Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 14, 2021 - Viva & Barnes

02:55:09

Ep. 87: Rittenhouse; Arbery; Bannon; O'keefe; Baldwin; Britney; Astroworld & MORE! Viva & Barnes

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Second, early people, which means I'm on time.
	Alright, I don't know how many people out there have children, but we drove to Toronto Friday afternoon, spent the night Friday, the day Saturday, and drove back today.
	Stayed in a hotel room, five people, one dog in one room.
	It had a beautiful view.
	We got upgraded to the 26th floor of the hotel, and it was a beautiful view.
	Until you look out there, At the sea of urban scape, skyscrapers, concrete, and glass jungle.
	And you realize what people have been going through in that environment over the last two years.
	I went to Toronto.
	I don't like Toronto very much as a city.
	If I ever become Prime Minister, this might come back to haunt me.
	Toronto, some have said it feels like New York, except without the charm, without the architecture, and without...
	I mean, I guess it's got a good culinary scene and it's got a good show scene.
	It is a big cement city compared to Montreal.
	There are some very nice areas with some beautiful architecture, but it feels like a big sprawling American city, except without the magnificent architecture of New York, without the charm of New York.
	But I'm biased because I'm from Montreal and I happen to think Montreal is probably the best city in the world to the extent that we can preserve it.
	So we drove down, spent the day there, and this is going to be my opening rant.
	It was soul-crushing, and I refer to it as a proverbial, spiritual, psychological, political kick in the teeth.
	You know, Montreal, Quebec has been, I would say, a little over the top in terms of the COVID response, the lockdown measures, the overall stress levels.
	Maybe I'm projecting and maybe it's not there, but I'm looking to see it.
	Toronto is next level.
	And, you know, sitting on that hotel balcony looking over this urban seascape of skyscrapers and in each one of those buildings are a thousand plus people who had been locked up in those, as beautiful as those apartments are, as spacious as they are, as magnificent as they are in the ordinary run of things to have a downtown apartment, a downtown condo, you know, a thousand square feet.
	To be in there for months on end, it leaves trauma.
	And I felt like I felt that trauma walking the streets.
	People wearing face masks.
	Some people wearing double face masks.
	And I want to just share some of the stuff that I posted to my Twitter feed.
	Because, let me see if I can do this without destroying myself.
	Chrome tab Twitter.
	Here, I'll just show you some of the highlights on my Twitter feed for anybody who follows me.
	I think you can see this right now.
	When I had the discussion with people, the argument, rather, that Canada has not become a police state, and some people still affirm that Canada has not become a police state because I can leave my house and I'm not being arbitrarily detained and I'm not having property arbitrarily taken away from me, to which I might ordinarily respond, when the government prohibits your free travel, cross-border, cross-provincial border, They are taking property away from you if you happen to have property elsewhere.
	They are taking it away from you because they're not letting you go enjoy that property peaceably like you're entitled to do under your constitutional God-given rights.
	But then you come up with things like this.
	This was to get into expectations for breakfast and not to get into because I don't eat in restaurants anymore.
	I didn't eat in restaurants all that much before, but all guests must provide their name and phone number, email when they sit down in our restaurant according to government regulations.
	According to government regulations, this information must be kept for a minimum of 30 days.
	Can you imagine that not being a police state?
	That in order to sit down in a restaurant, according to government regulations, I need to give my name, email, telephone number, and ID.
	There's my beautiful fish tank, which is coming along well.
	That was one kick in the teeth.
	We took the breakfast out to go and ate in the park.
	This was coming on the way back on the drive and at some of the off-ramp thingies.
	I just noticed this sign.
	We are currently experiencing interruptions in our supply chain, which may affect availability of certain products.
	This is in the country now where the government thought it's such a great idea because things are going so well that what you want to do now is fire employees who are not vaccinated because surely that would not exacerbate any other more serious problems that you probably are going through currently.
	Oh, here's another one.
	Dining in today, please present proof of vaccination and ID to cashier.
	These are kicks in the teeth.
	Did I just...
	Am I still here?
	I'm still here.
	I had another incident at the hotel where to get into the pool, you had to provide a vaccine passport.
	You could check into the hotel.
	You could stay in your room.
	You could walk the lobby.
	You could do whatever you want in that hotel.
	But the second you went into the pool area, you had to show your vaccine passport to get in.
	And I just wouldn't do it this time.
	I was lucky in that the pool sucked.
	And one of my kids wasn't too eager to go.
	The other one was a little unhappy.
	And the other one, who's independent enough, was in there with another person who had showed their papers to partake in pool activities.
	And this was my revelation.
	And before I get there, let me just take a few Super Chats.
	Don't get brazen with me.
	Beautiful moment from the weekend.
	Remember the punchline of all this.
	Morning, boss.
	At least it's morning here.
	That must mean you're in Australia or East Asia?
	I don't know.
	I'm taking a wild guess.
	Super Chats.
	I'm going to get to as many as I can.
	I'm not going to get to all of them.
	If you're not going to be happy, if I don't get to it, don't give a super chat.
	I don't like feeling, who's going to cut your hair first?
	We'll see.
	I think I'm going for the long haul, people.
	I like it.
	And plus, when I put on a bandana now, I'm starting to look like the cool old man who is trying to look younger than he is.
	This is my ultimate takeaway from all of this.
	In the beginning, this is how you transform a society.
	This is how you corrupt.
	This is how you corrupt values.
	This is how you corrupt people's souls and the essential being of what it means to be human.
	And this is how you corrupt societies.
	And it's how you corrupt societies to become societies that we have seen in the past.
	At first, I noticed everyone hated the stupid vaccine passport, the rule, imposing it.
	Everyone hated it.
	Cashiers, restaurant clerks, whomever, the security working...
	The food court in Alexis Neon down the street, they hated it.
	And I know they hated it.
	Everyone hated it.
	And then what ends up happening is everybody hates it, and you end up having the people who react badly to being asked for their papers berating the people who are, you know, compelled to become the government snitches.
	You have those people berating the people enforcing the rules.
	You have that happen so much that the people enforcing the rules, enforcing the government regulations, Eventually have nothing but disdain for the people, the ones who do not follow the rules, the ones who give them a hard time, to the point where they then take a little pleasure out of flexing their might to be enforcing these rules,
	because whether anyone likes it or not under these current regulations, they're acting as the gatekeeper to something that some people want, and some people get angry not getting what they want, rightly so in my opinion, but like I say, taking it out of the wrong people.
	And so what ends up happening over time is the people who were reluctant to enforce these arbitrary, draconian, tyrannical measures, they get so irritated at the backlash they get from having been put in that position, they then start to take a, if not pleasure, at the very least they start to enforce the rules because they have that power over the people who are berating them for carrying out those measures.
	And this is how you corrupt a society.
	And you corrupt the society.
	By getting people who didn't want to be doing what they're forced to be doing to get them to love to doing what they're doing.
	And when I got to the cashier at the place today where I wasn't expecting to get asked for a vaccine passport because the Big Apple coming out of Toronto, for anybody who doesn't know it, they've got a petting zoo.
	They've got bathrooms, gift shops.
	They've got a store.
	You can go in there.
	But the second you want to eat what you bought in that entire establishment, they ask you for your vaccine passport.
	And the cashier gave me such attitude.
	She says, I presume you're eating here.
	And I said, well, what difference would that make?
	Because I wasn't expecting it.
	And then she said, you'll have to show a vaccine passport and proof of ID.
	And I said, I would sooner, I would have left everything on the counter, but it was like $100 worth of food for five people, and I don't want to be that jerk to a restaurant to get the food and then have them incur the waste.
	And I was hungry.
	But I took it, and we ate, freezing cold outside, took it into the car, ate in the car.
	But...
	I got the impression that it was like we're at a point now where the people who have been put in this crappy spot to enforce these measures now get not pleasure necessarily, but they get some satisfaction out of being the gatekeeper holding the power over their people to allow people to do that which they want to do.
	They're the ones who hold the final power over other citizens.
	And it reminded me one of the things about how the secret police became so prevalent in other societies.
	They weren't getting paid for it.
	They weren't getting promotions for it.
	So why did people do it?
	And they did it because it gave them power over their brethren, their fellow citizens.
	We're all supposed to be equal.
	We're all supposed to be equal under the law.
	We're all supposed to be equal in each other's eyes in terms of how we deal with each other.
	But this gave the secret people who were spying, the people who were carrying out the government rule, it gave them power over their fellow citizens.
	Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
	And that was my revelation about how you corrupt a society into, at first, opposing the rules, begrudgingly enforcing the rules, and then gleefully enforcing the rules.
	And that's sort of where we're at right now.
	Okay, with that said, people, rant over, but it's depressing.
	Let me just see if I can get some of these chats.
	Super chats, people.
	YouTube takes 30%.
	If you don't like that...
	And I can appreciate that some do not like that.
	There's Rumble, where we're live streaming as well.
	Rumble.com.
	I'm vivafry at rumble.com.
	They take 20% on their Rumble rants, which are the equivalent of Super Chats.
	Better for the creator, better for the company, better for you if you like to support a free speech supporting company.
	I will do my best to get to all of them.
	If I don't get to them and you're going to be miffed, don't give them to me.
	Not a right of entry into the conversation.
	If I bring up one that is totally inappropriate and insulting and offensive, it's probably because I didn't read it first.
	And don't judge me for it and don't hold me to it because it'll happen.
	And full disclaimer.
	Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends than good men should look on and do nothing.
	Yeah, the variation of that.
	John Stuart Mill.
	Thank you very much.
	Game-o-lytics.
	All that evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
	Who's the one that said?
	I think it was Nietzsche.
	Convince people to believe absurdities.
	You can get them to commit atrocities.
	I mean, it's so preposterous.
	I walk into the restaurant, place the order, stand there with a mask, breathing out the air, but the second you want to sit down, show your papers.
	And the guy at the pool who asked me for papers, I mean, it's a terrible job.
	He doesn't want to be there.
	He probably gets chewed out more often than he'd like.
