were cases where you had a media narrative that was totally fake.
	That was never going to be vindicated at trial.
	In all three cases.
	The question was, was the factual narrative that came out of trial, would jurors acquit or not?
	Because of the lasting influence of that fake media narrative.
	I mean, like, I'll give a random example.
	There was a liberal media polling agency polled about COVID misinformation.
	And it said, look at all these people who believe in COVID misinformation on the political right.
	And you look at the questions that they're asking, the misinformation is the questions themselves.
	It's not the people who believe.
	And the answer is because they actually believe in accurate information.
	But it's just a sign of the power of an early narrative.
	Once shaped, you know, first impressions, last impressions.
	That kind of dynamic.
	But it was always the case that they did not have a case against Kyle Rittenhouse.
	Honestly, it sounds like they really don't have much of a case, a very limited case, against the McMichaels.
	People can argue about what kind of case they had against Chauvin.
	I didn't think they had some of the top count cases in terms of what happened at trial.
	But these are all cases where social media and the media made up stories.
	That's why you had the Young Turks apologizing, kind of apologizing.
	The dishonest apology is things were said.
	And this is actually now the case.
	As opposed to, I was wrong.
	I don't know why those words are so hard for people to say.
	I was wrong.
	I may have jumped the gun a little bit.
	And you don't save face by doing that.
	You actually earn credibility.
	Of course.
	And so that's why, particularly for Rittenhouse, but that's true.
	I say this about pretty much every case, but the media narrative was never going to come true.
	The real narrative was a narrative that would mostly vindicate the defendants.
	And the big question was avoiding a rogue jury or doing something dumb like putting your own...
	It's clear now.
	It should be clear now why I believed what I believed then.
	But now everybody should see why.
	There's absolutely no need for Kyle to take the stand.
	I mean, you have all the video evidence.
	Now you not only have, I mean, credit Richie McGinnis.
	That is an all-time classic answer.
	He has gone into the Hall of Fame for witness answers in a live trial.
	So hold on.
	So we got, there were two, you know, the two mic drop moments.
	And the one was from today, which was the highlight I put out from Ricada Stream where...
	He's gross-wit.
	He couldn't help him.
	He lied all the way through all night, and he was lying so much that day that he tried to shoot and kill Kyle Rittenhouse.
	He lied to the cops left and right that the prosecutor said, whatever you do, please, God, don't get his phone.
	Whatever you do, don't get his phone.
	We don't want to know how many more lies might be exposed on that phone for this commie wannabe.
	And then he gets up today.
	And, you know, he's getting hammered on cross-examination.
	Very good cross-examination today by...
	I never get his last name right.
	I know him as Corey from Madison.
	Sharfezi.
	That's why, man.
	That's a tough name.
	Wisconsin is the...
	Capital of tough names.
	Then when I went to law school there, I learned never to announce anybody's last name.
	It was like Budzinski or Budzinski.
	I was like, what the heck?
	Where do you come up with these names?
	It was all first names.
	Too many Polish names and Czech names.
	If I had to guess, Sharfizi is probably Lebanese.
	If I don't know better, that would be my wildest guess.
	Yeah, no, his cross was great.
	And, like, lured him into it, got him into the sense where he just...
	Worked him down, too, so that he was just saying yes.
	And if you really work somebody, you catch them lying, lying, lying.
	By the end of it, they say anything you want because you beat them down psychologically so bad, they just capitulate and they fold.
	So, I mean, and everybody who didn't see it, I'll put out the highlights tomorrow, but you got, today was Grosskraut, who was the star witness.
	And the funny thing is, in French, crut is literally like dog poop, and gros is big, so like Grosskraut is like big dog poop, although it's Grosskraut.
	Either way, that was my joke that I've been holding in all day.
	He gets up, and they at first depict him, quite successfully so, as someone who is there just like Rittenhouse.
	To administer first aid to people to help out if there's a need.
	He brought his unlawful concealed carry because his license had expired.
	He was administering first aid and he was just a good boy who saw what he perceived to be an active shooter and was going to...
	He didn't want to say he was going to kill him, but he was going to.
	Then it comes out that...
	He's not such a good boy, after all.
	He is not a member of some group, I don't know what the group is, but affiliated with this group where he gave talk about, like, you know, tear down his...
	He's an active, violent, revolutionary communist, for those people who don't know.
	And more simply put.
	So, he's that.
	He's there with an unlawful, concealed carry, with a bullet in the chamber.
	And he chases down Kyle, even though he doesn't want to, and he only gets shot in the arm when he has the gun in his hand, is pointing it at Kyle, and that's when Kyle shoots him.
	And that was the mic drop moment of the day.
	And it was nice work getting there.
	But people on Twitter being, you know, confirmation bias, easier to fool than to make them realize they've been fooled, they'll say, well, okay, that only explains Grosskraut then.
	What about Rosenbaum?
	Then you get to the McGinnis mic drop moment.
	And Rob, you feel that one because I've been talking for long.
	Yeah, so Binger, Little Binger, as our audience at Locals declared him, Little Binger after Little Finger from Game of Thrones.
	A very apropos name.
	Tailex even has some good memes on that.
	So his ego got the better of him.
	I mean, he dresses like a defense lawyer.
	I mean, when my brother-in-law looked, he thought Binger was the defense lawyer.
	Because, you know, he's got purple ties and, you know, colorful things.
	He keeps putting on Star Wars pins on his vest and his suits.
	Just, you know, that's who this guy is.
	Family connected is Jack Posobiec exposed to a whole bunch of politicians in Kenosha that are behind this whole thing.
	But he basically, you know, gets egotistical with Richie McGinnis.
	And people don't know Richie McGinnis is the Daily Caller journalist who was right behind Kyle at the time of the shooting with Rosenberg.
	Eloquent and comfortable behind the camera, unlike most witnesses.
	Oh, absolutely.
	And if you'd watched him, and I'd watched all of his interviews prior to this, he'd been on Tucker, he'd been on Tim Pool, did a great breakdown.
	Tim Pool did a great breakdown with him.
	It was clear that while everything else for Kyle was proven by video, the only thing that wasn't was the very moment he fires at Rosenbaum.
	And so that was the only risk from a factual perspective, from the defense perspective.
	I'll get into what the other risks really are in this case.
	And that was where McGinnis was huge.
	And so Richie McGinnis testifying...
	What he'd been telling people in advance, which was that he thought Kyle acted in self-defense because how Rosenbaum was behaving towards him.
	Rosenbaum was running towards him.
	It appeared a group of people were running towards him.
	There were shots fired right behind him, right behind Rittenhouse.
	He didn't know where they came from.
	He turned around, looked like it may have came from the individual, which is Joseph Rosenbaum, who earlier that night had told Kyle, if I get you alone, I will kill you.
	And that...
	Yes.
	And these are facts that even I were not totally familiar with.
	I didn't know Zeminski fired his gun in the air first, although I heard it, just didn't really understand the proximity.
	And Zeminski is friends with Rosenbaum, as will come out more, or was partnering with him that night.
	This was a deliberate effort to scare, terrorize, ambush, and kill Kyle Rittenhouse.
	And their attention would have turned elsewhere if they had been...
	Except for Kyle being able to successfully defend himself, and in my view, Kenosha that night.
	And so, well, of course, Little Binger is agitated by Richie's testimony about what took place, that this was in fact, you know, after that he was lunging for the gun.
	That's particularly what made Little Binger all upset.
	That Rosenbaum, at the time he was shot, was lunging for the gun.
	And so Little Binger got up there and he asked one too many questions.
	And he used the word so, which is always a tell that you're about to say something stupid.
	And he said, so, you admit you have no idea what was going on in Rosenbaum's mind at that moment, right?
	And he went on a mini lecture.
	And Richie McGinnis said, well, other than him saying F you and lunging for the gun, then, you know, that's about all I know.
	And so it was good.
	It was almost more of a mic drop.
	He says, so you don't know what he was thinking, do you?
	He says, well, he said F you and then lunged for the gun.
	And that was it.
	And then Binger just tries to change the subject as quickly as possible.
	It was the moment in a civil action when Robert Duvall says never.
	The why is not the question.
	It's just never ask a question unless you know the answer.
	And there's times where you have to take a calculated gamble, but that was not one of those times.
	And Richie McGinnis basically summed up the only factual issue and doubt from outside of the video is what happened at the time Kyle initially fired.
	And he made it clear Kyle fired right as Rosenbaum was screaming in a blood-curdling scream, F you.
	The same Rosenbaum who said, I'm going to kill you if I get you alone.
	The same Rosenbaum who then lunged for the gun.
	And so would that put a reasonable person in fear of imminent risk of great bodily harm?
	I think most jurors would say yes.
	No, no, most jurors.
	The other witness said yes.
	I would have reacted differently had that been me.
	They said they were going to get us alone or they were going to get him alone and end his life.
	And I would have reacted differently as well.
	How he ended up alone, another issue.
	So those two mic drop moments.
	Explain the Rosenbaum, and like you said, the Rosenbaum aspect of it could have been factually a little more difficult because Rosenbaum didn't have a gun and wasn't striking him physically, but we now know was mentally unhinged, and I'm saying that non-judgmentally.
	They have not gotten into evidence his criminal past, which, though pertinent to understanding his frame of mind, was not pertinent to understanding Rittenhouse's response, but it gets into evidence that...
	Within two and a half seconds of Zeminski firing the gun in the air, Rosenbaum screams, F you, and lunges, not for Zeminski's gun, but for Rittenhouse's gun.
	And that's when the shot in the back, Robert, oh, thank goodness I remembered.
	Binger, take another lie, because that's a lie, the way it was phrased.
	It was shot in the back, has a specific connotation, if not in law, at the very least, in fact.
	And when you find out that the fourth shot in the back that was one that killed him...
	Only hit him in the back because he was falling forward, and it went one, two, three, and then the fourth one hit him coming down in the back as he fell forward, and the four shots came off in three quarters of a second.
	That attenuates the rather bold statement that Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum in the back.
	So, total mic drop moments, but here, could Grosskreutz be prosecuted for concealing his gun, threatening Kyle, and lying to cops?
	Of course, of course.
	And they just chose not to.
	Is it too late tonight?
	Huh?
	Would it be too late for that now?
	Oh, it wouldn't necessarily, but given their choices to date, highly unlikely.
	All right.
	I mean, so opening statements, I think I know how you felt about them, but you talked about it elsewhere, but for those who may not have seen it, your impressions of opening statements, prosecution and defense?
	So, I mean, Binger does a good opening because he's a liar, but he's also a narrator.
	And so now the weakness he had is the facts in the case.
	I mean, this is what Nick Riccata, others have pointed out.
	The facts are just not on his side.
	And that was always going to come out at trial.
	So his only hope was either a runaway jury, to use the John Grisham book and movie reference.
	The book was better because the movie, they changed it to a gun control thing, which I thought was lame.
	But the jury aspects are very interesting and more accurate than people would know.
	Good movie.
	Almost every Grisham story is a good story.
	Risk were runaway jury or Rittenhouse, Kyle getting on the stand and something going AWOL for that reason.
	Because the facts were just overwhelmingly against him.
	And the witnesses, they don't have a single sympathetic witness.
	So he had to tell a story that was really to a biased jury.
	And that's what he's been doing from the very beginning.
	He knows his case is weak.
	So he's telling a different story for a different audience.
	And he told the story for his audience.
	And thus was an effective opening in that sense.
	It wasn't an effective opening for persuading people who see Kyle as innocent or presume Kyle as innocent.
	It was only a persuasive opening for those who presume Kyle guilty.
	But because of how he's worked the court of public opinion, that was already where the jury pool was.
	A random jury pool was oriented that direction in Kenosha.
	On the defense side of closing with Richards, what I told Riccate is that Richards' skill set is facts.
	His skill set is not narration.
	His skill set's not law.
	He's not a researcher.
	I call him fact lawyers.
	Well, actually, other lawyers called him fact lawyers when I was growing up.
	In other words, not a smooth talker and not a persuader like Binger, because Binger is smooth.
	He comes off like a Gary Oldman character with the Stephen Colbert voice.
	Well-dressed, well-groomed.
	Richards, I'm not saying this to be critical, is not.
	And everyone has their strengths and their skill set and their weaknesses.
	Binger is fact-based and not persuasion-based.
	With Richards, he remembers all facts.
	If the facts naturally fit into a narrative, he does well.
	When they deviate from that narrative, he does not because he doesn't naturally put facts within a narrative structure.
	Also, evidentiary objections would not be a strong point because he's just not a law guy.
	When I was coming in law school, we used to describe lawyers as either fact lawyers or law lawyers.
	What we meant by that is the fact guys were the guys that were really good.
	With the facts in all aspects of a case, in terms of developing them, learning them, communicating them, etc.
	Whereas law guys were the research guys, the writing guys, the conceptual guys, the abstract guys, who were good in law school, good writing briefs, good researching arguments, things of that nature.
	But that was more their strong point.
	He's just a fat guy, but he's a fat guy that's very linear and literal in his thinking.
	So it's not a surprise he gets directions wrong, which he talks about.
	It appears as though my volume has been low.
	Is my volume better now, people?
	I figured out something where I actually figured out how to raise my volume.
	Let's see, very quick, before we carry on, is this volume better?
	I will talk normally.
	Mic check one, two.
	Let me get to the comments.
	Yes.
	Viva, you missed Freedom Pills.
	Freedom Pills.
	Okay, so the audio is better.
	If I have to bring it up again, let me know, people.
	My apologies.
	Okay, if it's a little better, let me just go.
	Camera.
	Audio, mic volume.
	Here, I'll bring it up to 94, people.
	Is this better?
	We're going to have a Rakata moment, except I won't lose my temper and I'm going to try to fix it.
	Oh, it's so funny when Nick throws nuts.
	He's doing his 10-hour things and he has a very interesting, aggressive chat.
	And so they will...
	I think he got up to almost 30,000 live today.
	26,000 live today.
	What's glorious about it is the organic manner in which it builds because you bring in lawyers from all...
	All practices, all countries.
	Bring it on social media platforms, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and people find the source that they want to be hearing and they didn't even know they wanted it in the first place.
	I think we did a smooth presentation.
	Richard was more choppy, a little better at the end.
	What you got to sense was, it was my recommendation, he may have done it on his own accord anyway, to use visuals.