	And at some point, it becomes his source of revenge.
	On the citizens who just can't follow the rules and just do what they're told.
	And so it becomes a source of pleasure.
	It's sad and depressing.
	Okay, let me see what we can get here.
	I'm going to go down to the bottom.
	I mean, we're going to talk about Rittenhouse, but we're going to talk about Arbery as well.
	We're going to talk about Project Veritas.
	We're going to talk about Baldwin.
	So many things.
	So many things.
	Come to Quebec City.
	A very good compromise between the perks of a big city and the beauty of a small town.
	D2KC.
	I lived in Quebec City for four years.
	That's where I did my law degree.
	It's a beautiful town.
	It's a little too small for me.
	It's like, what was it?
	165,000 people.
	Beautiful winters.
	Beautiful for skiing.
	Healthy living.
	Open areas.
	Green space.
	But I spent four years in Quebec City.
	I commuted back and forth every weekend.
	But it is a beautiful city.
	Just not where I would spend my life.
	Montreal is like the perfect mix between Toronto and Quebec City.
	Near the border, near Vermont, near the mountains, near a big city, near theater and restaurants, if that's what you like.
	Hayden the Destroyer.
	Hi.
	Hi, I'm eight, and my stepdad gave me permission to give this for Happy World Diabetes Day because I have type 1 diabetes.
	Maybe you guys could play Mario Kart sometimes.
	Okay, thanks.
	Goodbye.
	Hayden the Destroyer.
	Thank you very much.
	I could play Super Mario Kart.
	I'm not going to be so good at Mario Kart.
	I'd be better at Mario Brothers, the original arcade version.
	Hayden.
	I would destroy you, and I would have no mercy, even if you're eight years old.
	Thank you very much, and good luck with...
	I don't know what type 1 diabetes means in terms of daily procedures, but be well, be healthy, and thank you for the super chat, and good luck with everything.
	What do we got here?
	You should see what you need to give them to obtain fertilizer or dewormer at an AG supply store.
	No, it's like...
	It's just...
	And then meanwhile, while they impose these crippling draconian restrictions that are effectively crippling the economy, causing problems in supply chains, strife among citizens, the Prime Minister is gallivanting across Europe in his government jet to lecture us about global warming, masks off, yucking it up in a bar with his buddies because it's not illegal there.
	You know, the laws in Italy about COVID are different than the laws in Sweden, are different because science is geographical and science is political, quite clearly.
	It's political when it gets political, then it becomes political.
	Viva.
	I can't take my dog to the pond anymore because the ducks keep attacking him.
	That's what I get for buying a purebred dog.
	I don't know what you do to get ducks away.
	Ducks can be vicious and geese as well.
	I have a good sidebar guest suggested, Dr. John Campbell.
	I recently discovered his YouTube channel and find him to be pretty good at unbiased analysis of the coup.
	We'd probably have to do that on another channel.
	Maybe locals, maybe just exclusive to Rumble.
	Let's see what we've got here.
	Yeah, Viva, didn't you know COVID spreads at water?
	Oh, at water.
	Chlorinated water.
	You want to go into a gym, the gym at the hotel.
	Vaccine passports.
	See, Viva's learning.
	I'm a slow learner.
	I'm a slow learner, but we are corrupting a society by corrupting the citizens and by effectively turning them against one another.
	But I had a wonderful discussion with someone who I had not seen in a long time yesterday that I just randomly bumped into.
	And I could tell, politically, we probably had different views.
	We had different levels of trauma as relates to the experience.
	Of COVID over the last two years.
	But we still, individually, we still get along and we still express ideas and exchange ideas with mutual respect for one another.
	But you traumatize people enough and they lash out.
	Oh my goodness, did I not share the best thing?
	Yeah, there was a strip club on Yonge Street in Toronto.
	Zanzibar.
	I think it was called Zanzibar.
	Anyways.
	They found an interesting humorous way of imposing the rules.
	It said, no pass, no ASS.
	And then it said, vaxxed and waxed.
	I mean, it's something you would expect to see in Total Recall or like a science fiction dystopian novel.
	The year is 2021.
	The government has made...
	Vaccination mandatory for a virus with a 99-point-whatever survival rate has now ruled out the vaccination for a demographic with a 0.0005 fatality rate, less than a 1% hospitalization rate if infected.
	And in order to get into strip clubs, you need to show proof of vaccination, and this is what the strip clubs of the future looks like.
	No vax...
	Sorry, no pass, no ass.
	Vaxxed and waxed.
	I mean, it's...
	It's soul-crushing.
	And the question is, how do you change things?
	How do you change things?
	And it has to be from the ground up.
	I mean, I was just thinking, like, you don't make the biggest, most long-lasting waves from the surface.
	They have to come from the depths.
	And the depths are the people that have to make the waves from the bottom up in order to affect change, because it's not going to happen.
	It's not going to happen by fighting with one another, and it's not also going to happen just by fighting with the government.
	Alex Ambrose, Viva.
	Was there ever a case where a judge found prosecutor in contempt?
	Can they?
	Can jury find prosecutor guilty of contempt?
	We'll get there.
	A judge can definitely find an attorney in contempt or issue what they call, it's an order to show cause.
	I think it's the same in the States.
	A judge can hold anyone in contempt, anyone in court in contempt, including a lawyer.
	Contempt in Fashe is in the court.
	Ex Fashe is outside the court, which typically means not respecting a court order.
	We'll get there with Binger.
	We're not there yet, but we'll get there.
	Now, let me see if I can get this.
	Super Chats are coming in fast and furious, and I'm not going to get to all of them.
	I see a red one with a D in front of it, which I...
	Oh, we got...
	No, I got that one.
	And then when Robert is ready to come in, we're going to go over this.
	Okay, we got that.
	If I can't find it...
	My goodness, the chat's moving too fast, even in slow mode, but I only put on 50 seconds.
	I'm not going to be able to bring it up.
	Del Monte says, just want to say thank you to you and Barnes.
	Thank you for doing this.
	Thank you very much.
	Texas is fully open.
	No signs.
	Some people are still wearing masks in their cars.
	Yeah, people can do whatever they want on an individual basis.
	But on a government basis, to compel masks for everybody, kids in school, I mean, it's...
	It's too much.
	Okay, type on.
	Wow, I'm not even at the bottom of the chat yet.
	Okay, chat might be coming in too fast for me to actually keep up with today.
	This might be the first time in a long time I'm not going to be able to.
	Okay, with that said, until Robert gets here, I'll talk about one...
	Oh, shoot, did I not...
	No, I sent Robert to the stream links.
	Okay, hold on one second.
	Let me just make sure that I did.
	I'm fairly certain that I did.
	Gentlemen, give me one second, ladies and gentlemen.
	Okay, I sent it to him.
	Let me just do one subject that we can...
	Oh, okay, so first of all, tomorrow is going to be closing arguments in Rittenhouse, and it's going to be phenomenal.
	But one thing I didn't mention this week, it happened so fast.
	I was going to do something special for 400,000 subs in the back, and we were going to get...
	A neon light, but then I saw how much they were, and it's a big waste of money, even if I wanted to be opulent and glamorous.
	So I put up two pictures that I took.
	We hit 400,000 subs this week, and it happened so fast, but I didn't want to detract from the accomplishments of three other individuals of the week, which are glorious, and it all plays together because a rising tide truly lifts all ships.
	Nick Ricada hit 250,000.
	It's amazing what he did.
	Alita from LegalBytes picked up 10,000 subs in the week, went from 6,000 to over 15,000.
	And Andrew from LegalMindsets picked up several thousand subs, and they have seen a meteoric rise and are now known within the legal law YouTube community.
	And for those who don't know who the lawyers are, and someone in the chat will get me if I forget anybody, we've got Nate, the lawyer.
	We've got LegalMindset, which is Andrew.
	LegalBytes, Alita.
	Nick Ricada.
	Kurt from Uncivil Law.
	Joe Nierman from Good Logic.
	We've got Steve Leto, who has not yet been in the circuit, but one day we'll get in here.
	Leto's Law, everybody knows him.
	You've got Emily D. Baker, who's up to 170,000, did a Friday stream to celebrate the liberation of Britney Spears.
	Everyone chat, whoever else I forgot in there, but it's beautiful, but we hit 400,000 subs, so I do want to thank each and every one of you.
	It's two Quebec cities.
	And every Saturday night, Sunday night, sorry, we're at 12,000 people watching now, 2,000 on locals, I mean, on Rumble.
	It's a town watching.
	It's a town getting information in what I think is an unbiased manner, getting information they wouldn't get anywhere else.
	And it's a community that we've built, and it's beautiful, and I thank each and every one of you.
	And with that, I see Robert Barnes, who, if I can see from his avatar, A haircut?
	Robert, did you trim your beard?
	Yeah, earlier in the last week.
	Okay.
	See, I notice things.
	Now, do we like it like this if I bring up chats like this?
	Or do we go like this?
	Now, I know we've been doing this.
	Ah, let's do this.
	I like it better.
	Robert, how is everything going?
	What a flipping week.
	Before we get into the good goods for the evening, what do you have behind you?
	That is a book about Smiley's people by Jean Le Carré.
	And then the other one is a John Grisham book, one of his more recent released, Camino Wind, which is good.
	Might have some application to certain people that have hijacked aspects of a certain person in Kenosha, but that will be for future reference.
	Well, speaking of Kenosha, we're going to get started on this.
	We're not going to go the entire time on this because we've got other good subjects to discuss.
	This was the last week of evidence.
	Evidence is closed.
	This is the week.
	They actually did it, Robert.
	Kyle Rittenhouse testified.
	Now, there's two times I would like to have been a fly on the wall.
	One was when Hillary Clinton recognized that she had lost 2016, and by some accounts internally, she went nuts throwing things.
	I would like to have been a fly on the wall not to partake in the heartache, just to have seen that particular moment.
	The other time is when Kyle was announced to be taking the stand and was going up there.
	I want it to be a fly on your wall.
	What did you think about it?
	What was your reaction?
	And what was your ultimate takeaway?
	The best moments of his testimony and the worst moments of his testimony?
	Well, credit to the kid.
	You know, for being an 18-year-old kid, first time you've ever been in that setting in any way, shape, or form.
	And you're on public display to the world, millions of people watching.
	You have a very experienced prosecutor.
	Cross-examining you.
	Your own defense lawyer apparently has lost the word known as objection through most of your cross-examination.
	And you show your true character, which is that you're very innocent, you're very nice, you're a sweet-hearted kid, and you hold up and stand up extraordinarily well.
	So that's to his credit.
	And so I think what was best a part of it best is anybody who was open minded about the case saw a clearly innocent kid as Bill Ackerman and others who are, you know, politically on the fence, so to speak, recognized when they walked.
	So that's the good side of it.
	The risk that was taken, however, was utterly unnecessary.
	There wasn't any substantive evidence he could add that had not already been induced through the state's own witnesses.
	Through the video evidence.
	And so a lot of people who most lawyers going in thought it was a bad idea and unnecessary to put to subject Kyle to that risk.
	And many people who watch the whole trial believe it did not benefit him legally.
	It may have with a juror.
	We don't know who is on that jury.
	But so it may have benefited him with a jury just because of how extraordinarily well he handled it.
	Now, I saw David Hancock, who's the guy that's basically functionally kidnapped the family and has handpicked his defense for the past time period during the trial, go on, I think, either Fox or Newsmax and claim that this was Kyle's idea.
	I don't believe it was.
	I believe it was entirely the defense lawyer's idea and David Hancock's idea, who's looking at how he can make money off of controlling the kid in the future.
	But I think that was someone looking forward rather than looking at winning the trial.
	I thought Richards could have done a better job on direct and a much, much better job objecting during cross, much of which was patently irrelevant and often misleading.
	The other people who looked at it, what's his name, actual social justice warriors, something like that, a range of people that, both in the legal and non-legal space, thought it created undue exposure for him.
	And what is the case is legally the impact of him testifying.
	Is that now a bunch of lesser included offenses are being given to the jury so that if the jury, and as the judge warned Kyle particularly, was that that increases the risk of conviction on something.
	Because a jury that may not feel comfortable with homicide charges or intentional homicide or anything like that now can convict on lesser charges that still create substantial risk and exposure for Kyle.
	The other problem is I think there were aspects where they had not prepared him as well as needed to be the case.
	So I don't believe Kyle pointed his gun at anybody that night, and that was Kyle's testimony.
	But illicit hearsay came in through the defense's complete failure to object in all of these, not only chats and comments on videos, but hearsay on those videos.
	And so the person identified an African-American man in yellow pants that they've chosen to call Yellow Pants Man because they don't know his actual name was allowed to testify in this.
	Oh, by the way, you're on mute.
	Oh, no, no.
	I think you can hear me now?
	I can't.
	Okay.
	No, they're trying to pull like a Trump-ish type, Yellow Pants Man, Jump Kick Man, which was...
	Jump Kick Man was sort of stuck.
	Yellow Pants Man was pretty bad.
	I mean, they should have gone, if they had gone with Granbo, that would have been a nickname that stuck.
	But yeah, I didn't find the nicknames particularly proper for context.
	But alas, it's easy to play Monday morning quarterback.
	But yeah, sorry.
	So this was what people were saying, is that the statements were not making evidence of the truthfulness of those statements, but the jury was hearing them.
	They are now in evidence, even though the fact that the witness who uttered them In that video was not in court to explain away what they meant by them, which is, it may not be in hard evidence, but it's in evidence nonetheless.
	And it will be, it was fully admitted.
	So now it is, my guess is Binger will use it in his closing argument for the truth of the matter asserted.
	He will claim here is evidence on video that shows that allegedly they will claim shows Kyle was pointing his gun at people throughout the night.
	Which is utterly false.
	And if you actually look at what, aside from the fact that never should have come in, and the reason why it shouldn't have come in is, first of all, if it's going to be used for the truth of the matter asserted, and Binger is going to use it for that purpose in closing, it is hearsay.
	In addition, it violates what's called the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution.
	In a criminal case, you have a right to confront your accusers constitutionally.
	That right is protected.
	Often there's a state analog provision in the state constitution, but where it's not, it's considered applicable to the 14th Amendment under the Due Process Clause to state actions.
	So you have a right to confront anyone who says anything against you.
	And if they're unavailable for those purposes, their testimony cannot be used.
	Their statements cannot be admitted.
	In addition, you could argue it's a lay opinion, an impermissible lay opinion.
	A lot of impermissible opinion came in throughout the trial of people who did not qualify as experts for those purposes.
	What example?
	The cop.
	The one who the chat was...
	The chat in Nick's streams.
	It's an honest chat.
	But the policewoman who's coming in testifying on ballistics.
	Bingard asking Rittenhouse to testify on the difference between Hollow Point and Full Metal Jacket.
	I mean, half of these witnesses were testifying on opinion and not matters of fact, which is, in theory, exclusively reserved for experts.
	And that's where Runkle the Bailey made the point that this is often a problem in gun cases, so that they get law enforcement up there who are not qualified experts to opine on issues about guns, on issues about bullets, on a wide range of issues for which they are not qualified.
	And that particular officer, I think, is the one Nick Ricada said half of his chat.
	Probably already simping for and hoping she forms an OnlyFans account.
	It's terrible.
	That's the nature of it.
	But because of a lot of that came in, it created undue issues, which ultimately showed up on Friday in the provocation instruction.
	So for Kyle, anybody who thinks they can testify as well as Kyle is likely deluding themselves.
	I would not use that as an example as to why you, if you're ever a defendant, are advising someone who's a defendant that they should testify.
	Kyle is an extraordinary individual who held up extraordinarily well because his truth is deeply simple.
	The reason why he got into trouble that night is how idealistic he is, how naive he is.
	He couldn't imagine anyone would try to hurt him.
	He couldn't imagine anyone would try to hurt others.
	And he thought people were just a little bit out of control.
	That's what he was trying to explain by, yeah, I carried my gun, but I thought no way in the world I'd ever have to use it.
	Well, and that's interesting because Binger was going after me with this.
	You had said it before Kyle said it.
	Binger's like, it was an aggressive crowd towards you.
	He says, no, it was hostile.
	It was aggressive, but not towards me.
	I was just going out to see who needed help.
	It was...
	Everyone should appreciate.
	If anyone's hearing an echo, I might put my headphones on.
	Everyone should appreciate it was as amazing a testimony as you could possibly expect out of anyone.
	He had the breakdown at the beginning, which is to be expected because he's still getting into it.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	I would say, you identified it right away, and now I can talk about it because it's public, because it was disclosed on Friday.
	Kyle suffers from PTSD, post-traumatic stress disorder.
	That gives you an idea of what...
	I mean, I thought that information should have been public earlier because it recontextualizes and completely refutes the media narrative about this kid and the liberal narrative about this kid.
	You know, scuzzbags like Joe Scarborough and who continue to lie about him.
	And Ben and Jerry's are going to have to make a new ice cream called libel because of their false statements about him this weekend.
	Kyle never took guns across state lines and all the rest.
	And we'll get into why the gun charge will be dismissed, I believe, on Monday.
	But the kid is someone who suffered such trauma and shock by what took place.
	Like, a lot of people were confused about his physical reactions that night.
	And some respected his ability to stay calm under pressure, and that's definitely the case.
	But it's also because he was in complete shock.
	He couldn't understand, why would people attack me?
	Why would people try to hurt me?
	This is not the world he understands or has seen or witnessed.
	And was just stunned by it and felt horrible.
	Even the people that he defended the city of Kenosha against that night, and that's how I see it, if Rosenbaum gets that gun, if Szymanski gets to run wild, If Huber gets to run wild, if Grosskreutz gets to run wild, there would have been an actual, actual shooter.
	Not the fake one that Binger wanted to make up, but an actual, actual shooter that would have killed who knows how many innocent people.
	Their attempts to firebomb that gas station would have ultimately likely prevailed at some point.
	There would have been a lot more innocent people that would have been harmed that night.
	But for Kyle exercising his self-defense.
	But that early reaction, despite LeBitch James making his particular public comments, and that's how he should be renamed henceforth, saying that making fun of Kyle for having post-traumatic stress disorder.
	Anyone who, you spotted it right away.
	Just so everybody knows, I had no, I mean, it's not a massively insightful observation.
	I did not have any prior knowledge.
	Robert had not shared anything with me.
	I did not know.
	But, like, looking at Kyle, his reaction, everyone out there who's a very brave person behind the computer thinks, you know, having killed a potato file somehow will not make you feel sick, having taken someone's life, even if they deserved it.
	It doesn't take much empathy to really appreciate what was going on.
	Same thing with, although I still don't have any more knowledge about it, but, you know, Amy Cooper, looking at the reaction, you can tell what is a traumatic response to, what's the word, something that stimulates you.
	You can tell it was a traumatic response.
	And his response was, for anyone who had a panic attack before, you know what it feels like.
	It was not rehearsed.
	It was not fake.
	It was not crocodile tears.
	And King James, to come out with...
	I mean, every take he has is a bad take.
	But I don't think he'll ever reflect.
	Sorry.
	So, yeah.
	I did not know that he was actually in therapy.
	It was just quite obvious that he was traumatized from the event.
	Yeah, I mean, for the first three weeks afterwards, while he was in jail, in jail because John Pierce at the, you know, David Hancock helped pick him.
	That's the guy still running the legal defense functionally.
	Had him in jail unnecessarily on dubious extradition legal claims that he didn't know how to bring.
	He was spent every night vomiting.
	I mean, that's the level of physical trauma and stress he was under because of the shock and horror of what he had just experienced and felt terrible that he ever had to pull the trigger on anyone at all, defend himself at all.
	You could see that in, like, there were many times he was about to break down on Binger's cross-examination, and Binger wisely chose a different tone in his cross-examination.