	I would have used them in a little bit different manner, but that's, again, just a stylistic difference.
	But I thought it was very important that he introduced to that jury the visual proof that Kyle was innocent, and he did.
	He showed him the videos and showed him the photos.
	That showed Kyle on his back getting attacked most of the night.
	Kyle's the one getting chased as Anna Kasparian finally figured out at the Young Turks, not the other way around.
	So that, I thought, was valuable, even if its narrational component wasn't his strength.
	The first full day of testimony, I thought the biggest mistake made by the defense throughout the trial happened then, which is they let in a lot of inflammatory...
	Prejudicial hearsay.
	We had super chats admitted into evidence in a criminal case.
	We're calling it, it's the editorializing of the events through witnesses or individuals who are not witnesses.
	So it's specifically the aspects of the video, which were not shot by the witness, were admitted by the witness, even though he pulled them from the internet, where the individuals in the video are saying, militia, militia, militia.
	And that's the editorializing of the content.
	So if you want the content itself, To make evidence for the content, then you have to have it admitted and testified to by the witness, which they didn't have.
	So that's the hearsay aspect.
	And Binger being like, I would not be able to put up with that nonsense as a lawyer.
	Like, oh, if I'm going to get out every time it says militia, it'll take me a long time to prepare.
	That's what the trial is about.
	And that's what prep is for.
	And do it.
	And just bleeping out the word militia.
	Doesn't do anything other than replace the word militia with something else.
	And so every time they hear the something else, the jury members hear militia nonetheless.
	So, yeah, sneaky deaky is one way of putting it.
	It was very sneaky.
	And he got a lot of stuff in like that that associated Kyle with the militia, associated Kyle with some very nasty comments.
	People who said, you know, way to take out the leftist trash right after people got shot.
	Say that again?
	Oh, no, I said he found out was one of the chats, and I didn't know what it meant, but apparently it's not.
	This is what democracy looks like, LOL.
	You know, all of those kind of very snarky, mean comments, you don't want to associate with Kyle, and that's what they were able to get in because...
	The defense, frankly, was snoozing throughout that whole thing.
	So that was not their best day.
	The day three, though, was good because that was Richie McGinnis pushing back on being her most memorable day.
	Day four was the, well, yeah, day five of the trial, but day four of substance of evidence, was the two brothers who clearly, you spotted it right away.
	The two brothers that are the sons that own the car source clearly have some creative tax issues in play with how they have financially structured their business.
	That's why they were like, oh, do I actually work there?
	I get paid there.
	No, here's the thing.
	I felt bad.
	It feels good making an observation that then people realize that they see themselves.
	I felt bad because I don't want to put that mojo in the world where these guys now might get the IRS knocking on their door and like, hey, wait a minute.
	You take a salary from Your mom's shop, but you're at your dad's shop and the inventory is overstated.
	But it was obvious.
	And it was so obvious, it should have been known by the prosecution before bringing them up on the stand.
	And if they knew it, you work your questions differently.
	I would have been tempted as a defense lawyer to just go right there, right away.
	Say, look, whatever tax problems you have, whatever civil liability problems you have, because you did hire people that night, perjury is going to be a bigger problem if you keep lying up here.
	And just hit him right at it.
	So I'm not overstepping my knowledge here.
	Had he in fact mandated the security, he exposes himself to, well, the companies, the parents, whomever.
	Serious civil liability.
	Of course.
	Of course.
	Here's what happened.
	They figured out after the first night that insurance doesn't cover riots and civil damages, civil unrest, and arson.
	And so the 2.5 million bucks they were out, they were screwed.
	So of course they're ticked and mad as all get out.
	And then there's some locals who used to work for them saying, we're willing to help.
	And what do you think they did?
	They said, yeah, bring everybody you can.
	That's why they're taking photos, smiling with them.
	Right?
	And they did give them car rides.
	They did do other things that night.
	They gave them the keys, that's for sure.
	They gave them the keys.
	But we don't know how.
	Gave them a ladder.
	Ladder?
	What ladder?
	There was no ladder.
	They must have used the tires to climb up.
	Come on.
	So these kids were just lying through their teeth all the way through.
	And it was predictable because of their legal risk in terms of their ability to recover from insurance, their ability to not be sued.
	Because what happened is somebody smart would have hired a professional security company to go down there.
	That's what you should do.
	But my guess is these people also were cheap.
	And so, you know, people who tend to do the kind of creative tax structuring these guys are obviously involved in, but maybe not the most sophisticated tax structuring, in my experience, tend to be cheap.
	And consequently, they didn't want to bear the expense of putting down actual professionals down there, and instead had a bunch of kids working for free, and then all of a sudden the shooting happens, and they're like, uh-oh.
	We could be sued for wrongful death because we hired people that weren't professional security guards to defend our property.
	And so, of course, they're going to be like, who are these people?
	What?
	Well, where do they come from?
	Oh, okay.
	Yeah, there's a text on my phone saying that they wanted to work.
	I didn't see the text.
	I don't know where that came from.
	I didn't see the text until the day after.
	Yeah, and I just gave my phone out to everybody, really.
	Thousands of people.
	And then, bro, inventory?
	This guy was the inventory manager.
	And they're like, how much damage was there?
	I don't know.
	How many cars were there?
	I don't know.
	You're the inventory manager, right?
	That's just not just like a nominal title.
	I don't know.
	I mean, oh, insurance won't cover it?
	Really?
	I had no idea.
	I mean, he's just lying.
	The second brother was so nervous.
	He just kept pretending.
	I don't remember.
	Monday?
	What's Monday?
	What's Tuesday?
	24th?
	25th?
	Those guys were a crock.
	No, but I feel, I mean, this is why I would make bad litigators, like, I still, I feel bad for them, because they are going to get caught up in their lies if they had just been honest from day one, and they supported Kyle Rittenhouse and said, yes, we asked him to be there, yes, we believe it was total self-defense,
	well, then they're absolved, and now they're hoping for a conviction in order to, I presume, Robert, if, not a conviction, I'm sorry, hoping for an acquittal, because if Kyle gets off, I presume, although it doesn't make a civil lawsuit, Much less, you know, impossible.
	It makes it a little less likely.
	Had they just been on board and upfront and straightforward from day one, they might have just said, yeah, these people are coming, burning our stuff down, causing all sorts of problems, and this was totally legitimate, and come sue us if you want.
	Good luck with your lawsuit, gross crowd, but just do that.
	Instead, quite clearly concealing things, quite clearly they have a car dealership that is using creative corporate structure, creative tax.
	Avoision, whatever you want to call it.
	And they're on stand now, and a lot of people saw it, and it's not going to go away now.
	Yeah, you could tell.
	They were like that witness that famously said, I don't know nothing, I didn't see nothing, I didn't hear nothing, and I resent being here.
	They clearly were trying to be those kind of witnesses, and they were just shaking with fear and couldn't answer basic questions.
	But for the most part, the core facts were always going to be that...
	What this case comes down to is similar to the McMichael case in this sense, which is the defense is focused on what happened at the time Kyle Rittenhouse or the McMichaels pulled the trigger.
	At that moment, did they reasonably fear for their lives?
	And if you look at the evidence, overwhelmingly it shows in both cases, but definitely, really, clearly, without question in Rittenhouse's case.
	That Kyle reasonably feared for his life at the time he pulled the trigger each and every time.
	And so what people don't understand, you can actually see this in some of the comments to our videos.
	You can see the perspective that I found in the polling, which is the focus of the prosecution isn't on the moment of the shooting.
	The focus on the prosecution is on Kyle shouldn't be there, period.
	That's their theory of the case.
	And the jurors that presume Kyle guilty, a majority of those jurors, stuck with that verdict, even when they found out the evidence wasn't what they thought it was.
	And it's because their view is they cannot get past what my law professor said, which is, why is a 17-year-old kid with a serious weapon in the middle of a riot?
	And they think, and now that's not as the law of self-defense guy pointed out.
	That's not the law of reasonableness.
	That's not the law of provocation.
	But as anybody who's done this long enough knows, the jurors rewrite jury instructions to meet their own definition of what I call the moral narrative.
	The moral narrative, that's what the book Damage is really about.
	And that's David Ball on Damage.
	This is his third edition.
	Is that the reptilian part of the brain and...
	Definition of survival informs the emotionally structured moral narratives, which are immune, frankly, from both facts and law.
	And the potential risk is, and this is why people think, man, Binger's doing a terrible job.
	No, because Binger's preaching to a different choir.
	Binger sees the chaos and all the evidence of chaos and the evidence about this being a war zone, about the evidence of these that came out in trial, about guns going off everywhere, even including evidence of Rosenbaum being mentally ill and being discharged from a mental hospital the day morning of he showed up at that place.
	He sees all of that as evidence in his favor because he sees that the more chaotic it is, the more violent it is, the more troubled people are present.
	The more it's unreasonable, in his view, for Kyle to even be present.
	And thus, he sees that as the definition of reasonableness that negates self-defense in their theory.
	That's why this case was really always all about Kyle not having to take the stand and picking the jury primarily.
	Well, the interesting thing is that, you know, I don't know how many times Binger says, and Kyle Rittenhouse was the only person that killed someone that night.
	And I'm thinking, Binger, this doesn't prove what you think it proves.
	It proves that there was something uniquely singular about what happened to Rittenhouse, that it had to escalate to that point in the first place.
	But to the point that you raised about...
	It's not normal.
	I hear an echo now.
	Darn it, I have to put them on.
	Okay, if it went away, I'll leave it.
	To the point that Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there with an AR-50 and a serious weapon in the first place.
	Another piece of evidence that I didn't know...
	Is how many people were there with AR-15s.
	Like how many people who might be qualified, who might be called a militia in the non-judgmental sense.
	The amount of people who were there with firearms to protect and to protect property and life.
	And the cops knew they were there.
	So when I see that footage of Rittenhouse and the other guys walking in front of cops with their flashing lights and nobody says a thing.
	And that there were, I don't know how many they said, dozens if not a hundred.
	Hundreds of people with guns there.
	Then I said, holy crap, my initial reaction to Rittenhouse should never have been there.
	I thought he was one of two people there with an AR-15, and that's not the case.
	So it's a very interesting thing, preaching to a different choir and telling a story that you view fundamentally different than others.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Because from my perspective, and I hope they do incorporate more of this in the defense, by closing at least, Kyle should have been there.
	Because, I mean, are we supposed to just let our towns get burned down?
	Are we supposed to let businesses get destroyed?
	Let people's dreams get crushed?
	Let people get beaten in the front of their own furniture store, which is what happened the night before in Kenosha?
	Allow the police to abandon part of the town to lawlessness and criminality?
	Somebody should stand up.
	Somebody should step up.
	And Kyle did.
	It's sad that it took a 17-year-old kid to be the one to stand up.
	It's sad it took a 17-year-old kid to be the one to step up.
	But who is that on?
	That's on the mayor.
	That's on the governor.
	That's on the politicians.
	That's on the police, who were not there that night.
	Who chose not to go in that night.
	Even after people got beaten in front of their own stores.
	And that's why I saw this as an attack on Kenosha.
	And Kyle was not just defending the life.
	It wasn't just self-defense of Kyle.
	It was self-defense of Kenosha.
	It was self-defense of middle America from criminal lawlessness.
	However, the reality is liberal Democrats see it totally differently.
	Liberal Democrats see it as the kid shouldn't have been there, and the kid provoked everything by even being there in the first place.
	That's why, for example, Binger welcomes the evidence about Rosenbaum making threats all night.
	He's like, oh, this guy was really a 5 '3", meaningless little lunatic.
	I mean, not that anyone's going to make an expertise in body BMI, but 5 '3", fine.
	150 is pretty solid for 5 '3".
	I'm 5 '5 and a half and weigh 160, and I'm relatively well built.
	That's a stocky dude.
	150, it's not nothing.
	It's not a 110 wet type thing.
	What it shows is the disparity of perception.
	So for most people that follow from a certain linear perspective and a right of self-defense perspective, everything Rosenbaum did reinforces Kyle's self-defense.
	From the perspective of the sort of liberal democrat type, they're like, this is just a poor little crazy guy who's trying to make a difference, who shouldn't have been shot and killed for being there.
	The other person who shot and killed him shouldn't have been there.
	That's their mindset.
	That's their mentality.
	And they see that evidence as reinforcing their narrative.
	That's why you're seeing two totally, like this would be a great, would have been a great case for parallel juries, which is what you have is you have jurors who are watching the case and are giving you feedback.
	And because it's visual, they could give you feedback.
	You wouldn't have to put them in a centralized location like you usually do and recreate the evidence each day live to see what the feedback is.
	Because my guess is that's what you'd find.
	You'll find that the left has been unbudged by, most of the left, has been unbudged by the trial evidence.
	That they are just as convinced of guilt as they were.
	And now at least from the polling data, that's what I had found.
	That about a third of the jury pool would not give up guilt no matter what because they were so pre-committed to it and had a broader belief about the case that wasn't focused on whether when Kyle pulled the trigger was he at risk of imminent harm, but rather should Kyle have been there, period.
	And it's funny, we got a bigger fish tank today because our guppies have been Procreating like heck.
	And so we got a much bigger fish tank.
	And I'm just walking with the lady to the car.
	She's carrying some of the stuff.
	And I said, are you watching the Rittenhouse trial?
	I said, do you know about the Kyle Rittenhouse trial?
	I said, yeah, I know.
	And I say this non-judgmentally for the individual.
	Not paying attention to it in any meaningful degree.
	Still thinks, you know, the kid was crazy.
	Shouldn't have been there with a gun.
	And I'm trying to be polite.
	I was like, yeah, I think there's a little more to it than that.
	But that's your gun.
	The person who believes that doesn't get past that.
	No matter what arguments you make to him, no matter what evidence you present to him.
	That's why this case will still come down to what jury did they get and whether or not they put Kyle on the stand.
	They clearly do not need to put Kyle on the stand at this point.
	If they have any kind of reasonable jury, he gets acquitted.
	Not only do they not need to, but they probably shouldn't because there was some ambiguity.
	In terms of leaving it alone, when Grosskraut says, Yeah, I only got shot when I pulled my gun and pointed at him after chasing him.
	What would you need Kyle to say?
	So leaving it to the jury, this is the question a lot of people have been asking in the chat.