	Those questions were as aggressive.
	You'll note his tone was very low-key.
	And he did that deliberately because he knows that Kyle suffered post-traumatic stress.
	He knows that his allegations are bogus.
	That's what you're dealing with when you deal with a truly corrupt prosecutor.
	He has earned his nickname, Little Binger, deservedly so.
	And he deserves...
	Professionally speaking, a similar outcome to what Littlefinger got.
	Some of us may help accommodate that in the future.
	Again, I'm just speaking professionally.
	I don't know what Littlefinger got.
	I don't want to ask because I'm happy not knowing, Robert.
	It was an obvious, genuine response.
	He's obviously traumatized.
	You can see the moment, incidentally, anyone looking at him, you can see the moment where his emotions and his thought gets back in that moment and emotion of the The moment itself when he realized, first of all, the trauma is, I'm about to get killed right now.
	These guys are going to beat me to death.
	And then shooting someone, you see and you hear and you smell things that never go away.
	And then every now and again, you'll be somewhere and something random will trigger the response.
	And you'll be right back in that moment where you have just pulled the trigger and you heard the thud of a body falling dead on the ground.
	And despite who it was, will never make you feel better for having done what you did.
	And then when he was running down that street, even when people are smashing him over the head, he testified in ways that's consistent with a concussion.
	I would have liked medical testimony about that because I think it was clear he was severely concussed by that point because that has relevance to his state of mind and understanding.
	And what he was testifying to was clearly evidence of probably a severe concussion at that point.
	But he was so focused on, I'm just going to get to the police line.
	I just got to get to the police line.
	So it didn't matter.
	People were beating him, attacking him, screaming at him, screaming him.
	And this is something I hope they've raised and closed.
	They have failed to do so effectively throughout trial.
	Cranium the boy.
	That's what they're screaming at him.
	He hears those screams.
	He knows they're coming to bash his head in.
	And does he turn around and start firing?
	There's a lot of people who would have, quite normally, quite just naturally.
	People do it in military context all the time.
	That's why it was military veterans who were like, this kid's exercise of discipline is extraordinary.
	Emotional discipline is exceptional.
	He doesn't.
	It's only until they keep bashing him until he falls to the ground.
	And even there, he's not wanting to do anything.
	But first, they try to jump and kick him in the head.
	Then Huber comes and tries to bash him in the head with a skateboard.
	And the media trying to pretend bashing someone in the head with a skateboard is not a serious weapon.
	Just Google skateboard, bat, hit, head, death.
	It's like five times the size of a hammer is what they're trying to bash somebody in the head with.
	I'm just bringing this one up because Binger is arguing that a 5 '2 woman is attacked in the dark alley by a 6 '4 man wielding a knife, then she cannot defend herself with a gun.
	In fact, your attacker has to be shouting something.
	I am currently...
	Binger knows what he's doing, but he's a vigorous prosecutor when he should be a prosecutor vigorously pursuing justice, not conviction.
	But if anybody wants to see...
	I posted a link to one skateboard smashing in the head video.
	There's a bunch on the internet.
	It's exquisitely violent.
	It's exquisitely impactful.
	It has an amazing amount of momentum.
	It's an idiotic thing to pretend that that weapon, the way they were swinging at him, was anything less than an attempt to disable him to do worse.
	It's disingenuous, and anybody saying it is not honest.
	If you read the legal definition of dangerous weapon in Wisconsin statutes, that skateboard is more dangerous than half the weapons listed in it.
	And even then...
	He doesn't do anything until Huber grabs the gun.
	And then he has no choice.
	Just like every person he shot that night was armed legally.
	Rosenbaum grabbed the gun.
	When you grab a gun, folks, you're armed.
	Don't pretend you're unarmed when you grab a gun.
	Legally, you're considered armed.
	And in fact, the coroner confirmed that this week.
	By saying, remember, Binger's been trying to lie and say, you don't know if he reached for the gun or even got the gun.
	Well, it turns out the coroner said there's no doubt he had his hands on the gun by the nature of the injuries to Rosenbaum's hands.
	That the only way those injuries could come about was if he was grabbing the gun.
	Huber, same dynamic, grabbed the gun.
	Now, here's interesting.
	The DNA expert for the state forgot to do a DNA test on that part of the gun.
	How did the DNA expert forget to do a DNA expert testimony or DNA review on that part of the gun that was actually grabbed?
	Instead, they did a DNA review of the part of the gun they knew wasn't grabbed.
	So it shows they knew that both of those defendants grabbed the guns.
	Both of them are armed.
	And of course, as Grosskreutz admitted last week, or this week on Monday, Hubert didn't, I mean, after Hubert died, and by the way, Grosskreutz admitted that he thought Hubert was going to kill.
	He claimed that's why he went in to help.
	But then his method of help was first to feign innocence, at which point Kyle was bringing the gun down, and Binger misused on cross-examination of Kyle.
	He took a still photo rather than play the video.
	You see the video, you see after Grosskreutz puts his hands up, Kyle is bringing his gun down.
	So what is...
	Little Binger do.
	Little Binger takes the still photo of halfway through Kyle bringing his gun down to say, oh, you're still pointing your gun at him, even though he's putting his hands up.
	That's again where Richard should have objected.
	Richard partially objected, using an illicit speaking objection that only this judge allows, by saying, hey, he had a gun to remind Kyle he had a gun.
	But he should have objected earlier and said, that's a still photo, judge.
	The actual photo shows him taking his gun down.
	But he missed it because...
	Richard sleeps through half of the cross-examination, apparently.
	From a tactical perspective, and I've seen it in my own practice, for anybody who is interested, I don't often talk about it, but I have 13-plus years of active practice.
	In civil law, maybe it's different in criminal, but sometimes when you object too much, you piss the judge off and you irritate the jury, I would imagine.
	And so I would have been objecting left, right, and center, but I might have come off as the arrogant, cocky...
	I think that's greatly overrated.
	Two reasons.
	One, I've done a lot of these mock jurors and ask jurors that precise question.
	And unless you're making frivolous objections or you're highlighting testimony by objecting it that you don't want the jury to pay attention to, you should always object because jurors expect you to object.
	They think that's what lawyers do.
	So they're not offended by you objecting.
	All it does is it draws more attention sometimes to the testimony.
	So if the testimony is particularly harmful testimony you're hoping they sleep through, then you don't object.
	Or if you don't have a quality evidentiary objection.
	But when you're in front of this judge, who unlike for folks out there, speaking objections are basically unethical and not allowed.
	Unless you're in this judge's court.
	Explain what a speaking objection is.
	I think I understand.
	But explain for those who may not understand the term.
	So what the only objections allowed...
	You cite the rule.
	Sometimes they allow you to cite the issue, the legal issue.
	So I've been in courts that only allow you to cite the rule.
	So you say, objection, your honor, rule 402.
	Objection, your honor, rule 803.
	Whatever it is.
	Other courts will say, you can say, objection, hearsay.
	Objection, relevance.
	Objection, unfair prejudice.
	Objection, lay opinion.
	Whatever it is.
	Impermissible expert opinion.
	This judge allows you to just give your position.
	Including giving your position when it's not even legal.
	Like a lot of Richard's objections don't even have a legal basis.
	You say, objection, your honor, here's the argument I would like to make now.
	That kind of thing.
	Which Binger also does.
	And he does because he clearly knows this court just lets things flow in.
	That's highly unusual, what's taking place in this trial.
	Both the failure to object is highly unusual.
	Allowing in evidence that hurts your own client is highly unusual.
	The scope of evidence that's come in is highly unusual.
	Reading other people's hearsay is highly unusual.
	And violate rules.
	This court just doesn't enforce those in many respects.
	One thing that PBO'd from the very beginning...
	At first I didn't understand the titles, the labels given to the exhibits that Binger was introducing.
	Because one of them had the word militia in it.
	But it became clear as the trial went along that these were the relabeling by the prosecution of the exhibits.
	Am I wrong?
	I would have objected right off the bat.
	In the same way Binger objected to their...
	It's so goddamn irritating.
	It's confession through projection that Binger objected to the way the expert qualified the timestamps, Dr. Black, of the video where he said, you know, raising the gun, a change in elevation, yada, yada.
	Binger objected by Dr. Black qualifying the timestamps in that video.
	And it's exactly what Binger did in his relabeling of the evidence that they submitted by giving it a highly descriptive title involving the word militia for one of the exhibits.
	I mean, I guess why didn't he object?
	But it was an obvious objection to the qualification to the description of those exhibits.
	Correct?
	Oh, yes, yes.
	I have never seen any trial where video evidence of third-party hearsay has come in like this case.
	I have never seen any trial where super chats were admitted into evidence.
	I've never seen any trial where people, YouTube commenters from the YouTube videos, was introduced into evidence.
	I mean, it's extraordinary, and almost all of that evidence hurt the defense, and it was let in either because the defense put it in themselves, Or because the defense completely failed to object?
	Frankly, there are issues that should have been raised pre-trial, but it appears they actually stipulated to a wide range of this stuff coming in.
	And so that was just, in my view, ineffective assistance of counsel.
	I would say an inexperienced counsel or a counsel who's not seen three steps ahead says, okay, well, these are the exhibits.
	I'm not really paying attention to the header that they submit on the list of exhibits, which describes exhibit...
	P7 as video militia from whatever.
	So they see it.
	They don't think it's going to have any impact.
	They agree.
	They stipulate that they agree to the exhibits.
	And then don't fully appreciate the impact it has when every time Binger pauses that stupid video, a title comes up that has the word militia for the jury to read.
	And for anybody who doesn't know what Robert is talking about out there as far as the super chats in these videos, someone was live streaming it.
	I think it was someone from the...
	I don't want to malign anybody.
	I think it was The Daily Caller, but I might be wrong.
	Doesn't matter.
	Someone was live streaming this on Facebook.
	The events.
	And as they live stream it, on whatever platform they were live streaming, they had something the equivalent of Super Chats.
	And earlier on in the evening, you know, there was a confrontation in front of one of the tire, the car shop stores, and someone said, F around and find out.
	And then later on, when they're live streaming one of the shootings, someone in the chat...
	Superchats, like a paid comment to be highlighted, says they found out.
	And other people were chatting with highlighted comments that you pay for.
	Take out the leftist trash, this is that commie stuff.
	A bunch of stuff which gives a very bad impression as though this is a militia, an organized entity, encouraging this type of behavior.
	And although it didn't make truth, you know, it made no truth of the statements themselves, it was in the exhibit that was filed as evidence.
	These paid, highlighted comments, which were tasteless, crass, and borderline abusive under the circumstances, but it's the internet.
	And it made it in there, just like that.
	So, if anybody didn't know what Rob...
	Kyle's TikTok account had no business being introduced into trial.
	So what Binger's going to do is he's going to take Kyle's TikTok account, a lot of those statements made, plus the new provocation instruction and provocation evidence, and that's going to be his close.
	Okay, that actually might be a good segue to that because that's...
	I just want to make sure I didn't forget anything in terms of...
	Okay, no, we'll get to the gun charge, why you think it's going to be dropped, and the provocation.
	This was the...
	I missed two hours of the week, and it was the two hours in which somehow...
	Provocation instructions came up and are given to the jury.
	Explain what it means.
	What happened that Friday afternoon or Friday morning where now apparently the prosecution is going to raise provocation as an argument which would in theory potentially deprive Rittenhouse of his self-defense privilege because if he provoked the altercation he doesn't get to raise self-defense as a defense.
	How did it happen?
	What happened?
	And explain it to people like myself.
	Sure.
	So we've been talking about provocation and how it doesn't apply to this case ever since it began.
	So Richard should have been fully prepared for it.
	And it's what I've been saying Binger's entire theory is, and it's based on a particular kind of jury or juror being on that jury pool.
	I'm going to give an example of the 18 jurors.
	Six of them will be randomly removed on Monday after the end of closing arguments before they begin to deliberate.
	But five of the 18 voluntarily wear masks every day.
	That's not necessarily the kind of jury you would want if you're on the defense.
	How do you know that, Robert?
	I did not know that.
	Actually, Nick Ricada has a source in Kenosha that told him about it.
	In addition, I've been talking to the journalists that are covering the case and what the vibe is, what the mindset is.
	By the way, everybody in that room...
	Had no doubts that that was a sincere post-traumatic stress reaction by Kyle.
	Anyone who thinks otherwise is lying or is misunderstood deliberately.
	Or projecting their own emotions or whatever.
	If I see five of the 18, if I see five wearing masks, I'm going to, rightly or wrongly, but I think it's probably going to be more rightly in general, make certain political deductions as to ideology, leanings.
	tendencies, perceptions on guns, for example.
	So call me whatever.
	I will take for granted that someone who is very much a Second Amendment into gun rights, into self-defense, might not be sufficiently afraid of the koof in general to wear a face mask.
	For right or for wrong, and I think I'm right.
	If I know that five of the 18 are wearing face masks, I'm not concerned.
	I'm just processing that.
	That's very interesting.
	Yeah, they're not people I would have encouraged to be on the jury, or select for those purposes.
	And I would have explored that, because you could have argued that they, for their own personal health reasons, did not necessarily need to participate in the trial.
	So, provocation is legally the doctrine of provocation.
	Here's why it should never have applied to Kyle's case.
	Provocation is, if I start a fight...
	It triggers what I call the give me three steps rule from Lynyrd Skynyrd song.
	So in Wisconsin, there's no duty to retreat in general.
	However, if I provoke a fight, then I have to withdraw and give notice of my withdrawal.
	Give me three steps and I'm out of here from Lynyrd Skynyrd.
	Used in actually analogous context because he's arguing about a bar fight.
	In order to restore your self-defense rights.
	Otherwise, now you can still use deadly force if you fear that deadly force is about to be used against you.
	But what happens is you now have a duty to retreat.
	So you either have to give full notice, withdraw and give full notice of your withdrawal, or you have to use all available alternatives.
	Other than lethal force in your response, including any opportunity to escape.
	And now that's why if provocation is given, it says it shifts the focus.
	The first problem is it shifts the focus from what you were thinking at the time you used lethal force to what happened before then and what did you do before then?
	And it focuses rather than what did the attacker do, what did you do?
	People have properly analogized it to a rape case, where all of a sudden, okay, it's no longer about were you, did you give consent?
	It's what did you wear to the bar?
	What did you say at the bar?
	What did you say on the way home?
	Whatever.
	And so that's the first problematic aspect of it.
	The second problematic aspect of it is it allows a jury, the way juries use jury instructions is not strictly how the law requires.
	They reimpose their moral narrative onto the legal instruction, and they use it as an anchor in the jury room to argue why their moral narrative, their political narrative, is the correct one for an outcome in the case.
	Without the provocation instruction, Binger was a dead man walking because of what had happened in the case.
	How do they get the provocation instruction in?
	Now, in fairness to Richards, I'll say...
	He probably feels so strong with his case that even if they try to argue provocation, he's like, well, obviously there was no provocation because friendly, friendly, friendly.
	And even if there is provocation, three steps, he was running back.
	Stay away from me.
	They continued charging.
	But how did provocation get in in the first place?
	When did Binger, through any of his witnesses, or even Kyle for that matter, bring in any of the elements that would have brought in provocation as a defense to the defense?
	Three ways.
	All through the defense.
	The defense is either their own exhibits, primarily, or their failure to object to his exhibits that allowed all kinds of prejudicial hearsay to just flow into the case.
	Second, through the fact that Kyle took the stand.
	And then third, through a bad misuse of modern technology for forensic evidence that the defense did object to but did not So the first one is the defense's own exhibits introduced a
	video where somebody was commenting on the video saying that Kyle was pointing a gun.
	At either Rosenbaum or Gaminski right prior to him being chased by Rosenbaum.
	That was in the defense's own exhibit because they clearly never even read or reviewed what was on there.
	I mean, or just paid so little.
	I mean, just absurd.
	That's the main evidence they're actually going to use.
	The second is the yellow pants man saying...
	Kyle had pointed a gun at people earlier in the night.
	And if you actually look at...
	First of all, that statement never should have been allowed in, but defense completely failed to object.
	If you look at what Yellow Pants Man appears to be saying, he's using a gesture as if Kyle wasn't pointing the gun at anyone.
	He was just pointing it down like he normally was.
	But they didn't prepare Kyle on cross-examination, so Kyle just assumed that Binger's representations about what Yellow Pants Man said Was the yellow point man was pointing the gun at him?
	And Kyle admitted that he may have said yes to that, but only sarcastically.
	I don't think that was a, again, only could come about because Kyle took the stand and because he was poorly prepared by his counsel as to that question.
	The third is the...
	The evidence, now, you could partially, there's been all this evidence come in about people flashing lights.
	That had nothing to do with Kyle at all.
	Never should have come in.
	That's going to be part of this.
	And that's where Binger, being a seasoned prosecutor that he is, it started off, and everyone who watched it in real time noticed, it started off as pointing a laser.
	And then there was, at one point, conflating pointing a laser with laser sights.
	And then it just became, pointing the laser just became pointing a gun.
	And he got...
	Rittenhouse to sort of acknowledge that you admitted to pointing a gun when that's not even what Yellow Pants Man said in the first place.
	Yellow Pants Man said a green laser.
	And so it was a very subtle, if you're not paying attention and in your face and irritating if you are screaming at your computer.
	Binger went from admitting to pointing the laser to conflating laser with guns to then getting Kyle to admit that when he said, yeah, I pointed that, the green laser, he meant a gun, and then they're going to run with it.
	And what Kyle was saying was, I may have said that sarcastically, but no, I never pointed a gun at anyone.
	But now that that's in, they get to argue that to the jury.
	And then the last piece of evidence was a complete misappropriation of modern technology.
	The enhancement?
	Say it again?
	The enhanced image?
	Yes.
	Which partially came in because a police officer testified about what he saw pinching and zooming.
	On his phone.
	Shouldn't have come in.
	Failure to move to strike the evidence.
	Failure to meaningfully object to the evidence.
	But then what came in after that was they introduced this blur.
	AI takes an image and they guess.
	The computer guesses at what the image would look like if you could have hyper-focused in.
	It does not function as hyper-focusing in.
	It is creating a new image.
	That is not admissible for evidentiary purposes.
	The people that helped create this program explain that that's not what it's supposed to be used for and the limits of its evidentiary value in public statements they've made, but the defense was inadequately prepared for it to explain it in layman's language to the judge.
	Should have introduced their own expert to rebut it for those purposes.
	Should have challenged on Daubert grounds that the prosecution did not have the tech expert.
	Having somebody who uses the technology does not constitute as an expert in the technology.
	The person clearly didn't qualify.
	They should have demanded a Daubert hearing, then demanded he was disqualified, then moved to object on impermissible expert opinion and then moved to limit this created art piece he did, which is this created photo that doesn't exist that they're going to claim proves Kyle pointed a gun when it doesn't.
	It's a Rorschach text.
	It's nothing but that.
	We'll explore that in one more second, Robert.
	I actually just have to highlight one thing.
	In the chat, someone said Viva's showing his bias about the face masks.
	I don't know if that was meant humorously, critically, or trollingly, or insultingly.
	I don't care, because you might be right.
	Other people in the chat saying...
	Dude, if I'm on that jury, I'm wearing a face mask just to conceal my identity, and in which case it might be the exact opposite of what I presume through my bias, which is why I love the aggregate knowledge of the internet.
	I have a bias.
	It won't conceal your identity because your name's going to get disclosed.
	True, but at the very least, if your name is something like Mr. Smith, it might be harder to find you than if they don't know what you look like.
	Not an unreasonable explanation.
	Not unreasonable.
	That you're covering your face.
	Never thought of it.
	We'll reassess.
	So, Robert, the technology about this, and it's something that I didn't fully appreciate, because at the time I'm thinking, they want to enhance, they want to show something of a relatively undisputed fact, like Kyle was here at point A, here at point B, to get a time frame.