	Directed verdict.
	First of all, the word directed verdict, why is it called that?
	So it's the judge saying that no reasonable jury could conclude anything but acquittal.
	So the judge basically says, I'm directing the verdict because there's no reason why I should allow...
	It's basically the judge is directing the verdict, hence a directed verdict.
	I asked a question in the chat today.
	Maybe you know the answer.
	I asked it with Rakeda.
	Can a judge raise a directed verdict, sua sponte, of his or her own volition?
	Oh, yes.
	But it's extremely rare.
	And the reason for that is, generally speaking, it cannot be appealed.
	So, you know, a directed verdict after the jury verdict can be appealed, but a directed verdict before the jury renders it.
	It cannot be appealed.
	So judges hate giving it.
	The second thing is it's going to be the extremely rare case where facts are so beyond dispute that you couldn't possibly convict in the mind of most judges.
	So even here, you know, Binger will point to the video evidence as being possible, capable of ambiguity.
	I don't think so, but the...
	And I'll point to some other factors as well.
	This judge has said from the get-go that he wanted to show off.
	Every judge in a high-profile case, in my experience, wants to show off their community and prove how good they can handle, particularly state court judges, how good they can handle a high-profile case.
	They're very proud of their community.
	For that reason, he's going to let this case go to the jury.
	So he's the one judge that might consider a directed verdict, but I'd say the odds of that are...
	10,000 to 1 against that happening.
	This case is going to the jury.
	My thought was with the videos on Twitter about if it's George Floyd's cousin, I know I saw some video on Twitter about the guy saying, we're going to get their names, take pictures, we know who they are, we're going to threaten them, yada yada.
	If the judge now sees that going on and says, well, I'll take this one for the team and I'll direct the verdict so that the jury members themselves will not be the subject of threats and intimidation.
	I thought that as being a potential motivating factor, but maybe the judge doesn't even know about that, or even if he does know about it, has no legal reason to consider any of that in what's going on now.
	It's more that he wants to prove that Kenosha can handle a case of this character, and I think that's why he will let the jury make the decision.
	Aside from the fact that it's just very, very, very rare for a judge to make a decision.
	He also knows how much heat he'll get.
	He's already got a lot of heat.
	He'll get tons of heat if he directs a verdict.
	Quoting the Bible is not...
	I saw Alyssa Milano.
	Oh, God.
	I don't know why when I react to certain people's tweets, all of a sudden they start coming up more and more.
	Alyssa Milano said, the judge is quoting the Bible.
	Remove this judge from the case ASAP.
	And I'm like, that's not how it works.
	And if you think quoting the Bible is the worst thing that a judge can do to warrant removal from a case, you're living in la-la land, which you are.
	Because also, Robert, she ran a poll.
	You know, will you get your kids vaccinated if it's authorized for 5 to 11-year-olds?
	92% of 173,000 people said no, never.
	And I thought that was a funny result of the tweet.
	But what was the first part of that again?
	It was about the judge.
	So yeah, it's extremely, extremely rare.
	Usually only for completely factually incontroverted cases.
	Where legally, as a matter of law, the person's behavior cannot, under any definition of the facts, meet the crime.
	And this judge, I see some people in the chat that are saying that they don't think he believes in the community.
	Go back and listen to what he said during the jury selection process.
	He made very clear how proud he was of Kenosha and how Kenosha was going to prove to everybody you can handle these cases correctly, so on and so forth.
	And that's very, very commonplace.
	The furniture store owner, people can look that up.
	He got beat up the night before in Kenosha.
	I would have liked that evidence to have come in or even talked about an opening statement.
	I would have liked, like there's a whole bunch of things they left on the floor.
	So like there was a lot of stuff from, like they shouldn't have, I would not have recommended stipulating to the video evidence because a lot of those people like Drew Hernandez would have been very good witnesses on the stand.
	And some of the lefties.
	That film stuff would have been disasters for the prosecution on the stand.
	And there was a lot of, like, Richie McGinnis I thought they could have got into.
	In my view, it would have been relevant.
	It would have been pertinent because it's part of what Kyle saw and knew was everything else that happened that summer.
	You know, it's critical for Binger to isolate this as this little chaotic event that led to...
	Chaos tourists, as he called them, coming in and causing problems, and he blames both sides for that, but he thinks Kyle's as guilty as anyone else.
	He's removing the context of the summer of love, as the Seattle mayor put it, of all the people getting beaten all across the country all summer long, businesses getting burned, people getting shot and killed all summer long.
	The David Dorn shooting was...
	I hope that's his first name, but David Dornman.
	They don't mention it, and it's true.
	Isolated, this was the only person who got shot that evening of that particular riot in that particular city, on that particular street.
	And it was only because one individual with diagnosed mental disorder, clearly on an episode, begging to get shot, lunging at a weapon after someone else fires a gun.
	Another one playing...
	Whatever superhero he thinks in his own head, trying to strike him with a skateboard and take his gun.
	Another one pulling out...
	By the way, I don't know this.
	I hear the word glock.
	I have an immediate negative reaction.
	Is that a...
	Common thing?
	Or is that a typically unlawful weapon in the States?
	Oh, I mean, that's a totally lawful weapon.
	It's just, you know, it has a certain...
	The name sounds, you know, scary in certain contexts.
	Is it not?
	It's undetectable through metal detectors?
	That's my stereotypical misunderstanding about a Glock.
	Not that I'm aware of.
	Okay, I thought they were made out of ceramics, so they're undetectable by metal detectors.
	And, you know, don't forget Jump Kick Man.
	Yeah, why did they find Jump Kick Man?
	Who disappeared.
	The prosecution is no good witnesses.
	The fiancée was not a great witness because she disclosed how nuts Rosenbaum was.
	Then you have the aunt of Huber, and they try to get the aunt to introduce.
	If I'd been the defense, I would have let them introduce it.
	They were going to introduce how Huber, when he was a kid, saved some people's lives.
	And I've been, okay, now you've opened up his character.
	Let's get into his domestic violence history and stalking history and criminal history and history of threatening people and all the rest.
	You know how impactful that was because the prosecution withdrew their evidence from the aunt once they knew that would come in, according to the judge.
	My view is, you know, well, let them get that in and get the other stuff in.
	Because they're going to portray Huber as a hero.
	You know, trying to stop an active shooter from all that garbage.
	I mean, Huber's a criminal who tried to kill Kyle with his skateboard and tried to grab the gun.
	And got shot because he lost the attempts to grab the gun.
	That's what happened.
	Or got shot so that he couldn't steal the gun from him.
	So everybody was either grabbing the gun from him or aiming a gun at him.
	In my view, that's armed.
	You grab somebody's gun, you're armed.
	Because Lord knows what can happen to it.
	So all three people that night that he shot, We're armed, in my view.
	And that's what the evidence really shows.
	So apparently, I'm being...
	I don't pretend to know things that I don't know.
	I know how rifles work because I took a firearm safety course in Canada.
	I know gauges.
	I know...
	What's it called when the barrel gets narrow towards the end?
	Choke.
	I know what a choke is.
	And I feel comfortable with being able to handle a firearm safely.
	But I know nothing.
	Somehow in Kenosha, they didn't know to test that part of the gun for DNA evidence.
	They only tested the part they knew no one had grabbed.
	They didn't test the part of the gun where there was photo evidence that it was grabbed.
	So that's why Binger was going to pretend nobody grabbed the gun.
	Oh, and the DNA expert gets up there and says, oh, we never tested that.
	Binger never asked us to test the actual part of the gun where somebody grabbed it.
	I mean, it's a lot of shenanigans that are just getting easily exposed because their evidence is so weak from a certain self-defense perspective.
	The risk is this other narrative.
	That's out there in the jury selection.
	And, you know, hopefully the jury selection turned out good.
	I mean, hopefully they had a good jury.
	I think, you know, even David Pakman was changing tune.
	Young Turks, they're not apologizing.
	They're not admitting anything.
	I suspect they're just overwhelmed with the actual evidence from the prosecutor.
	What was there all night?
	It was all along.
	When the New York Times video broke it down, anybody who looked at it said, oh, okay, this kid is innocent.
	The only people who still hung on to guilt were people who said he shouldn't have been there.
	And the problem was that was about a third of Kenosha.
	And that's why I said that a random jury in Kenosha, which is what they probably got, is a mistrial jury or a split verdict jury.
	Like, you know, we'll say no on the homicides, but yes on reckless endangerment, something like that.
	Split the baby.
	Because that often happens when you have jurors that are hostile to one another.
	They tend to split the baby in order to go home.
	Because it looks like right now they're heading towards a Thanksgiving verdict.
	And the closer they get to Thanksgiving that the jury gets the case, if they get it right before Thanksgiving, they're going to be under massive pressure to rush their verdict because nobody wants to be there through Thanksgiving.
	I was just about to say something.
	It was...
	I forget now, but I'll get one question the Super Chat asked, which was, does the matter of the prosecution telling the detectives not to fulfill the warrant have any actual consequences to them?
	Or is it just more important to the jury?
	Thank you very much.
	That was from...
	I mean, there's no legal consequence from it, but it shows that they wanted to cover up evidence that would have hurt them.
	And again, that's what I'm saying.
	The defense has proven what they've needed to prove because the facts are so strong.
	The prosecution actually has proven what they think they need to prove because of their jury bias.
	So the question is, who's sitting on that jury?
	Yeah, someone had asked me, will there be more riots if there's a conviction than an acquittal?
	One potentially probably good juror got kicked because he made the mistake of making a joke to a deputy.
	So he made a joke about the Jacob Blake shooting.
	And given the nature of that, just the mere fact you're willing to joke about the Jacob Blake shooting means you're not unduly emotionally sympathetic to Jacob Blake and consequently suggest he would have been a defense for a juror.
	So they lost him, so they're down to 19 jurors, so we'll see what happens.
	But for anybody out there, never trust any government employee if you're a juror.
	A deputy, nobody, they're all untrustworthy.
	Don't talk to them about nothing.
	You kind of wonder whether somebody set that juror up.
	That's my experience.
	It suggests some of the deputies that are inside the jury room may not be favored.
	I mean, there's a lot of deputies that never would have told that story, that would have kept the joke to themselves.
	I mean, that's a very interesting...
	Way to contextualize the environment as well.
	Now, it's good.
	We have a lot of new faces, Robert.
	I know we've talked about this.
	Viva one day to pick a jury.
	I know the answer, Robert, that you've given.
	I mean, compare it to the McMichael trial, the Arbery case.
	So they took two weeks, I believe, to pick the jury.
	So my view is they got a random jury.
	And if they got a random jury in Rittenhouse, two-thirds of the time, that was a split verdict or a mistrial.
	And then about...
	You know, the other third split between convictions and acquittals.
	And so that's why I said there's a two-thirds chance of a split verdict or a mistrial is because it looks to me like they got a random jury, that they did not use any of the resources available to them to get a good jury.
	But it's also like people are like, how could you be so cocky to say if you pick, if we're involved in the jury, if you pick the good jury, that you would have a zero percent chance of conviction?
	Hopefully now they see why.
	All we needed was jurors who presumed them innocent.
	Because once they see the evidence, they're like, why are we still here?
	I mean, that's why ordinary people watching the case are like, the judge should give a directed verdict.
	Because they're saying this is a crock.
	Because it was always a crock.
	The problem is you have some bad jurors out there.
	If the judge doesn't give a directed verdict, they're going to make a motion for directed verdict without fail, correct?
	I mean, that would be a strategical...
	I don't do that unless the judge, I think, is with me.
	Which is rare in my case.
	But this judge, I would absolutely afford an opportunity to give a directed verdict.
	I think he should give a directed verdict on the gun count because, to me, that law is void for vagueness.
	And so he should not stick the jury with that gun charge.
	Now, it's possible, like, let's say you have a politically savvy judge who thinks a jury would like to hit Kyle with something because they're not comfortable with him being there, but think he's innocent of all the serious charges.
	He might leave the gun charge in solely so that they can feel good about convicting him on that count and then turn around and say, you know what, actually that law is void for vagueness and I dismiss it afterwards.
	Savvy judges will take that sort of action.
	So my view is there's no way, I think there's very little chance that Kyle's ever ultimately convicted of the gun count because I think the court ultimately, based on prior comments, will strike it as unconstitutional at some juncture.
	Only question is when.
	Okay, so now, procedurally, for those of us who are totally ignorant like myself, when do they come in with a request for a directed verdict or a motion for a directed verdict?
	How long does it take?
	And, yeah, I mean, what do we see practically speaking?
	So you can do it twice.
	Actually, you can do it three times.
	You can do it at the close of the prosecution's evidence.
	Then you can do it at the close of the defense.
	Then you can do it at the close of the rebuttal.
	So you have three chances to move for a directed verdict on any of the counts.
	Okay.
	And there can be different arguments on different accounts.
	I mean, one issue is you have a complaining witness who's of reckless endangerment, the guy that jumped and tried to kick him, who they labeled Jump Kick Man.
	He's not testifying.
	He's disappeared.
	So you have an issue kind of there.
	I mean, there is video evidence of maybe a shot, likely a shot going off near him when he was trying to jump and hit Kyle in the head.
	And the key evidence on all of those will be reckless endangerment is a little tricky, as people found out in Wisconsin.
	The law is not, the instructions sound confusing.
	There's a part of, but here's what it boils down to.
	You could have self-defense as to the person you shot and not have self-defense as to the person you recklessly endangered.
	The biggest tricky legal aspect for Kyle is Richie McGinnis.
	The reckless endangerment charge of Ricky McGinnis.
	Because he doesn't have self-defense against McGinnis.
	So the question is, did he recklessly endanger McGinnis by shooting at Rosenbaum, given the proximity that Ricky McGinnis was in?
	I'm not saying this to be facetious.
	Does the evidence that the only people he intended to shoot were hit and no one else, is that not evidence that there was actually no reckless endangerment?
	Absolutely, that's evidence of it.
	You know, accuracy matters.
	And so that there was actually, that Richie McGinnis was not, and he said some favorable things for the prosecution on that count, but he also said favorable things to the defense, because he said he got out of the way.
	So once he's out of the way, that means he's not really in serious risk of anything bad happening.
	So it depends, and again, my view, from the very few jurors will break down that kind of detail.
	They either feel comfortable with what happened or they don't.