	The prosecution wants to allege, to freeze frame one image, to enhance it, to interpolate, or whatever the term is, to...
	Sharpen it, but not even sharpen.
	It's beyond sharpening.
	To show that Kyle was pointing his gun at Rosenbaum first from a freeze frame of a satellite drone image.
	How the hell did it get there in the first place that that argument became the argument without it being brought back to reality?
	This is a freeze frame from a drone photograph.
	We have better evidence already in evidence that totally contradicts the argument you're trying to make, Binger.
	Yeah, because they weren't prepared, even though there were people on social media.
	I mean, I had encouraged the defense to crowdsource and use the advantage of crowdsourcing expertise and skills and information as part of this case.
	Richards refused all of that.
	And this is an example, because there was a guy sending me this information for weeks, saying, here's where they're going.
	You know, try to...
	Well, Richard just won't take any information or advice.
	It doesn't matter what you send him.
	He just ignores.
	And so people have been sending me stuff saying, can you get this to the defense?
	He won't take it.
	He won't listen.
	He won't hear.
	So it's a waste of time, frankly.
	But this is where Binger was going.
	It was clear Binger was going, and the tech guy showed how this would be misused and how it didn't fit.
	And Jack Posobiec has, in fact, one of these people that was sending me this, Jack Posobiec has retweeted out and you can see how the video is being misinterpreted deliberately.
	But we shouldn't have blurs in evidence.
	And so this is probably one of the first times to test this in a high-profile case, this misapplication of computer technology to create new images that are not the original image.
	And so that's deeply problematic.
	If anybody who looks at all the video's angles, he never pointed a gun at anyone.
	In order to believe the image, you'd have to believe that he switched hands from being right-handed to being left-handed and then suddenly switched it back.
	None of that makes any sense.
	He actually didn't do what was done.
	Other videos show he didn't do that part of it.
	But that too was because there at least they objected, but they didn't seem prepared for the objection and should have had their own ready.
	To rebut testimony.
	But again, that by itself wasn't the basis of the provocation.
	It was evidence.
	It was all the other evidence they'd already let in.
	And that same blurred image, the defense's own exhibit has somebody saying, looks like Kyle pointing a gun, right at the same way.
	So their own evidence created this problem, not just their own failure to object to evidence.
	And so that's why the judge said he's inclined to give that provocation instruction.
	And the bigger problem is the way in which Binger will...
	The jury will misinterpret provocation.
	If there's bad jurors on there, they will deliberately misinterpret provocation to mean everything that happened.
	So while Binger's legal pretext is that one piece of evidence, it'll be all the evidence he'll argue was provocation.
	And if I can even maybe put it more simply, for anyone who's inclined to believe the provocation argument, just by virtue of showing up with a gun could qualify for them as provocation to explain away.
	He'll use the fact that he showed up at a place that had a curfew, that he showed up with.
	Now we'll get to why he's not.
	One problem for him is the curfew charge is gone.
	The gun charge will likely be gone.
	Because he wanted, I think, to use both of those pieces of evidence as unlawful...
	The provocation instruction uses the words unlawful conduct.
	He's telling the judge he wants the instruction based solely on the pointing of the gun because that's the only thing that really could even possibly meet the definition of provocation.
	But to the jury, he's going to be, maybe subtly, maybe not so subtly, arguing everything that took place.
	Kyle even being there, Kyle being associated with people that...
	Are now labeled militia because of his own video evidence that the defense didn't object to.
	The fact that people were flashing lights at people.
	The fact that guns were being pointed at people.
	The fact he was even defending property with a gun in the first place.
	The fact that he ever left that property.
	All of that, he is going to say, was provocation.
	The fact he drove there without a driver or didn't have a driver's license.
	All of that stuff.
	He's just going to add it up to say this is reckless conduct.
	And it's meant for the juror who says what a bunch of people in Wisconsin, particularly liberal Democrats, who wouldn't acquit Kyle no matter what, when we poll tested it and when I talked to the law professor who had done a bunch of testing of this case, they kept coming back with 17-year-old with a gun, middle of a riot, shouldn't be there.
	And on those grounds, we're convicting, no matter what.
	The provocation instruction gives them the legal hook they need to argue for their political narrative in the jury room and creates risk where otherwise it didn't exist, where otherwise they didn't have much of a hook.
	I mean, the only hook Binger was going to be able to use was argue reasonableness, but that would have been within the self-defense construct.
	And now he gets to totally focus instead on provocation, provocation, provocation.
	It created massive exposure and the instructions only there because they had not fully briefed the court in advance about this, about the risk of jury bias, how pretrial publicity had prejudiced the local jury pool.
	They had not prepared the court for how provocation can be misused.
	The one case they cited wasn't an analogous helpful case because it was a case where provocation was given.
	This has been litigated in courts all across the country.
	They should have been prepared and ready and preparing the court in advance for why this is a dangerous instruction that could be misused by a rogue runaway jury to find guilt where guilt simply does not exist.
	And now that you have all these lesser included added onto that, basically those two actions, the defense's incompetence and ineffective assistance of counsel, as well as the sleazy, slimy prosecutor sneaking this illicit evidence in.
	That combination has created undue risk and exposure for Kyle that now all depends on what jury do they end up with as the 12 people in the box.
	Now, it's easy to play Monday morning quarterback, to say what should have been done that wasn't done, but practically speaking, not because of how it played out, but in real time, what would you have done or what could have been done not to allow the provocation instructions to be allowed to the jury?
	Sure.
	The big problem Binger had was his whole narrative of militia people coming to cause problems and chaos tourists and Kyle being some bad actors.
	It just wasn't true.
	There wasn't any evidence for it.
	He wasn't going to get anybody to testify to that.
	So what he needed was a lot of illicit video testimony to come in, and he got it in because the defense didn't object.
	So if you simply would have objected to that evidence, all of which was, it was impermissible hearsay, it was a violation of the Confrontation Clause, much of it was unfairly prejudicial more than it was probative, much of it was unduly confusing more than it was probative, much of it was either impermissible expert opinion or impermissible lay opinion.
	So there were multiple grounds by which to object, by which each independently was grounds and in aggregate clear grounds to exclude it.
	The judge excluded a lot of things when Binger asked for it or when the defense asked for it.
	So it would have almost been guaranteed to be objective.
	And it should have been grounds of motion to eliminate even before trial if you knew Binger was even trying to introduce this.
	Shouldn't have been stipulated to the videos.
	Make people come in and testify because it's people like Richie McGinnis and Drew Hernandez who provide helpful testimony for the most part.
	Or it's bad defense witnesses like one of their first witnesses who looked like he was high on the stand.
	It's people that you don't want to be associated with as a prosecutor.
	So, for the dudes like me, we'll say, some people will say, okay, well, the video, you'll just get the witness who shot the video to come in and admit it anyhow, so why go through the hassle?
	The more nuanced argument is going to be, get the guy who's talking about militia while he's filming his own social media stuff instead of the investigator who pulled it from social media, and maybe they'll admit the video, but at the very least, you'll be able to cross-examine the individual who shot it, who was commenting on it, to say, what led you to believe that they were militia?
	Well, the comments wouldn't have come in because they're out-of-court statements.
	And if he's there, then you get to expose him for what he is to the degree he's not permitted to comment on.
	All he's able to say is, this is in fact what I videotaped.
	This is what I saw.
	All his commentary has to be excluded from the video.
	It violates all the evidentiary rules.
	And it doesn't become magically permissible because he's taking the stand.
	And the weakness for the state, there's a reason why Binger didn't want to call any of those people.
	Because Binger knew most of the people who had the best video were politically adverse to his position of this prosecution, including both Richie McGinnis and Drew Hernandez.
	He knew that the others that were favorable associated him with lefty nut chops that he doesn't want the state to be associated with.
	That was why it was lose-lose bargain, and he just suckered Richards into letting it all in without objection.
	And you could introduce the video without introducing super chats.
	You had to scrub all of that.
	You couldn't retitle it however you wanted.
	What should have happened is the video should have been taken out.
	Anything that was unfairly prejudicial, unduly confusing, lay opinion, hearsay, violation of confrontation clause is stripped from the video.
	That's simple.
	You don't have to play the audio of a video.
	So explain what you mean by unfairly prejudicial because it has a legal connotation that some people might not appreciate.
	Sure.
	So if evidence is either unfairly prejudicial, unduly confusing, or unduly cumulative, as weighed against its probative value, its relevant purpose for the jury, then it has to be excluded under the rules of evidence.
	And so a lot of this, how did Super Chat even relate to the case?
	And even if you somehow thought they related to the case, if it's going to likely impact a jury to make a decision based on something other than the facts and reason that relate to the instructions on the elements of the charges, Then it's something that's prejudicial.
	It's unfairly prejudicial when it is more prejudicial than it is probative.
	When it is more likely to trigger, basically the rules are based on the idea of the deductive reasoning system, and we want a jury to make determinations based on the facts, based on the evidence, based on the permissible, relevant facts, and those facts that actually matter, not facts that are likely going to trigger an irrational emotional response that will blind them to the case.
	That's why the criminal histories of the...
	Attackers was not brought into the case.
	The fear was that if they knew Rosenbaum was a pedophile, if they knew Huber was someone who attacked people and had a history of domestic assault.
	His own family and brother.
	Not that it matters, but it might matter in terms of explaining frame of mind.
	And there again, by the way, they could have got that evidence in if they simply would have let the Chris Farley look alike in the courtroom for the prosecution simply go on and let the aunt testify about how he was a hero when he was a kid and ran into situations with fires.
	That opened the door, as the judge admitted, to getting into his criminal exposure and asking the aunt about it.
	But the defense made the mistake of letting the prosecution and the court know that in advance, allowing them to withdraw that evidence so they never got in the more inflammatory.
	It's like one of the things of objecting when you shouldn't and not objecting when you should.
	Which was repeated throughout the entire trial.