	They either feel self-defense really happened or it didn't.
	And they're usually going straight acquittals or split verdict.
	But what it is, you could see a split verdict where they acquit on everything but that count.
	And really, they're just, again, making a moral statement.
	Okay, we think we don't want to encourage kids coming down with guns.
	So we're going to say...
	But there's an example.
	The defense should not have ever allowed his TikTok account to come in.
	There was no need for that.
	The title of it, I know Nick found it funny, but the title of it was Unproductive.
	And some of the statements were unproductive.
	And the image actually was kind of unproductive.
	So there was no reason for let Binger sneak that in.
	Because it's going to have visually resonant effect over time.
	It's the kind of thing that could lead to a split verdict.
	Where they say, we don't feel comfortable with what happened.
	We want to send a message to what happened, but we think it was self-defense, so we'll split the baby.
	We'll convict him of just this one charge.
	Now, with this judge, that likely won't lead to any really bad consequences.
	With other judges, it could have.
	Because I think each count was something like 12 years or something potentially in that area.
	But nobody believes that this judge would give Kyle a harsh sentence if that's all he gets hit with.
	And there's always a possibility of a directed verdict after the verdict.
	I'm going to bring this one up by Influences by Ariadna Jacob because I haven't forgotten about you, Ariadna.
	And Ariadna is going through a very interesting lawsuit herself, which if you haven't seen it, She was on Tucker Carlson, and go look it up.
	I have not filled myself in.
	We're going to have a discussion sooner than later, Ariadna, but thank you for your coverage of this, and I love all of my favorite law people.
	Combining on Reki and his channel separately, thoughts on BI and Portnoy.
	We might be able to talk about Portnoy tonight.
	We should.
	Remind me of what's BI.
	Okay, everyone in the chat, let us know what BI is.
	But while we get to that, first of all, Ariadna, thank you very much.
	So here's my question.
	Two things.
	Practically speaking, if they make a motion for directed verdict, how long does it take to get a decision on that?
	Who renders that decision?
	Does it become precedent?
	And the second part, Robert, to this question is, even an acquittal in this case, does it become precedent?
	Because there's no motivated judgment that's going to set out the principles that were at issue here.
	So what sort of precedent, defense of Second Amendment self-defense rights, would an acquittal even mean in this particular context?
	Part one before part two.
	Sure.
	So a motion for directed verdict can be raised at three different times.
	The judge would be the one to hear it.
	It's up to the judge how long it is.
	Usually it's handled very quickly.
	Like, you know, they raise it.
	Sometimes they go into detail.
	Sometimes they don't.
	And the judge usually gives a quick ruling.
	The reason why I don't raise it in cases where I think the judge is against me is because the judge will preview for the prosecution where they should go.
	So that's why I generally don't recommend lawyers bring motions for directed verdict, because a judge who's hostile to you will say, oh, but look at this key evidence, and really they give a roadmap to the prosecutor about how to pitch to the jury.
	This judge won't do that.
	But so that's why you often don't see it raised as often as people might think.
	But they can raise it, and it can be as, you know, if he wants to have half a day for argument, he could, but that's pretty rare.
	It's usually handled pretty quickly, pretty effectively, pretty aggressively.
	What was the second question?
	Oh, precedent.
	It's political precedent, not legal precedent.
	But is there a written judgment on the motion for directed verdict, which sets the precedent?
	Yes, yes.
	Usually, yes.
	All right, and then the second one is, so political precedence, political importance, but not...
	No legal effect in that sense.
	But the political impact to me was big, because if Kyle Rittenhouse could be convicted under these facts, then nobody in a place like Kenosha, middle America...
	Then nobody has self-defense in America in a way that's safe.
	Flip side to that, Robert, is even if he gets acquitted on this, the fact that he got prosecuted on it is a warning to everyone else out there.
	It's a warning to the two in Georgia.
	What were their names?
	The McMichaels?
	No, no, no, no.
	The husband and wife there with the guitar guns.
	Oh, you mean Missouri?
	Yeah, Missouri.
	Sorry.
	What's their name?
	What's their name?
	McCloskey's.
	We've got McMichaels, McCloskey's.
	And yeah, the fact that he could be prosecuted in the first place is all the precedent, presumably, that needed to be set.
	And so get acquitted after a public scrutiny.
	If there's any convictions here, there'll be a lot of shock.
	I mean, if justifiably, a lot of shock.
	Because that'll be a sign of problems with the jury pool.
	Speaking of the jury pool, do they know the videos of the guy on Twitter making the threat?
	Unlikely.
	It depends on your perspective.
	There are some people that think jurors really pay a lot of attention to social media despite their instructions not to pay any attention to it.
	I go back, I think I'm more doubtful on that.
	I think jurors mostly know to be very careful and don't do it.
	I think only a few jurors, I think only rogue jurors mostly actually pay any attention.
	But what they're instructed is they're not to look at anything in the media, social media, anywhere that could raise this case.
	Now we know from the Chauvin case they were.
	So sometimes it bombards them so heavily that they can't avoid it.
	No, but it's not evidence that's before the court that the judge has any knowledge of or has discussed.
	It's not something that's part of this trial.
	So that's a bigger question.
	Britt Cormier says, I love watching the rest of the world, especially the left-leaning people I know, learning from this case what most of us knew a year ago.
	Watching their brains freeze up as the evidence comes out on a trial is just priceless.
	That is, I mean...
	It might be time to segue into the next thing, because that's a good segue into the Danchenko indictment.
	Watching people now learn something that the rest of us were onto a while ago, and then they have to try to, like, the cognitive dissonance in them doesn't want to accept it, but how do you explain it away versus others who just will never accept it?
	I think we've done it on Rittenhouse.
	We'll talk about more of it on Sunday.
	There's nothing really more to discuss anyhow, but the Danchenko indictment, Robert.
	Okay, for anybody who doesn't know Danchenko now, some people say he's Ukrainian, but all articles are saying he's Russian, was the dude, apparently, who the Clinton campaign, through their council, mandated to do opposition research on Trump.
	He had garbage.
	It was fabricated information, which he, I believe, unless I've misunderstood, lied about the fact that it came from an anonymous call.
	He fed that information to Steele.
	It became the...
	Information on which the Steele dossier was based, which was then leaked to the media, apparently through activists within the Clinton campaign, that the FBI then used as the basis to petition the FISA courts for a warrant to spy on Carter Page and the Trump campaign.
	And now he's been indicted.
	I try to tell people, remember that time that Hillary Clinton...
	And the Democrats, I say political Democrats and the mainstream media told you that Trump colluded with the Russians to interfere with the elections.
	Well, actually, it was actually the Clinton campaign that did exactly that.
	Am I wrong?
	Have I missed something?
	Am I oversimplifying?
	And have I been wrongly blackpilled?
	Or is that exactly what the heck is going on here?
	Yeah, I mean, that was obvious from day one, in my view.
	So I told people, you know, either read Graham Greene's Our Man in Havana or watch the film, which is a good film, or read Jean Le Carre's Taylor of Panama or watch the film, also a very good cinematic rendition of the book, because it's how the intelligence infrastructure works in these kind of cases.
	You could predict exactly what Steele did.
	So he was paid to doctor a report and launder.
	Launder rumors, innuendo, and fictional fabricated stories as intelligence reports.
	And the goal was to launder it at multiple levels.
	So you start with the fake guy, fake reports, the rumors, the innuendo, the nonsense.
	You get them to report it to someone who's an ex-intel agent as an intel report.
	He then launders it through the media and the FBI, parallel to it.
	The FBI will cite the laundered report to the media as independent verification of the story, even though, again, it's all the same original contaminated source.
	Then they go to the FISA court, get the FISA court to re-launder it again.
	Information laundering works like money laundering.
	It's the same thing.
	And it was multiple levels of laundering of information until suddenly it becomes a known fact that all these crazy, ridiculous stories about Trump, that if you knew anything about Trump...
	You knew had no chance of being true.
	I mean, so they were just so ludicrous and just utterly inane.
	And that's how people like Glenn Greenwald, Aaron Maté, Matt Taibbi, a range of people, Michael Tracy, all these people on the left right away were like, this is obvious fake news.
	The Duran, the people at the Duran, which you can find on YouTube, people at the Gaggle, which you can find on YouTube, and on Locals.
	All of them knew this was utter nonsense.
	Now, why didn't Durham indict four years ago?
	This information was available in 2017, 2018.
	From the time Durham has been on the case, this was known.
	And yet he waited until a year after the election when it could have no political impact to bring the indictment.
	Tells you what Durham's really up to.
	Yeah, no, no.
	It is quite literally the wrap-up smear, but on a political and a court legal level as well.
	It's like, yeah, laundering information.
	And by the end of the day, it becomes a fact just by virtue of its own fakeness.
	Yeah, why did this not come a year ago?
	Correct.
	And I think that, you know, and there's some people that are still optimistic.
	That this means Durham is going to go further, that he's actually going to reach the Clintons, that he's going to reach high-ranking Clinton lawyers, that it's going to reach Comey, that it's going to reach Peter Stroke, that it's going to reach Andrew McCabe.
	Don't go betting on it.
	The way he cut that deal with Clinesmith meant he was going to go nowhere up the chain within the institutional ranks of power.
	He's just going to hit a few of the low-hanging fruit.
	Of the outsiders, the smaller scale lawyers, the smaller scale participants who committed obvious crimes, waited until the last possible minute to indict any of them.
	And the way he handled Clinesmith means he's not going up the food chain.
	Anybody who's telling you that is not paying attention.
	Well, and also, I mean, it's not just a year later.
	It's not just after 2020.
	It was the day or two after the November 2021 elections.
	As far ahead of the...
	What do they call the midterms?
	The 2022 elections?
	As far ahead of that as possible, so it's going to be forgotten by then, and as far as humanly possible, before the 2024 election.
	But some people are going to say, you waited long enough, now it's going to impact 2024.
	It's part of the plan, trust the plan, and it's playing out as it should.
	But probably, arguably, undoubtedly, information that would have been more useful in October 2020 than November 2021.
	I think we can all agree on that.
	But what it is, is vindication for all the critics of Russiagate.
	And it's damnation for those New York Times writers who won Pulitzer Prizes feeding this nonsense to the world.
	All the media people who are complicit in this intel operation.
	But it's not, like some people said, man, this is totally new.
	And I'm glad people on the right, the Stephen Crowder's, the Jesse Kelly's, the others are saying that the next Republican president needs to purge the FBI, needs to purge the CIA, needs to purge his apparatus.
	But that's long overdue and past due, frankly.
	This has been around.
	Again, there's a reason why Our Man in Havana is written in the 1950s and Taylor Panama is written in the 1980s.
	This has been a long tradition within the intelligence.
	It's the way the intelligence world works.
	It's rumor hearsay and innuendo laundered through multiple levels and they pretend it's, you know, the ultimate thing, remember, was...
	FISA warrants have to reach so many stages of verification and authenticity.
	I know these people attacking me on Twitter at the time, saying, Barnes, you don't understand.
	If it reached a FISA level, that means it's absolutely the highest level of evidentiary validation.
	It's like, what world are you people living in?
	But the validation is nice.
	It would have been a lot nicer a year ago when it could have had meaningful political impact by Durham.
	Once people appreciate how certifications work, those little emblems you get on the can of tuna that says it's...
	Dolphin friendly.
	And then you realize that they license those out with little to no oversight as to how they're used, but you feel nice seeing the certification as though it's a certification of quality and process.
	It doesn't taste like a little bit of dolphin that you just ate.
	Well, it happens with the Pfizer course.
	You're right.
	And they said, oh, the Pfizer course don't just rubber stamp warrants.
	Well, first of all, they might not rubber stamp them.
	But they might just rely on falsified information coming from FBI attorneys who manually, physically alter, fabricate evidence in order to get the warrant and they don't inquire further because everyone is circle satisfying each other around their own respective certifications.
	Well, the FISA court says it's an FBI attorney.
	Surely they're trustworthy.
	And then everyone watching this says, well, the FISA court issued it.
	Surely they're trustworthy.
	And the media runs with it.
	The same media that ran the fake story in the first place, the FISA courts relied on.
	Circle jerk of fake news is what it is.
	But it's, so it's objective.
	I mean, this story is turning out to be, it's so far down the line now, nobody cares, nobody remembers.
	But it's the Clinton campaign literally being guilty of exactly that which they were accusing the Trump campaign of having done.
	Correct.
	Absolutely.
	Confession through projection.
	And you can kind of say that about Democrats building up four years.
	They kept saying there's going to be somebody in the White House that's compromised by foreign governments, that's corrupt, that their kids are part of the corruption.
	Well, that's our current president.
	Well, Robert, it's an organic segue that you built in there.
	I don't know if you planned it, but let's talk about the children getting their parents in trouble or the parents' justice department now going after journalists for...
	They're children's diaries, quite literally.
	So, the big story of the week.
	I got a message last week.
	It was a release.
	Project Veritas have been raided by the FBI over alleged Ashley Biden's, allegedly stolen, alleged diary.
	I say alleged at all three steps here because we don't know if it's a real diary.
	We don't know if it was stolen.
	And we don't know...
	What was the first name?
	We didn't know until the FBI started to start raiding people over it.
	Because they don't raid people over fake diaries.
	Well, but who knows?
	But Robert, who knows?
	Maybe it is a fake diary, but it's a good pretext to raid and harass Project Veritas.
	But the bottom line of the story, Project Veritas was approached about a year ago by tipsters, anonymous tipsters, represented by counsel.
	That's where I hang up the phone on myself.
	But I'm not a journalist.
	That's the thing.
	By anonymous tipsters represented by attorneys saying that they came across Ashley Biden's diary because it was left in a hotel room that they subsequently stayed in and contains explosive allegations about her father, who is then candidate for presidency.
	And Project Veritas, by their own account, so self-serving, you can write it off if you want to, say, we're going to vet the information.
	We need to make sure it's an authentic diary.
	We need to make sure that it was not, you know, unlawfully acquired.
	They ultimately can't verify or vet the authenticity, so they say, we're not running it, and they want to give it back to the anonymous tipsters represented by counsel, but apparently the counsel doesn't want to take it back anymore.
	They wanted to give it, actually, instead, they didn't want to say they were complicit in stealing information, so they went to Ashley Biden's counsel.
	And said, we want to give it back to you.
	The counsel was terrified that by accepting it, he would be implicitly admitting it's hers.
	So he refused to take it.
	And that forced Project Veritas to go to law enforcement.
	Because Project Veritas, James O 'Keefe's concern, is that they'll be accused of having stolen material.
	And so they wanted to...
	And the reason why they were careful about vetting it is there's some very explosive accusations in that diary.
	Very disturbing.
	Allegations in that diary.
	So I won't go into them because they haven't been validated yet, but you can understand why James O 'Keefe wanted to be very careful before he made those allegations.
	And the difference between James O 'Keefe and the New York Times is that O 'Keefe actually vets the information he's given, unlike the New York Times.
	It was Karen Strawn who put up another undumb response.
	She says, no good deed goes unpunished.
	They don't want to publish it.
	They can't verify it.
	It's like, it would be great.
	My goodness, it would be great for clicks.
	From what I understand, did other conservative, don't repeat the content, but did other conservative outlets, conservative, publish it?
	Nobody published the content.
	Oh yeah, credit.
	I mean, again, this shows you how careful O 'Keefe is.
	O 'Keefe could have, I know plenty of people in the media space, definitely on the left, that would have leaked it to somebody else and let somebody else run it.
	O 'Keefe didn't.
	O 'Keefe doesn't share it with anybody.
	O 'Keefe tries to vet it, tries to validate it, tries to verify it, cannot.
	Tries to validate and verify the method by which it came into his chain of custody.
	Can't fully do so, that it was simply left.
	Can't confirm that aspect either.
	So consequently tries to return it to its lawful owner if that's the case.
	They refuse it.
	So he gives it to law enforcement.
	And what does law enforcement do?
	They are so paranoid and panicked about this.
	And again, this is the second time.
	Another Biden kid.
	Leaves an embarrassing piece of evidence behind.
	And just like that one, remember that got turned over to the FBI.
	And what happened?
	They went after the guy.
	That turned it over to them.
	Here they did the same thing here.
	They raid Project Veritas, raid James O 'Keefe's home, raid other journalist homes, whether it's a pretext to discover anything else they're up to in terms of exposing government and FDA corruption.
	That's been the latest thing.
	Media corruption in other areas.
	But right now, Project Veritas has been at the lead of exposing...
	Big corporate, big drug companies, big FDA corruption in the vaccine context.
	Or it's because they needed to cover up and suppress and find out who got this diary and the meaning of it.
	Because again, the allegations within it, I had never even heard before until this story came out and then found out from people what was connected to it.
	These are extraordinary allegations that would be very disturbing.
	There was no way Joe Biden would have been elected had these allegations come out.
	Well, and we'll get to the diary aspect in a second.
	I just want to address this one.
	Where is the outrage from the media for the raid?
	I thought that, quote, journalism was under attack, end quote.
	I'm reading like I'm doing a video.
	Why is no one covering it?
	This is incidentally the same thing that comes out of Canada.
	When rebel news gets disqualified or uninvited or not invited to federal debates, when they get sued by the government, when their reporters get ignored by the media, none of the other spoon-fed, hand-fed, money-fed media outlets complain about it, even though if they were true journalists, they would.
	Because it's an absolute outrage to the free press.
	And it's the same thing here.
	You'll never get the New York Times coming to the rescue or coming to the defense of Prode Veritas because they're mortal enemies.
	And New York Times is probably happy to see this happen.
	Incidentally, it seems that New York Times got a little heads up on some of the news.
	Lord knows how that happened.
	But it's the dirtiest thing about it is that real journalists...
	Are hiding behind their connections to protect themselves and let real journalists get thrown under the bus.
	The diary side.
	Now, I said in my video, what kind of 40-year-old keeps a diary?
	What kind of person keeps a diary after childhood?
	My wife, who's sometimes much smarter than me, said, if someone wants to write a tell-all book at some point, you got to keep notes.
	So calling it a diary, it might be more like notes so that she might at one point maybe write a book.
	A tell-all book like Mary Trump did to throw Uncle Trump under the bus.
	I don't know if that's the case, but it's a plausible enough explanation as to why the daughter might have been keeping a diary.
	You think the diary is authentic?
	I was going to say, the other thing with this is at times it seemed like...
	Both kids wanted to get the truth out without the truth being directly tailored to them.
	Like, how does Hunter Biden just leave a laptop behind with all the incriminating evidence on it?
	There's aspects of their behavior that appears to be designed to get the truth out in ways that they can't be blamed for that truth coming out.
	Who leaves a diary behind in a hotel room or in any other setting?
	I think that may be the case.
	You have people who have a lot of mixed emotions about their...
	About Joe Biden, their father.
	And maybe want that information to come out, but don't want to be blamed for it.
	There are people who thought that about Hunter Biden as well.
	And given the nature of the allegations here, that would not be a huge shock.
	Also, this diary could be a therapeutic diary, given the nature of the accusations here.
	So, put it this way.
	It makes Biden's videotaped interactions with young girls takes a whole different dynamic if this diary is true and accurate.
	And it would be, again, one of the most disturbing allegations about a president in our history.
	I don't even know where I've seen the tweets or the alleged, you know, what's the word?
	Theorizing as to what is in that diary.
	I've seen some.
	I've never seen the diary.
	I'm not a journalist.
	And this is why I say people email me all the time and say, like, here's a document.
	It'll be a good leak.
	It's like, that's not my wheelhouse.
	Don't send it to me.
	I'm not even, I don't even, you know.
	Sometimes I don't respond to the emails.
	Because you can't verify this.
	It's not my role in the world.
	But I know what I know of some of the accusations of what was in that diary.
	From the get-go, I was like, it's a fake diary.
	This was all a setup to begin with.
	But you make good, compelling points.
	It's like, cry for help, therapy, or tell-all.
	I mean, it could be one of the three, all of which are equally plausible.
	And now that you bring up going after the computer guy for hacking the computer that Hunter Biden gave to him, It smells a little more like that than what I initially thought.
	Yep.
	And their reaction is such that in order for them to justify these warrants, they're going to have to have said under oath that this was an authentic diary.
	Because otherwise, if it's actually a fake diary, you don't have grounds to do any search warrants.
	Well, unless you pretend it was fake so that you can harass Project Veritas and James O 'Keefe.
	But even to harass them, you've got to get a judge to sign off.
	And if it's a fake diary, you don't have grounds to do anything.
	There's no crime there.
	Unless a client's myth 2.0 says, I think it's a real diary, and so let's issue a warrant and let's go get him.
	I mean, there's so many ways it can be played politically, but it can be played politically any number of ways.
	So we'll see.
	I mean, Project Veritas and James O 'Keefe, love him or hate him?
	And I don't know how anybody can hate them at this point in time.
	They'll follow up with it.
	Oh yeah, to his credit, he's defending himself very well in the court of public opinion.
	That's the right way to do it.
	Didn't let them intimidate him with the grand jury subpoena that tried to pretend that information is private when it's not.
	What's private is what the grand jury knows, not what you as a target of the grand jury knows.
	The government loves to mislead people on that.
	And to being public about this and pushing back against it right away.
	And getting out what the underlying story was.
	I mean, without going into details of the underlying story.
	He didn't let them use this as a way to intimidate him from talking about what took place.
	And now a lot more people know about this diary than knew about it before.
	My guess is they thought that doing this wave of harassment would shut people up to not look at it any further and to be terrified.
	I better not get near that.
	That's stolen material.
	The federal government will lock me up.
	Instead, it had just the opposite reaction.
	They misread James O 'Keefe.
	But it's more a sign the Southern District of New York is still...
	The most corrupt federal prosecutor unit.
	It's almost an eternal truth.
	It's almost eternal truth number three status as to how true that is.
	It's crazy because you hear the FBI and the SDNY.
	Those are acronyms now that will live in infamy.
	It is a very true thing.
	I never even knew of this diary until this happened.
	And now I'm asking a lot more questions.
	We will follow up on it when it happens, there's no question.
	Can Veritas find out how the New York Times was informed?
	No, they keep their sources anonymous and nobody presses them for their sources.
	But that doesn't come both ways.
	It might come up in the deposition of the New York Times, since they're so in the New York Times, as evidence of continuous malevolence.
	Is it possible that a...
	Drug-addled brain tends to leave.
	That's an interpretation of Hunter's conduct.
	But now you're seeing the sister do the same thing?
	At what point does this become a broader pattern of families hiding family secrets who want those family secrets to come out but don't want to be accountable or responsible for how they come out?
	You don't leave your diary knowing it's your diary in a hotel room unless it's a deliberate act for some purpose.
	Going back to the pills of the evening?
	Blue pill, red pill, white pill, black pill.
	Robert, right now, this would be considered a black pill moment because, yes, this is a cry.
	It could be very easily and very realistically a cry for help from people who have been systematically abused over an extended period of time, and they can't come forward but do everything in their power to have someone come forward for them.
	And what do they see happen if it's a James Elroy novel or a movie?
	The FBI comes in and says, nope, you're not going forward with that.
	And we found a way to shut you up.
	And now they know damn well their best attempts to go public surreptitiously through other people have been foiled by Biden's own DOJ.
	And if anybody doesn't think it's a problem, John Turley himself, the leftist who doesn't realize he's no longer a lefty, says this is a gross conflict of interests that the Department of Justice should be avoiding.
	You have a personal secret police of the President of the United States covering up the scandals and corruption.
	Another example of confession through projection.
	What they accused Trump of is what the Biden administration is actually doing.
	But I would suggest one thing for James O 'Keefe.
	Sunny Florida is a much better climate than the Southern District of New York these days.
	No doubt, Robert.
	I think a lot of us up north are thinking the same thing these days.
	Could the FBI think there is evidence for who delivered the diary?
	Maybe it wasn't really Veritas they were after, but...
	I'm sure officially that's the case.
	But, you know, you don't need a search warrant for that.
	So, I mean, were there any search warrants executed during the Clinton email scandal?
	Hmm.
	Or was there none?
	So, I have no doubt that the commenter is correct.
	That's what their legal pretext for searching everybody is.
	Is that this was a stolen diary and that they're looking for...
	I mean, a stolen diary is grounds for federal search warrants now?
	I mean, come on.
	But disposing of an unlawfully procured firearm in a dumpster is not.
	I mean, I don't know how these things work.
	It just doesn't seem that they make sense the way I'm looking at them.
	No doubt whatsoever.
	Go ahead.
	Oh, no, I was going to say, so, by the way, the BI, Business Insider Portnoy, I mean, that...
	I haven't looked into that yet, but that's the Business Insider bombshell story that alleges sexual improprieties against Dave Portnoy, president of Barstool Sports.
	He...
	I wouldn't...
	As his attorney, I would have told him not to do it as well, and reading the comments in response to his two-part tweet video response to the accusations, I wouldn't have done it.
	Nothing good comes of it.
	You're not going to convince anybody who doesn't already believe it.
	But allegedly, you know, accused of sexual improprieties.
	He's a 40...
	Some-odd-year-old single man doing what, I guess, I can't relate, but what 40-some-odd-year-old single men do, which is, you know, enjoy life and hook up with younger women.
	And some of the younger women seem to be saying that he did things that were not proper.
	And apparently it was like a six-month undercover journalistic thing where Business Insider was looking to feed a narrative they had in their heads.
	Bottom line, apparently, from what Ariadne said is that...
	Portnoy's attorney said he can sue the individuals who made the false claims, but not Business Insider.
	I mean, at first glance, I would tend to agree.
	Business Insider is reporting the words of others and therefore has lesser, if not impossible, obligations to verify the truthfulness of them.
	So you go after the original people making the statements.
	But, I mean, Robert, if that's the 30,000-foot overview, what do you say?
	Dave needs a new lawyer.
	So Portnoy, because this is a political war, as soon as Portnoy not only came out on sort of the GameStop side of the aisle, but also against a lot of the lockdowns and against cancel culture, he has been the target of media harassment and media libel campaigns.
	So I think he could absolutely sue Business Insider because I think they're the ones who instigated a mostly false story.
	Because it appears when you dig in, you find that basically some women approached Portnoy with particular fantasy interests.
	He fulfilled those fantasy interests, and they explained that he fulfilled those fantasy interests, but if you take out that context, it sounds bad what he did.
	Not that there was no consent.
	There wasn't a credible allegation, in my view, that any of this was non-consensual.
	That this was, I mean, my advice to Portnoy also is be careful of, you know, women who, hey, by the way, I would like this fantasy fulfilled.
	Not when you're at your level.
	Be careful.
	That's the amazing thing is like not when you're at his level and not if you're aspiring to get to that level.
	I could not imagine being single.
	Even if I'm a university student, I could not imagine being single, engaging in what single people do with the fear that this might be weaponized against me if and when I decide to run for prime minister or something.
	This is not confession through projection.
	I know my sexual history.
	Very little chance of anything like that ever happening.
	Ever.
	I've been married.
	I've been dating my wife since 1999.
	But this makes it impossible to date.
	Forget all the other stuff.
	How do people do things anymore without this being at the front of their heads?
	Because Portnoy engages or entertains certain fantasies of various potential dates, they wanted to try to associate that with non-consensual activity.
	There's no evidence of non-consensual activity, period.
	No credible evidence that I've seen.
	And they've been looking at this now for years.
	There were some videos that leaked some years ago, etc.
	For Portnoy, he sees part of his brand as opposition to cancel culture.
	So he was not going to be intimidated by this.
	He was not going to be pushed back on this.
	And I think he should sue Business Insider to the degree Business Insider lied.
	And the best analogy of this?
	The Rolling Stone case.
	Now, don't hire that law firm.
	That's Claire Locke, who's, again, credibly accused of being a racketeer and RICO conspirator with the Dominion Corporation.
	That's not my words.
	That's Alan Dershowitz's words.
	But they hire a much better law firm than they.
	They mismanaged the Rolling Stone case, in my view.
	And I don't say that just because they helped cover up for congressmen committing bad acts against the Covington kids, but I do tend to remember.
	Never forget, never forget, never forgive, hold the line, Robert.
	Let's get that out there.
	That's the future coming VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com t-shirt is going to be a never forgive, never forget, and hold the line.
	And so credit, you know, the...
	Portnoy's been unwilling to be impacted or affected by cancel culture, has pushed back in the court of public opinion because this is a war in the court of public opinion, and I think he absolutely could credibly sue Business Insider for a very misleading report that the evidence did not support at all.