	It was other than Corey from Madison who asked some very good cross-examination questions.
	The rest of the defense has been incompetent and has created undue risk and exposure.
	The prosecutor has engaged in routine and repeated misconduct and malfeasance, and the difficulties he's had has not been the result of incompetence, but the facts are against him, and that he's hopelessly unethical, and the court knows he is.
	So here's one question before we get to dropping of the gun charges.
	There's a petition to disbarbinger.
	What are the chances he gets sanctioned for anything that happened in this trial?
	One to ten.
	I don't know if the defense followed through on their motion for mistrial with prejudice.
	They didn't appear to bring a directed verdict motion at the close of the defense case.
	Inexcusable?
	Inexcusable that that happened?
	Completely.
	Completely.
	You only do that when you're overconfident in a particular jury result.
	And that happens frequently.
	Smart defense lawyers know it's very hard to ever predict a jury.
	And I can't believe they know enough about this jury that they picked in about a day.
	Partially less than a day.
	Even if they knew.
	Even if they knew 100%, the jury would acquit.
	Or 99.9%.
	Why would you ever not bring a motion for dismissal with prejudice or directed verdict as a matter of procedure, let alone given the facts of this particular case?
	Why would you never do it?
	While it's not crystal clear, the government may be able to appeal a mistrial with prejudice order.
	I don't know if they would in this case, because I think for Binger, it would provide some political opportunity.
	But I think that...
	I think people like David Hancock, who's kind of controlling the defense, wants an acquittal because of their future money-making opportunities off of Kyle.
	But am I wrong?
	The prosecution, the government could still appeal an acquittal by jury, right?
	No, no.
	If there's a 12-0 acquittal, there is no appeal possible?
	That's correct.
	And certain directed verdicts are not appealable.
	And I think a mistrial with prejudice order after the jury has been selected is not appealable.
	It's clear it's appealable if it's after.
	If you do a mistrial and then later declare it mistrial with prejudice, that is appealable because there's Wisconsin courts that have reversed on those grounds.
	But I believe a mistrial with prejudice after you have jeopardy of the jury...
	I think arguably is not, shouldn't be appealable.
	But that's a separate question.
	But nobody would take that gamble.
	I mean, realistically.
	And while they talked about it verbally, it's not clear they ever actually filed the motion.
	And it's not clear they filed a motion for directed verdict after the close of the defense or the close of the rebuttal evidence.
	Both of which they should have done to preserve their options.
	So basically, a lot of good evidence came out for Kyle.
	A little bit of negative evidence, but not much.
	Mostly it's made up or evidence that shouldn't have never been let into the proceedings.
	But the defense errors have come back to create undue risk.
	And now it all rests on jury selection.
	And it came out publicly this week.
	Joellen Demetrius is the person helping on that.
	This is the jury consultant who's been, in my view, falsely taking credit for the O.J. Simpson verdict for forever.
	Was very big back in the early 90s.
	Then she went on a string of losing and losing and losing and losing.
	And all of a sudden decided maybe publicity wasn't such a good thing if I'm attached to cases that keep losing.
	And so that's why she's still living off of publicity from like 1994.
	I've had to clean up cases that she screwed up with her jury selection.
	I have no confidence at all.
	In her jury selection.
	And I think she was picked because she would do whatever David Hancock wanted her to do, not because of actual capability in selecting a jury in this case.
	However, the only way I see any convictions in this case is if they screwed up jury selection.
	I think if they got a random jury, the most likely outcome would be mistrials followed by acquittals.
	But if they get any convictions, it means they put bad jurors on the jury pool.
	That is possible because they had some really dumb biases about who would make a good juror and who wouldn't.
	But conviction has to be unanimous.
	So they would have to be all 12 agree on conviction.
	That's why I can't see it.
	I mean, the evidence is so overwhelming.
	The kid is obviously so innocent that, to me, I cannot see any rational jury, reasonable jury, unprejudiced jury convicting.
	It's why people criticize me for saying it.
	But I said, if we pick the jury...
	I guarantee acquittals.
	And the reason was because the only people who would convict, I knew what the evidence was going to be.
	The only people who would convict, once they know what the evidence is, are people who are prejudiced against them before they sat down.
	And it wasn't that hard to screen those jurors out.
	When you have a week to prepare in advance, you have all their names, you have the best data experts in the world available to vet them, find out everything possible.
	Then you should have a day plus.
	And if you apprise the judge of the risk...
	The judge is likely to give you even more questioning in court.
	And if you have the leading body language and jury consultant people in the world there, and Joe Ellen could be part of the team.
	That was not an issue.
	Then I had great confidence that we would have no jurors on there who are prejudiced against him.
	There might be jurors who think he's guilty, but they're not hardcore prejudiced against him.
	Those jurors were very reachable with evidence.
	And the evidence here, again, is overwhelming.
	You couldn't have a cleaner cut.
	I mean, even David Pakman.
	While struggling and suffering while saying it, admitted that it's clear Kyle has full self-defense against all the homicide charges.
	And in this context, self-defense applies to reckless endangerment as well.
	It is.
	Nobody can watch the evidence and think anything but.
	You could think maybe he should not have shown up with the firearm.
	You could think maybe he was dumb for having done it.
	And like I tweeted last night, because someone raised the point, and I can't not be swayed by it, where I said he just shouldn't have been there.
	And how much, you know, for right or for wrong, how much better would his life be right now?
	How much happier would he be had he just stayed home that night?
	And someone says, like, that will be true of everyone who was victimized.
	Like, if you had just not gone to the bar, if you had just not gone to the hockey game, if you had just not gone to do whatever, how much happier would you be?
	And that is tantamount to victim blaming in this.
	It's not because he had an AR-15.
	The big bad boogeyman of a gun.
	It's bigger than the Glock, so it must be more dangerous.
	It's not because he showed up with that that he did not get systematically victimized at every step of that process by people who specifically, overtly, and unequivocally wanted to do him harm.
	And so I retract that.
	My original assessment is like, yeah, fine.
	That is victim blaming.
	And in my view...
	If Kyle Rittenhouse isn't there that night, and Kyle Rittenhouse doesn't defend himself that night, a lot more innocent people get hurt.
	That's the reality of it.
	I have zero doubts about that.
	I don't know how many.
	I don't know who.
	But I don't know there's other people grieving the loss, grieving losses, that are not grieving those losses because Kyle was there.
	I was glad he made the point.
	It was a point I had made repeatedly.
	And I wish the defense would have made it more broadly.
	But what he said to Binger, When he said, I feared that if I didn't pull the trigger, that Rosenbaum would not only take the gun and kill me, he would kill other people.
	And does anyone have any doubts?
	And listen to what Rosenbaum was saying that night.
	I have no doubts Rosenbaum would have been a real active shooter, and Lord knows how many people would have been dead that night.
	But for Kyle, Kyle not only defended himself, he defended Kenosha, and he defended a lot of innocent lives that don't even know their lives were protected by what he did.
	So, going to two other issues, the mistrial with prejudice, the prosecutor deliberately, knowingly, flagrantly violated the Fifth Amendment rights of Kyle Rittenhouse in the case.
	And this loser, who is an evidence law professor at the University of South Carolina Law School, who should be fired for being too dumb to teach evidence, misconstrued, misinterpreted, and a bunch of other people did, the rules on the Fifth Amendment concerning this.
	So, here's the rules for anybody out there.
	As a prosecutor, you are not allowed to ever, ever comment on a defendant asserting the Fifth Amendment at any time.
	It doesn't matter if he takes the stand.
	You're not allowed to comment on him previously taking the Fifth Amendment.
	Because any action that comments in any way adversely on a defendant taking the Fifth Amendment rights is a violation of the Fifth Amendment.
	And as the judge noted, that's been established law by the United States Supreme Court for more than half years.
	Let me ask you the question that I had.
	Asserting the fifth, do you have to physically assert it, or is any silence deemed to be asserting the fifth?
	You cannot comment on the defendant being silent.
	Period.
	It's not like Kyle would have had to say, I'm pleading the fifth, that's why I'm not talking.
	The fact that he does not talk is the fifth, and it cannot be used against him in the way that Binger was doing when he says...
	This is the first time you've spoken about this event.
	This is the first time you are now relaying your details of this.
	You had 10 months to do it.
	This is your first time.
	And that was when the big bang happened of the last week.
	So it's not that you have to proactively, actively assert that you are invoking the fifth.
	Your silence on a criminal accusation can never be used against you.
	And the judge knew it and binger got bing for it.
	But how much so?
	You can't comment on the defendant taking the fifth.
	You can't comment on the defendant being silent.
	Also, you do not waive it by the fact that you interviewed with anybody.
	That does not waive it either.
	So the only thing that waives your Fifth Amendment is when you get up on the standard, it only waives it from that point forward as to the subject matter of your testimony.
	It does not waive it as to anything else outside the subject matter of your testimony, and it definitely doesn't waive things, your prior assertion of it.
	So that was patently inappropriate, patently illicit.
	What is allowed is if a defendant testifies, a prosecutor in closing argument can highlight that the defendant testified after all the other witnesses testified, so he was in a unique position to benefit from hearing all of the other evidence at the time he testified.
	And that's the Supreme Court case this idiot evidence law professor was cited.
	He has no application to this context.
	That moron should be canned.
	I mean, these are the kind of idiots teaching lawyers in law school these days.
	Not that I like to name people, Robert.
	Because they responded to my tweet, but I know what fights I can get into.
	He calls himself evidence prof or he has something out of evidence.
	The idea there is...
	Oh, sorry.
	It's a perfect overlap.
	The idea there is that If the defendant waits to the end of trial, here's all the evidence, here's all the witness's testimony, and then gets on the stand, you can hold against him or at the very least raise an argument that the defendant waited until he heard all the evidence before coming to to tailor his evidence or his testimony.
	You can't say that he waited because that's evidence of silence.
	What you can say is you've had the benefit of hearing everyone else before you testified.
	And the word they used was to tailor the testimony?
	You could question him about it.