	That basically you could just sum up the story as girl has fantasy, girl seeks Portnoy to fulfill fantasy, Portnoy fulfills fantasy, media lies about it.
	That's what happened.
	Yeah, I was watching his video.
	What drives it, what turns my stomach is watching the comments because you can predict, I'll call it a troll for lack of a better word.
	You can predict what a hater response is going to be.
	You could draft it yourself if you have half a brain because you know what they're going to say.
	You know how they're going to twist your words.
	You know how they're going to move the goalposts to continue the attack.
	You just know it.
	It's not a question of intelligence.
	It's just a question of strategy.
	And it's irritating.
	And so you know you put out a video like that, and people are just going to make the comments they do, and it's not going to make you look or feel good.
	But truth is the truth.
	If it is the truth, then you have to deal with the people who are going to do that regardless.
	So it was an interesting story.
	I would not have put out 20 minutes of video response myself, period.
	I might go with the higher level, ignore it, or a quick tweet, nonsense, I'm suing Business Insider, or something along those lines.
	But not a 19-minute two-part video response, which can be too easily misconstrued.
	But anyways, that's Portnoy's dilemma.
	It's what you get when you're a 40-year-old man single and you want to date younger women.
	At your level, you're a target.
	And you're very, very successful.
	I mean, it reminded me of the Julian Assange case, where women approached Julian Assange, later claimed something was assault because the method of birth control was in dispute.
	And again, ultimately, those charges were ultimately all dismissed.
	And like I said at the time, if using birth control in a way that was unanticipated is now considered assault, there's a lot of NBA players that have claims against a lot of baby daddies out there.
	What was it called?
	It was not called stealthing.
	I believe it's called stealthing, which is surreptitiously removing a prophylactic during the act of sexual intercourse, thus rendering it protected intercourse to unprotected, which in certain countries is actual assault.
	Right.
	The evidence for it was weak.
	The women were the ones who approached him.
	And again, if that's considered assault, there's a lot of women that said to a lot of famous wealthy men, hey, don't worry, I'm on the pill.
	And then all of a sudden Junior's coming along and you're paying for 18 years.
	This is where maybe having a neurotic mother to instill all of the worst stories and humankind pays dividends where sometimes you don't even have to have sex.
	You can do oral stuff and then discreetly exit the room and then get pregnant from that.
	It's a crazy thing.
	People have thought about wild things.
	Okay, Robert.
	Shifting slightly to something.
	Let's just shift to Alec Baldwin for one second.
	Because there's civil lawsuits that are in the process of being filed.
	On behalf of the child and the father, we all know the facts of Alec Baldwin, his incessant inability to stop talking.
	I'm not even going to do the factual recap.
	The question is this.
	In a wrongful death lawsuit, what's the basis for the nine-year-old son to sue for wrongful death and the husband?
	There's a concept called Delorius.
	It's loss of enjoyment of the love of another.
	For a personal injury, does that exist in the United States?
	Yeah, it's called loss of consortium.
	So it depends on the state and the rules as to which state applies, because we have a lot of old rules here.
	Originally, it was designed that you could only recover as a kid for the labor value you had, because that's where loss of consortium originated in the U.S. But now it's more broadly.
	So, I mean, there's claims against Alec Baldwin that are anticipated, claims against all the production companies that are anticipated.
	Potential sabotage that's at issue.
	The people doing the best or most intriguing breakdown of this is Eric Hundley and Mark Grobert on America's Untold Stories.
	They had me just listen in on part of it last week of all the very interesting dots that are on the board.
	And you can decide which dots you want to connect and which ones you don't think are connected.
	But there is a shocking backstory here of potentially.
	In terms of the very unusual connections.
	It has aspects of a Hush Hush episode from VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com in terms of really, really peculiar connections that when they were first telling me about them, I was like, that can't possibly be true.
	And it's like, no, that can't possibly be true.
	And it's one crazy connection after another crazy connection after another crazy connection.
	So we'll see how it develops.
	But the lawsuits are definitely coming.
	Alec Baldwin definitely has some degree of liability.
	The production companies have some degree of liability.
	And the question is, where else the liability goes?
	But the least amount of liability may be the person originally blamed the armorer.
	He may be the most innocent in the group.
	That's the interesting thing.
	Again, I'm not calling people trolls for the sake of being trolls.
	I just know that I know a number of accounts who never have anything nice to say about me on Twitter or YouTube.
	Whenever they make a comment, it's negative.
	And so someone said, Oh, I had no doubt.
	Because I said at the beginning, I'll give Alec Baldwin the benefit of the doubt.
	Someone gives him the gun and says, it's cold.
	First of all, I thought it was a prop gun.
	I thought it was a fake gun.
	I give Alec Baldwin even more of the benefit of the doubt.
	Now we know.
	Everybody knew it's a real gun.
	Everybody knew they fire real rounds because Baldwin's saying they fired billions of rounds over the history of Hollywood.
	Now apparently it comes out that Alec Baldwin was warned not to point the gun at people.
	So maybe it went off by accident, but still culpability.
	I said at the beginning, I give Alec Baldwin every benefit under the sun.
	I said, yeah, I can see it being other people's problems.
	Now I'm not so convinced, and trolls going to troll, say, oh, I have no doubt that Viva would change his mind on Alec Baldwin, but then give me no credit for, you know, Breonna Taylor or McMichaels, whom, Robert, we'll get to McMichaels in a second, because I still am not convinced there, but I say, yeah, now I know more facts.
	I know the fact that they were apparently, allegedly, shooting that gun on set.
	There were live rounds on set.
	Alec Baldwin was told not to point the gun at people and was given a gun and then apparently pointed it and either shot on purpose or by accident, both of which entail culpability.
	So he's clearly going to get sued.
	But I predict he's going to get criminally charged.
	Robert, what time are we at?
	One hour, 39 minutes?
	One hour, 40 minutes.
	Robert, your prediction on whether or not Alec Baldwin faces any criminal charges in this.
	Especially if there's any aspect of the backstory that Hunley and Grobert detail at America's Untold Stories, if any aspect of that is true, then there's a 0% chance Alec Baldwin gets criminally prosecuted.
	I thought you were going the other way.
	A wild backstory here.
	And then you throw in the DA that controls the case and her connections in the case.
	There's basically almost no chance to see criminal, even though I think there could be.
	Particularly if any attribute of the backstory is told.
	In other words, how did this bullet end up in this gun?
	How did Baldwin accidentally point it at someone and pull the trigger?
	That's a very interesting accident.
	And they'll go, oops, I just shot you.
	So very, very curious how that happened.
	But I think the lawsuits will maybe expose some facts.
	But if some of this backstory is true, there may be a lot of hush money settlements and everything go away.
	And instead, it looks like they're going to use this to justify a new round of gun control.
	But this time, gun control culturally, even though there's legislation already in California that is being initiated and instigated.
	To ban the use of guns on movie sets, with the real goal likely being to use Hollywood to send a message to everyone else about guns bad.
	And so it looks like there's a lot of politicization that's taking place.
	Whether that was intended from the get-go is in dispute at some level.
	But there seems to be a potential for a backstory here that's very revealing.
	That it might not be completely 100% accidental what happened.
	Everyone should go watch Mark Robert and Eric Hunley's...
	It's called Dots.
	Connecting Dots, I think, is the thumbnail you'll see.
	A lot of information.
	I watch that, and I say, look, you're in a realm, a world where everybody is connected.
	Everybody has certain histories.
	So whoever it happened to, it could have happened to the water boy in the background.
	He might have had similar connections and probably would have.
	So I don't draw that many connections from it.
	But my goodness, it's interesting what a sick, sordid, incestuous, politically motivated environment Hollywood is, which should be a warning to everyone else.
	If nothing else, stay out of Hollywood, avoid that environment altogether.
	But I thought you were going to say that he's more likely to get charged.
	I'm still going to say it.
	And even if I'm right in a month or a year, I've been wrong enough in the past that I will not be able to rely on that unlikely rightness to say that I'm smart or whatever.
	I'm placing a...
	A random guess.
	But the facts are coming out.
	They're very, very, very bad.
	The father is filing suit, seemingly, apparently, on behalf of his kid.
	Seems like a relatively slam dunk of a lawsuit.
	The only question is going to be who and in what apportionment.
	The ultimate irony in all of this is it does seem like the armorer who had left the set and didn't do really anything.
	It sounded like a lot of people went above and beyond her authority to allow this to happen.
	Maybe I'm wrong.
	But I have nothing in this for the armorer, so I think I'm relatively objective.
	Objectivity in media stories.
	If you want to see a really good opening statement...
	Get the opening statement from the first defense lawyer in the McMichael case given on Friday.
	Yes, okay, fine.
	Beautifully, beautifully presented defense.
	Man, I'm going to get a lot of hate for defending the McMichaels now, but I get hate all the time anyway.
	You'll get hate for defending the McMichaels.
	I'm going to get hate for not changing my original position.
	I think McMichaels is not a good case for the McMichaels compared to Rittenhouse.
	So we'll both get hate, Robert.
	Let's get it for different reasons.
	Rittenhouse case, much, much, much stronger.
	And some of us didn't want the Rittenhouse case to go on at the same time as the McMichael case, because the Rittenhouse jurors will see the McMichael case in the news while the Rittenhouse case was going on, and I didn't think that was favorable, given media misperceptions, and particularly given Mark Richards' desire to use a certain word in opening statement with a hard R. Some of us would have not recommended that.
	We all agree, bad.
	Never.
	It's become a meme.
	It's become a meme.
	People have made a meme song out of it.
	I mean, that was unfortunate.
	And I gotta tell you, I can't go into too much detail, but I saw that tweet from Mercada, which said literally dying, and it was the meme, and it played loud, and some members of the family who should never hear that word heard that word, and I had some explaining to do to a few people.
	Yeah, make sure they don't...
	Any little fries don't go around saying...
	They will not.
	But there is no benefit ever to using that word, even if you're invited on a stage and asked to sing along.
	It's because a lot of your older generation don't fully appreciate the difference between the R and the A. So I think that's part of it.
	I get he was trying to dramatize that Rosenbaum kept saying that all night.
	But by the way, I don't think even Rosenbaum was using the R. I think he was using the A. For people that don't know, there's a huge cultural difference.
	One gets people very upset, one not so much.
	One can be the object of comedy, like in the movie Popstar Keep On Keeping On by Lonely Island, when Maya Rudolph uses the A. Oh no, I think the joke was, in that movie, the joke was that she used a hard R. It's a full stop, never, nigh, nyet, don't.
	Sorry.
	Ill-advised, everybody.
	But, and so McMichael...
	Which has, of course, a racial undertone because Ahmaud Arbery was black.
	It's another case where the media narrative was always fake.
	So the media narrative was nice, young African-American man running, jogging through a neighborhood.
	A couple of crazy white people hop in a pickup truck, chase him down.
	He tries to avoid him.
	They shoot him and kill him.
	That was a modern-day lynching is some of the language that was used.
	The prosecutor originally declined prosecution.
	He got put under criminal investigation and ethics inquiry himself.
	I mean, it was that level of sort of political insanity.
	They brought in an outsider to prosecute the case.
	Now, there are some unfortunate statements.
	I'm not sure if they'll come into evidence made by the McMichaels in text and social media that raise questions about their motivations.
	However...
	Let me just push back right there.
	When you say unfortunate, I mean, a lot of people are going to say overtly racist.
	They say racist stuff.
	Overtly racist that are going to let you think...
	That they went after this guy.
	Had it been a white guy in boots running, maybe they would have said, he's just out, he's running to his pickup truck to get a tool, but it's a black guy and they react differently.
	So, inherent racism.
	And Robert, let me know, did the son, did he utter an ethnic slur as Aubrey was dying after he shot him?
	No, I didn't hear any evidence of that.
	And so they have evidence of statements made outside of the direct context of Arbery, is my understanding.
	So normally that evidence would not come in.
	But I don't know if that's what's happened.
	They took two weeks to pick the jury, wisely, because they understood that impact.
	But if you look at just the linear...
	Again, it's comparable in this context to Rittenhouse.
	If you look at the time that they pulled the trigger...
	Did he have reason to imminently fear his well-being for his life and being in danger?
	And there's strong evidence that that's the case, both in terms of what video evidence is available and some other evidence.
	And so at the time, Arbery is coming behind the truck, takes a right turn, and then right as he's passing the truck, takes a quick left turn to attack McMichael, even though McMichael's holding a gun there at the time.
	But Robert, stop there.
	When he took a hard left, Did they not strike him with the truck?
	I mean, that's one of the issues as to whether or not they struck him with the truck earlier.
	So not that they struck him at that point.
	Let me play devil's advocate.
	I might argue that that's a distinction without a difference.
	They hit him earlier, and this dude now is running for his life after having been struck by a car.
	It may have that in mind at some level, but at the time he runs in front of it.
	He knows there's nobody in the truck.
	That the father's on the back and the son is outside of the truck.
	So he knew there was no risk from the truck hitting him at the time he took a sharp left turn because there's nobody driving it.
	There's nobody even inside the cab.
	And he sees McMichael with the gun and attacks him.
	Now again, maybe he had self-defense arguments himself, but that's different than McMichael's position.
	So at that moment, there appears to be not a lot of doubt.
	That Arbery initiated that attack in that moment.
	And in fact, there's video footage of him punching McMichael in the head and of him trying to pull the gun away.
	So if you just look at that moment, it looks like a clean self-defense.
	It's again a case where the prosecution is about don't look at that moment, look at the broader context.
	And so now the problem the prosecution has is the media narrative is false.
	Like, the prosecution's theme was, this is a case about assumptions in driveways, which was not the best mixed metaphor imagery, but was trying to say they just assumed he had committed a crime.
	They had not witnessed it.
	They did not have evidence of it.
	The problem for the prosecution is, it turns out they were right.
	And the Ahmaud Arbery was not jogging through the neighborhood.
	Ahmaud Arbery was not a guy who just liked, oh, look at how beautiful the river is today.
	As I think we said, at least I said at the time, that story was never going to hold up.
	I'm just bringing up chats to let everyone know that we don't go easy on anybody here, Robert.
	You make public statements and you're going to get the critique from those who disagree with you.
	Yeah, the original narrative, King James coming out, and King James is...
	Robert, what's his name?
	His full name?
	LeBron.
	LeBron James.
	So he says, Can't even jog anymore while being black.
	And we knew that was, we all suspected that was probably an oversimplification.
	It turned out, and then I said, I don't even care if he was burglarizing.
	I don't even care if he was actually stealing things, although he typically, he wasn't because he had nothing in his hands when it happened.
	Then I get accused of being a sissy Canadian who doesn't care if he gets stolen from.
	We'll all get grilled and skewered on different aspects of this.
	So we knew the original narrative was false.
	Okay, fine.
	He was checking out a place.
	He was suspicious.
	The question then becomes, did they have any lawful authority to initiate a citizen's arrest, having suspected that he was running on the street, or even if they suspected that he had been burglarizing a property?
	Then the question becomes, they hit him with a car, continue chasing him.
	At what point is Arbery entitled to defend himself?
	Wisely or not so wisely by trying to grab a gun from an individual who has one with his father in a pickup truck with another one.
	Might have been not the smartest thing, but...
	But this is where the defense opening was brilliant.
	So first of all, he thematically united the storyline.
	He said this is a case about duty to family, duty to your neighborhood, duty to yourself.
	And he made it about a neighborhood story of which the McMichaels were only a part.
	Who are witnessing crime after crime after crime in their neighborhood.
	When seconds matter, it takes the police minutes to respond.
	He would come back to that statement.
	He talks about everybody else that was worried about this individual.
	That Ahmaud Arbery had been seen videotaped four different times.
	That the image of him had been shared throughout the neighborhood.
	That everybody was on the lookout for him.
	That he had been approaching a single mom's house with young kids in there.
	They were worried about what was going to happen there.
	That they had tried to catch him before, and he had meaningfully escaped.
	That he acted like he was armed in prior settings.
	So he has a good overarching theme.
	Then he sets up the backdrop very, very well.
	Infers for the McMichaels knowledge that the community had.
	And I'm curious, evidentiary-wise, how he's going to prove that.
	Because the big question was, did they have probable cause that he was fleeing a crime?
	And if they had the knowledge...
	A crime of a certain severity, right?
	A misdemeanor would not be sufficient.
	Felony, correct.
	Did they have probable cause?
	If you witness any crime personally, then you can arrest, you can detain someone.
	If you have probable cause or reasonable suspicion, depending on how you interpret the law in Georgia, of a felony and you see the person escaping, then you can use force to detain them.
	Not only can you detain them, you can use force to detain them.
	The trespass itself is not a felony.
	However, and even if Arbery had the right of self-defense, that does not mean the McMichaels did not have a right of self-defense.
	People both have self-defense at the same time.
	And so the issue here is it's not that a certain level of criminal trespass can be a felony, but more importantly, it's burglary.
	And what's misunderstood sometimes by people out there is in Georgia, burglary does not require you steal anything.
	It just requires you of the intent to do so.
	So what they see is they see him fleeing.
	With the history that he'd been there at least four times before, they believe five times before in just the months leading up, that there had been multiple robberies that they attribute to him.
	And the question is, did they have probable cause based on their collective information and the way in which he ran away?
	And you have the father, McMichael, who had long experience in law enforcement, who said, That kind of flight, hauling ass, as he put it, under those circumstances of knowing he was the one from the video before who'd been burglarizing the neighborhood and their belief was, then that is probably reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
	But that doesn't end the inquiry because it's still not real clear that they ever legally detained him.
	So their version of events is different than the prosecution's version of events.
	The prosecution's version of events is they hit him and they chased him and they said things to him.
	Their version of events is very different.
	Their version of events is that they actually let him pass.
	They kept trying to talk to him.
	They were trying to actually avoid him.
	They were just trying to get him to stay within the neighborhood long enough for the police to arrive.
	They weren't trying to immediately detain him themselves because they were afraid that he was armed.
	And so you have different contexts.
	Whether that's false imprisonment or not, do they have evidence beyond reasonable doubt?
	But if you want to see a persuasive opening statement, how you take thematic ideas, take a narrative structure, take chronological evidence, and blend them all together, it is brilliantly done by McMichaels' lead defense counsel.
	If they pick the good jury and the evidence supports what he said in opening statement, the McMichaels will be acquitted.
	If they picked a defense-friendly jury, I should say.
	Some people will be mad at me for it.
	What is the case is Ahmaud Arbery was casing out places and robbing people.
	That's what Ahmaud Arbery was doing.
	And this was part of the argument of the other defense lawyer.
	The prosecution's theme is they had no idea if he was the one.
	And the defense got up and said they had reason to believe he was one, and they were right.
	So that's the hard part for the prosecution is they have a guy who was a criminal who got caught, and when he got caught, panicked and attacked a guy with a gun and died.
	Well, and I know people are going to give you a hard time, Robert, and I'll highlight this.
	I disagree with you on this on the substance, but I understand what you're saying on the issue is that from the persuasiveness of the opening statements based on what the evidence may likely show or might potentially show.
	Yeah, the McMichaels had a more compelling opening statement than did Binger.
	The issue is going to be, I took a note, when seconds matter, the cops are minutes away, when it comes to an issue like burglary, and then it comes to an issue of armed citizens' arrest for whether or not they knew he was, whether or not they knew or had reasonable cause to suspect he was a burglar previously on that particular occasion.
	And it's true.
	Burglary does not imply stealing things.
	It means entering with criminal intent to steal, which doesn't necessarily imply having stolen.
	The question is going to be, as a matter of fact, did they have reasonable cause to think that he had done anything feloniously illegal that day to warrant their citizens' arrest?
	Did they do it properly?
	Or did they create a situation where Arbery, legit...
	Felt in fear of his life, even if he were staking out places for future burglary.
	And then you get into a situation where one person grabs for the gun, then he says, he's grabbing my gun, now he's not armed, now he is armed, and therefore I'm justified to use lethal force.
	But I gotta tell you something.
	To have evidence of the individual using ethnic slurs previously or, from what I understood, contemporaneously over the corpse of the man could be very problematic.
	In terms of trying to exonerate them of ill intent or prejudicial intent in why they might have thought this guy was up to no good when they saw him hauling ass.
	Because Lord knows, you see someone else who might be white hauling ass.
	You might think they're running to their car for lunch.
	Terrorized by burglary, it's a good way to frame it because it will make them look more justified.
	But then you get down to the end of the day.
	How were you terrorized?
	Were your kids out in the streets?
	What changed in your life that you were so terrorized that you had to do this?
	Well, and that's what I'm saying, that it's very much like Rittenhouse, in the sense that it's the broader context.
	So if you solely focus on the moment in time and when he's attacked by Arbery, then you have a pretty straightforward self-defense case.
	At that particular frame.
	At that one moment, Arbery reaches for the gun.
	Back it up for 30 seconds.
	To Rittenhouse, right?
	You only focus on when he pulls the trigger, what happens right before it.
	Pretty good self-defense case.
	If, on the other hand, you broaden it out, you get people who, in the Rittenhouse case, say he should have never been there, and in the McMichael case, say they should have never been there.
	Now, there's a stronger argument for the prosecution in McMichael than there is in Rittenhouse.
	But from a political narrative perspective, it's actually equal.
	You'll probably find the same number of jurors who feel Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there that feel that McMichael shouldn't have been there.
	And it's mostly a moral judgment about people being cops that aren't cops.
	It's saying, look, I mean, it's burglary.
	It is what it is.
	One, you couldn't have been that certain.
	Maybe racism was involved.
	And even if none of those things were true...
	Even if this had been a white guy that you chased after, that was an excessive reaction.
	It's a sort of moral, emotional response to it.
	And people are going to judge guilt or not based on that broader story.
	If they only focus on the linear aspect, I didn't hear anything from either opening.
	I mean, the smaller frame that the McMichaels wouldn't be found not guilty for.
	If they focus on the broader frame, it depends on your perspective.
	There's an argument for acquittal.
	There's an argument for conviction in which evidence of their racial prejudice I think would substantially hurt them if it comes in.
	It's not clear to me that it will.
	I'll bring up two comments.
	One person says I'm wrong.
	The other one says don't compare the two.
	I have no problem, by the way, if people think I'm wrong on this.
	The question is going to be someone pulls me over on the street with a gun and says you're under citizen's arrest.
	I suspect you of having committed a felony.
	All right.
	If I think that I haven't committed a felony or I'm, you know, I'm a reasonable person, I was like, all right, I think I'm being kidnapped now.
	Now, what's the best way to react?
	Two totally different circumstances.
	But that's the fundamental underlying issue.
	Arbery was, I don't think anyone's going to say he was up to good.
	Whether or not he was up to felonious wrongdoings that could, you know, possibly justify this outcome, that's for the jury.
	But he seems like he was doing something bad.
	But he's getting pulled over by two guys with guns and says, okay, they have no reason to be doing this.
	Now I'm at risk and so what are my rights and what can I do to protect myself?
	Probably selected the wrong option because grabbing the gun when you have two people, that's where it goes.
	But then the question is going to be, they put him in that position.
	This is a guy who they have no reason to be doing this to who might very well think, I'm getting...
	I'm getting...
	I won't use inflammatory rhetoric.
	I'm getting kidnapped.
	And I'm going to try to do what I think I'm going to do to get out of it.
	And it was the wrong thing.
	So, you know, mutual self-defense.
	I know the theory is out there.
	And I can imagine circumstances where it occurs.
	But it's going to be leading up to the moments of.
	You have, you know, whether or not they hit him with the car.
	When he darted left at the last minute to grab the gun.
	Was that the last resort because they wouldn't leave him alone?
	Yeah, whether or not they're comparable.
	But, bottom line, opening statements as attorneys, as professionals, Rittenhouse less compelling than McMichael's defense.
	Oh, no doubt.
	McMichael's defense shows you what a good, compelling opening statement would be.
	That it has a broad thematic structure, that it has a good narrational component, and that it gets to details of the facts in ways that sound simple and easy and make it sound obvious.
	That the defendant should prevail.
	So it really keeps a wonderfully even tone throughout the process.
	Uses visuals intermittently, very effectively.
	So it's really, probably could have done a little bit better with visuals, but that's about all.
	But really, really well done.
	I mean, he incorporates the fact that Michael has a three-year-old kid at the time.
	Three-year-old son, and he's living there with his, and a three-year-old grandson for the father.
	So, I mean, little things like that.
	Like he blended in the single mother with three kids that Arbery appeared to be approaching her house at night.
	And Scary said, you know, brilliant ways to play into how do I get the jury to think of this case through Michael's eyes?
	And that's what he did.
	And if you see it through those eyes, if you see burglary is invasive, dangerous, risky, because you need to in order to feel okay.
	With them trying to track him down and prevent him from leaving the neighborhood.
	And that's what was very effectively presented.
	But again, it really depends on the jury because you have very strong core beliefs.
	You have people who really think citizens arrest, no problem, we need more of them.
	And you have people who think, we don't want people with guns just randomly chasing after people.
	So it's such a strong belief.
	And it's similar to Rittenhouse in the sense that you have people who believe we absolutely need people to defend people's...
	You know, from looting and rioting and arson and attacks on our community.
	And you have people who believe you absolutely should never be there whatsoever.
	And it's outrageous and outlandish to be there.
	I have no doubt that Little Binger thinks that about written out.
	So it's the deeper moral political narratives that are the backdrop that are going to ultimately shape the outcomes in the case based on, frankly, both cases will come down to jury selection.
	Who picked the better jury?
	That will be, or what was the random luck of the jury?
	That will dictate both cases, in my view.
	Well, no, I think the facts are much less favorable in McMichaels.
	Oh, yeah.
	In McMichael, they're weaker.
	The defense is nowhere near as robust as they are in Rittenhouse.
	All right, well, on the issue of Second Amendment, Robert, I don't know what the case is, but what's the Second Amendment going before SCOTUS currently?
	Yeah, so that was heard this week.
	It's the New York case.
	And the question is whether the Supreme Court is going to shift the perspective of how they rule on the Second Amendment cases that could impact everybody else.
	So if they go to no longer this sort of tiered scrutiny of strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny or rational basis review, but instead say, let's look at tradition, let's look at the history, let's look at the text and see whether or not this particular...
	method of owning or using a gun had Second Amendment original constitutional protection by the original intention of owning or using a gun.
	If they take that path, that will make a more robust...
	Second Amendment protection, and some of the questions appeared to lean in that direction.
	So it looks like the Supreme Court will expand the protection of Second Amendment rights, this term, which is, I've been predicting this for about six months now, and this case and the questions asked suggest that will be the way it goes.
	All right.
	An innocent person in an Arbery situation would have insisted upon police arriving on scene to arrest McMichaels for brandishing and assaulting with a deadly weapon.
	A guilty person prefers to flee.
	Look, I don't know.
	I mean...
	I know that if you've been chased for long enough with people with guns, my reflex would be if they wanted to shoot me, they would have already done it.
	Someone made a joke about detain me.
	I wouldn't make that move to grab a gun.
	I might run in every other direction possible, and if they're going to shoot me in the back, it'll be clear enough from the facts.
	But, yeah, look, it's...
	The facts are what we know them to be as of now.
	We'll see if something outrageous comes out or unknown comes out during the trial.
	But I know what I believe based on the fact currently in both situations.
	But I did learn a lot of new facts in the Rittenhouse case.
	Robert, let me just see.
	Hold on.
	There was one other one.
	Well, the other big topic is vaccine mandate topic.
	Yeah, so we're already over two hours.
	Let's just do it until my wife comes down and gets mad at me.
	What's up with the vaccine mandates?
	So as predicted, the OSHA rule triggered lawsuits right away.
	Because the OSHA rule is the kind of rule that it is, you can challenge it directly in appeals courts.
	You don't have to go through district courts.
	So it was challenged in a bunch of appeals courts the day it was issued.
	And that's, in my view, why the Biden administration waited eight weeks between the time they announced it and issued this emergency order.
	This emergency order took eight weeks to issue, but they can't wait for a few weeks for notice and comment.
	I tried to find what I thought was the emergency order.
	Is it a 462-page document?
	Yes, it is.
	Okay.
	I mean, admittedly, now, everyone, there's a lot of footnotes in there, but it's a 462.
	Nobody's reading that.
	Nobody cares.
	Okay, sorry, sorry, sorry.
	So the executive order is a 400-and-some-odd-page document.
	The emergency order, the emergency rule established by OSHA.
	That's bullcrap.
	That's garbage.
	Because, first of all, nobody drafted that.
	Overnight.
	So that's been a long time in the works.
	Nobody's reading that.
	And they know damn well.
	Because I started reading it.
	And they're going to the criteria of issuing the rules and the functioning of small businesses.
	Okay, fine.
	So I cannot cover that.
	But I glossed through it.
	So you got your rule, and now they're challenging it.
	Yes.
	So, I mean, the problems with the rules, first of all, it's an emergency rule.
	Which means it did not go through notice and comment.
	It only lasts six months, and the federal courts have been very skeptical, particularly of OSHA issuing emergency rules.
	They're like, why can't you go through the regular process given the number of people you're going to impact, the breadth and depth of the impact of these kind of rules?
	They even struck down asbestos emergency rules that OSHA passed.
	So it was unsurprising that it was challenged right away.
	It was challenged by both states and by individuals and by companies.
	The Daily Wire brought suit.
	The various state attorney generals brought suit.
	And a guy named Brandon brought suit.
	And in the suit by the guy named Brandon, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said there are such grave constitutional and statutory problems with what OSHA has done.
	We're going to stop this rule from going into force until we can fully rule on whether or not it should ever go into force.
	And the Brandon was neither Brandon Brown, the NASCAR guy, nor Brandon, the individual in the wheelchair that Biden decided to exploit.
	It's another Brandon.
	It was Fifth Circuit.
	So I know you've talked about it before, Robert.
	I'm going to invoke the new crowd so you can re-explain it to me.
	How do the circuit systems of the U.S. Court of Appeals work?
	What does it mean, the circuit?
	And what geographical areas do they cover and how do they determine that?
	It used to mean riding circuit, literally.
	So the Supreme Court justices themselves used to ride circuit and preside over cases, including even preside over trials at the beginning of our history.
	In fact, Samuel Chase, the Supreme Court justice, who they initially tried to impeach, was impeached because of how he handled the trial, because they even actually rode circuit to the point of presiding over trials.
	So from that history came the circuit courts of appeals.
	Over time, they've become separately appointed judges.
	And they are geographically assigned.
	So the Fifth Circuit is like Texas and Louisiana and I think Mississippi.
	The Eleventh Circuit is Alabama and Georgia and Florida.
	And then you have the Fourth Circuit.
	But basically we have, I think, in all, including the D.C. Circuit, Twelve Circuit Court of Appeals, plus we have the Federal Court of Claims, which handles a specific subset of appeals.
	And so the Fifth Circuit has been historically, in the last 20, 25 years, a more conservative circuit.
	And same with the 11th Circuit.
	The 7th Circuit has kind of been conservative, and the 6th Circuit kind of conservative, depending on their circumstances.
	The most liberal circuits have been the 1st Circuit, 2nd Circuit, and 9th Circuit.
	Occasionally, the 3rd and the 4th, though, they tend to split.
	And it's all based on the political appointees at the time.
	In other words, who has more Democratic versus Republican appointees on the bench?
	Which ones of those turned out to be particularly ideological or not?
	And so it's not a surprise that it got stopped.
	I don't think the OSHA mandate will succeed, and I think it will begin the process of a blowback across the board.
	I'm going to be filing suit with the Children's Health Defense this week against the emergency use authorization they issued for 5- to 11-year-olds for the vaccine.
	My whistleblower story blew up last week.
	That's the Pfizer-Gate whistleblower.
	I represent her.
	And what she details is shocking.
	The clinical trials were a joke.
	Complete crock.
	They were utterly unscientific.
	They did not meet any standard of medicine.
	This is someone that has almost two decades of experience in this field.
	What's her name, by the way?
	Brooke Jackson.
	And so what came out, it was published in the British Medical Journal.
	They verified and validated and vouched for the data and information that she produced that showed that basic methods of scientific standards for clinical testing were not met.
	They didn't even properly blind people.
	I mean, to give you an idea of how bad it was, if you walked into the clinical testing center, you would see needles sticking out of bags and people's private medical records calendared on the wall.
	I mean, they didn't take baseline data.
	They fabricated and falsified reports.
	They didn't even track adverse events.
	When they knew of adverse events, they didn't even report the adverse events.
	They were paying people under the table to participate in the process illicitly.
	And they all knew it.
	They all knew it.
	And it was systematic.
	It was so big that her supervisor said, we can't do anything about this because it's happening everywhere, not just the place she was looking at.
	And when she told the FDA...
	All of a sudden, right away, she gets fired, and the question becomes, how did Pfizer and her employer know that she had talked to the FDA?
	Unless the FDA ran right to Pfizer to make sure they silenced her and shut her up.
	And if they did this about this, what else did they cover up?
	What else is the corruption and collusion in?
	So it's a real-life Goliath story from the fourth season of Goliath on Amazon, which is very good about Big Pharma.
	That details shocking evidence.
	Of Pfizer misconduct.
	On the spot, I brought it up just by accident.
	So Goliath Season 3 is correct.
	The FDA takes the words of science.
	It's Season 4, yeah.
	Instead of independent highway.
	Yes.
	Extraordinary.
	Extraordinary.
	And in Europe, they recognize the significance of these allegations.
	Many doctors are saying to pull these authorizations for the vaccines for different groups based on the risk profile.
	In the U.S., they've been trying to suppress this story.
	So, you know, some of these reporters, Dave Lionheart, New York Times, some other people who claim to be wanting to be independent on this, they need to be following up on this story because this is an extraordinary story of a near 20-year clinical test auditor in the clinical testing environment, in this precise environment, who saw shocking levels of malfeasance and misconduct and falsification and fabrication of data that the FDA suppressed rather than independently report, research, and stop.
	Now, let me just get ahead of it.
	Insignificant Nat says, wrong.
	Because it's not just that we have a good team and a good community.
	It's that right now we are relaying the information that was relayed by an alleged whistleblower, and it's the dissemination of information, accurate or inaccurate, but there's no medical information, there's no medical advice, there's no legal advice, and there's no contradicting any official narrative.
	This...
	People sent me the links to the whistleblower.
	And such a vault I am that I receive these things and I don't say what I know or what I don't know because I'm a vault.
	But these are whistleblowers who are relaying their information.
	And it's out there and it's published in mainstream media.
	The British Medical Journal.
	That's who vouched for this.
	This is not anybody.
	This is not some small publication.
	This is one of the leading medical publications in the world.
	Ignored by some, or at least repeated by others.
	So, hey, maybe she's a liar.
	She might be a pathological liar.
	She might be a disgruntled employee.
	She's got the tapes.
	She's got the emails.
	She's a disgruntled employee.
	And that's what they reviewed.
	They independently vouched for and validated every single piece of information they gave her.
	She may be a disgruntled employee, Robert.
	She wasn't disgruntled at all.
	She just thought, hey, her job was to be the clinical auditor, to make sure that the testing data met scientific standards for accuracy purposes.
	Was shocked what she'd witnessed.
	Never witnessed anything like this in her life at this level.
	And again, the British Medical Journal independently validated.
	Vouched for and verified the accuracy of her information, which shows major corruption and collusion with the FDA and Pfizer in the COVID-19 clinical testing, which for the world should be and is shocking information and should raise questions about every aspect of this that's going on.
	Josiah Magnuson says, I've heard nothing of the whistleblower.
	Please tell me where I can learn more of it.
	I was sent articles.
	I mean, I'll see if I can, if anybody can pull them up.
	The British Medical Journal, Pfizer-Gate.
	Just, you know, look that up and you'll find it pretty quick in the intel.
	I mean, zero hedge.
	Other people had it at the top.
	European doctors were deeply concerned by what they saw.
	European scientists.
	Just the mainstream media in the U.S. tried to suppress it.
	But they can't suppress it forever.
	Her declaration will be part of the lawsuit brought against the emergency use authorization of this to stick this needle in kids.
	And even worse, the UN has proposed, and some school districts are considering, that if you leave your kid at school on a day that vaccination is occurring, they're going to call it implied consent and inject your kid without your knowledge.
	And just going back to Alyssa Milano, who has not been suspended from Twitter, 92% of 170,000 respondents, and call it falsified because of social media brigades and whatever, 92% say no, never.
	So, it's a question of choice.
	Everyone will make their own decisions.
	But, yeah.
	Just Google it.
	Her name is Brooke Jackson.
	So, Google it.
	Because a number of people have sent me the articles over the last week.
	But, yeah.
	Robert, hold on.
	Let me just listen for the sounds of an angry wife.
	I don't hear it.
	I don't hear anything yet.
	Oh.
	Baby shark torture.
	We have to talk about this.
	This is straight out of The Men Who Stare at Goats by John Ronson.
	Ron Johnson.
	John Ronson?
	John Ronson.
	What the FBI, what intelligence actually does to torture people.
	Robert, what's the circumstance?
	This is at a prison where they're playing baby shark music over and over again for hours while prisoners are forced to be standing.
	Are the prisoners stewing on the basis of civil rights violations torture?
	Yes.
	They're saying having to listen to Baby Shark over and over again is clearly a violation of their Fifth Amendment rights and torture.
	Well, to add the more context, they were forced to be in standing positions.
	What was this for?
	This is for punishment for being bad prison inmates?
	Some sort of internal discipline is the pretext.
	And it's not just Baby Shark.
	Lulling them to sleep.
	They were forced into uncomfortable positions for hours.
	Replaying the music.
	And I'm fairly certain it was out of The Men Who Stared Goats.
	Techniques that the FBI uses where they were interrogating witnesses and they just played a song over and over again for days.
	And then I think it was the person being interrogated said, why'd you play that song?
	And there was no better reason.
	It's just like, there was no hidden meaning to Baby Shark.
	No hidden meaning to the songs.
	Just, why not?
	Hey, let's blast some...
	Random noises while we hole up the families and kids in Waco for a week to see what effect it has.
	Because once they're here, may as well use it for some experimentation.
	It appears that Baby Shark really drove them nuts.
	Baby Shark is freaking annoying.
	You hear it once, you'll play it in your own head for the rest of the day, and that's your self-torture right there.
	And I never realized there's multiple verses.
	There's Grandma Shark, Mama Shark, Papa...
	It was toward whoever thought of it in the first place.
	I mean, it should have been on Squid Games, but it wasn't.
	Okay, so funny story.
	Not so funny because we actually have this going on in prisons and they're suing for damages and no trouble believing the abuse that occurs within the prison system.
	What do we have left?
	Well, we got Biden versus Texas.
	The Biden administration is suing Texas to stop Texas election law.
	It will fail like the effort to...
	The Justice Department also sued Georgia to try to stop their election law.
	It failed.
	This will fail as well.
	Texas election law will be upheld.
	Okay.
	We'll call it ending now.
	Anyhow, who do we have on for Sidebar Wednesday?
	Don't know yet.
	So waiting to hear back.
	So it'll be a surprise.
	Okay.
	Now, incidentally...
	I've scheduled with Five Times August as not a sidebar, but for Thursday.
	So maybe if we have a vacancy, we can bump Five Times August, who makes great music, God help us all, go listen to Five Times August.
	I know people have been doing it because he messaged me and said a lot of new comments.
	He'll be on Thursday regardless of who's on sidebar Wednesday, but if we have nobody, maybe we bump him up Wednesday.
	I might make a cameo, and by might, probably will, on Robert Grueler tomorrow.
	For maybe an hour at 7. And Robert, what's your schedule for the week?
	Like, what are you doing this week?
	Busy week.
	Busy week.
	Suing a lot of people.
	Doing some other stuff.
	Okay, so we'll share it on Locals.
	Where can people find us, Robert?
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com And they'll have all the different lawsuits, complaints, briefs, memorandums, court orders.
	That has all the medical and scientific literature, because we will be suing to stop the kids from being subject to this experimental medical treatment this week on behalf of Children's Health Defense, likely suing in the Western District of Texas.
	And I want to actually add this right now before anybody gets angry at Robert, YouTube overlords or others.
	Our Dr. Teresa Tam, Chief Medical Officer of Canada, the same woman who said wear a mask while having sexual activities, specified.
	Today, that there have been 350,000 cases of COVID under 19 years in Canada, less than 1%, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, 1% were serious infections, and then 15 to 20 deaths, setting aside underlying comorbidities, 0.00005%.
	So this is not, nobody's undermining the seriousness of COVID for certain vulnerable demographics.
	For COVID, not that demographic.
	So, coming from Teresa Tam, if anyone wants to have a problem with this, you've got a problem with our Teresa Tam.
	I've got a problem with her, but whatever.
	So, okay.
	We'll see.
	And Robert, that'll be it.
	I mean, look, give us some optimism, and then we're going to close out.
	I'll say our proper goodbyes afterwards.
	Everyone in the chat, thank you very much.
	But Robert, close us out for the week.
	Well, it's great to see all these states step up.
	You're seeing more and more states pass laws banning these mandates that discriminate against people based on their medical status and their medical choices.
	I think you're going to see 25 to 30 such states pass such legislation within the next six months, which is great to see.
	Something that's been long overdue.
	And you're seeing courts finally step up now that state actors are getting involved to push back.
	Against this effort to force this upon employees, to force this upon now children.
	And so it's great to...
	So we're seeing more and more success in the courts than we've ever seen before.
	So this effort to restore the old eugenics era precedence is starting to get pushback, and I think we'll continue to see success in the courts.
	There'll be some hurdles and humps along the way, but I think ultimately the courts will determine that the right to bodily autonomy, the right to religious expression, protects your rights to not to have forcible...
	medication imposed upon you as a condition of employment or education.
	And that will be a great win for civil liberties and civil rights moving forward.
	And we're moving much more closer in that direction than we were just a few weeks ago.
	I will only add, I hope there's a trickle-up effect from the U.S. to Canada.
	And I hope it's a trickle-out effect from the U.S. to the rest of the world.
	So, Robert, amazing stuff.
	We'll stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.
	Everyone else, thank you very much for being here.
	Support.
	Comments, etc.
	You know what to do.
	Nick Ricada tomorrow will be live streaming.
	I'll probably pop in and I'll hopefully do a recap of day one in a 10 minute or less format.
	Everyone, good evening.

▲