	All the Supreme Court said is you can comment on that inference of credibility in front of him because as long as you're not commenting at all on his prior assertion of silence and his prior assertion of the Fifth, which is what happened in that case, then it's okay to say he had the benefit of hearing everyone else before he went.
	And now I even understand the nuance that was going on in that case where the benefit of hearing it means he could tailor his testimony to that which he already heard.
	In Rittenhouse's case, he wasn't even the last witness in any event.
	There were other witnesses that went after him, so he did not tailor his testimony to having heard all of the witnesses regardless.
	So even that particular case, which does not undermine violating the Fifth, did not even prove the point that this guy thought it proved.
	All right, maybe I'll go find that tweet and respond, but it's not my expertise.
	I can't pretend to have that handle.
	So it's a patent Fifth Amendment violation, and the difference of a mistrial with prejudice versus a mistrial without is a mistrial without prejudice allows the prosecutor to bring the charges and retry Kyle.
	A mistrial with prejudice, and this is the law in Wisconsin, if a prosecutor creates a mistrial by engaging in bad faith conduct...
	Then the appropriate remedy is a mistrial with prejudice, which bars the prosecutor from ever retrying the case.
	That was the appropriate remedy here.
	And because Binger then added to that...
	Little Binger, by going into specific subject matters that the court had said he could not do in his cross-examination of him.
	So after violating Kyle's Fifth Amendment rights, which was the egregious violation, he then added to it with that follow-up violation.
	And this comes from a prosecutor.
	One disagreement I had with Mark Richards was I wanted to expose Little Binger from day one, both in the court of public opinion and in the court of law.
	Richards, who's hot-tempered, as people have probably figured out, has a quick fuse, went berserk on me.
	And so I stepped back from doing that.
	But the reason why I thought that was relevant is I saw this coming.
	This is who Little Binger is.
	He has to engage in corruption in order to have any chance at securing a conviction and to at least look decent within his liberal media constituency, his future CNN consultancy.
	So if you looked at what happened just in this case, Binger used the court pleadings to lie and libel Kyle repeatedly, misused bail proceedings to lie and libel Kyle, misused evidentiary pretrial proceedings to lie and libel Kyle that created massive pretrial prejudicial publicity that to this day harmed Kyle and harms Kyle.
	Joe Scarborough and Ben and Jerry are saying what they're saying in part.
	Easily to prove libels, based on what Binger did.
	But look at just this case.
	He also, at trial, there was testimony that he tried to suborn perjury, and there was testimony from an independent witness, and there was testimony he clearly did, in fact, suborn perjury from the primary witnesses, the car source witnesses.
	They clearly perjured themselves, and he knew it.
	And that's subornation of perjury.
	Those are crimes.
	Repeated constitutional violations, repeated judicial violations, repeated illicit activity, and repeated, in my view, suborning of perjury and obstruction of justice.
	So there was multiple grounds.
	Had they built the record, I think this court would have been obligated to give the mistrial with prejudice and refer Binger for sanctions and disbarment.
	Because everybody should appreciate it.
	It's very hard to do that with a prosecutor.
	And one of the examples that Robert is talking about, for everyone out there who may not know, the guy came up with Granbo, he was a photographer, where he basically said, you guys asked me to change my testimony, or you guys asked me to change my story.
	I did not appreciate the full impact of what that meant at the time, and now I appreciate it.
	Robert, it's a damn good point.
	What were the other two things that Binger tried to get in?
	He tried to get in, I forget, it was the picture of him wearing the...
	Freedom, free as F-U-C-K, which was one thing, which was four months after the event.
	Which was not Kyle's decision.
	To my understanding, that too was David Hancock's work.
	It was David Hancock who, my understanding, has left him off with the Proud Boys without Kyle knowing who was there.
	But yeah, he tried to get in that t-shirt and he tried to get in other evidence concerning some statements that purportedly Kyle made outside of a CVS store when there was robbing and looting going on.
	And that was an undue risk that the defense created by putting Kyle on the stand.
	But it was evidence that he could not go into, he knew he couldn't go into, and he pretended otherwise with the judge.
	And the judge noted, the judge used legally the magic words that what Binger was doing was not in good faith.
	And that means legally that's compelled mistrial with prejudice.
	But the defense, to my knowledge, hasn't followed up on it.
	Do they have a time frame within which to make a motion for mistrial with prejudice?
	Is there a time frame as of which it will no longer be a viable option?
	It's not clear if it's still a viable option after trial.
	So, after a verdict.
	They may still be able to bring it up Monday morning, but it's not clear.
	They should have brought it up before the jury is impaneled.
	Before the jury goes, deliberations start.
	The legal standard starts to shift the later the argument's made.
	You can still argue it's constitutional error and thus you can always review it.
	They need to preserve it for appellate purposes in case this is a rogue or runaway jury.
	But we'll see.
	But on the good front, they finally recognized that the gun statute, our argument all the way back at the time...
	Was that the gun statute did not apply to Kyle because 17-year-olds are allowed to possess and carry rifles and shotguns in Wisconsin.
	For an ignoramus like myself, the barrel length is a relevant factor.
	It's because they don't want you doing shot-off shotguns, right?
	So that's what that's about.
	But otherwise, it was if you have a rifle and a shot.
	Because what happened is, Wisconsin historically had pretty free...
	Right to open carry and gun rights.
	Then there was a lot of handgun violence by young teenagers in Milwaukee in the 80s.
	And that led to a gun control effort where the focus was, how do we avoid the weapons that drug dealers are using?
	Which drug dealers are using handguns, and drug dealers were using things like sawed-off shotguns.
	And if I may pause you there, Robert, I want to pause you there to highlight the absurdity of what Binger was testifying to that...
	The AR-15 is a bigger, more dangerous gun than, who was it?
	Grosskraut's Glock.
	And this is, for people who don't fully appreciate this, the reason why, even in Canada, long arms are less restricted than small arms or pistols is because they're harder to conceal.
	They're harder to do nefarious illegal activities with.
	If you're walking around in public with a rifle, you can't tuck it into the...
	Back part of your pants like Grosskraut was doing while administering medical aid.
	And there's a second reason.
	I always called this, this is how I would have explained it to the court from the get-go.
	This is the Wisconsin farm boy exception.
	The bottom line is they don't want a kid out on the farm that's kind of responsible for protecting the farm without the ability to defend the farm, knowing that older teenage boys often have that responsibility historically.
	And Wisconsin's a two-thirds rural, small-town state.
	Only a third of the population lives in bigger urban areas.
	And that's its history.
	And to be unarmed.
	And so that's why, why is it 17-year-olds can have a shotgun and a rifle?
	That's why.
	That's why the law specifically went out of its way to exclude and exempt them.
	And the court...
	Recognized that finally during the jury instruction conference and told the prosecutor, if you don't bring back evidence that you introduced at trial and don't show me where in the record you showed how this rifle was somehow really a short-barreled rifle, it wasn't, then I'm going to dismiss that charge.
	And that means they don't have any curfew charge.
	They don't have any gun charge.
	All these people have been lying about Kyle for a year and a half, saying he illegally owned a gun, also said he carried it across...
	State borders.
	Never happened.
	Said his mom drove him there.
	Never happened.
	Said he illegally possessed a gun.
	Never happened.
	I'll just say, they weren't lying.
	They're just ill-informed, ignorant-making statements that they have no basis for making.
	If you're Joe Scarborough, at this point, you are lying.
	Because, I mean, I get it.
	He could argue, I'm Joe Scarborough.
	I'm too stupid to lie knowingly.
	That may be his defense.
	But in my view, at this stage, it's actual malice.
	Ben and Jerry, actual malice.
	Now, it's difficult, as Ron Coleman explained, Jonathan Turley explained.
	Once you're a criminal defendant, it's very hard to bring libel claims that will get you recovery, unfortunately.
	So you may have...
	Rittenhouse has many easy libel claims against people who falsely stated he carried a gun across state borders, and if they don't retract and correct when this gun charge is dismissed about him illegally having a gun.
	However, the difficulty of anybody who's a criminal defendant, their difficulty is...
	As one guy who was acquitted many years ago said, it's great to get acquitted.
	Now, where do I go to get my reputation back?
	Where do you go to live and earn the rest of your life?
	And by the way, for anyone out there, Robert, can you go past two hours tonight?
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	Okay, booyah, because the kids are asleep, so I think we can go a little while longer.
	We'll go past two hours because we're going to get to the other stuff tonight.
	Yeah, where can you go to get a job, to earn a livelihood, to go to university?
	It's nice that Nick Sandman...
	Scored whatever settlement he scored.
	He's still getting scrutinized and will have a lifelong problem.
	I'll say a decade-long problem because I think after a decade even the internet forgets until they bring up a tweet from a decade ago.
	The core difficulty a criminal defendant faces is that once you've been criminally charged, even if you have an easy clear-cut libel claim, you have a very difficult damages claim because your damages really stem from the criminal prosecution.
	And thus, your ability, or because of the criminal prosecution, you have a hard time arguing, well, but for this person's false statement, I would have had this reputation.
	And they can say, no, you were criminally charged, so you would never have had that reputation anyway.
	So that's why, if you research it, you're not going to find a lot of even fully acquitted.
	People that have ever been criminally charged getting big damages awards.
	That's why that's not a viable economic option for Kyle, even if he's fully acquitted as he should be.
	And to compare it to Nick Salmon, who was never charged with anything, was defamed and had, you know, the situation is totally different.
	Rittenhouse, for right or for wrong, was criminally charged, so everyone's saying he did something to warrant criminal charges.
	Good luck libeling them, even if they were wrong on the state lines issues, wrong on...
	Hold on, did I miss a big super chat?
	Oh, no, I got that one before.
	Daniel from Five Foot Two Woman.
	So you're predicting that the gun charge gets dropped, state lines issues dropped, and then what impact is that going to have on closing arguments and deliberation?
	It hurts Binger's ability, little Binger's ability, to argue the unlawful part of provocation.
	So, I think he was originally going to argue, he was going to throw in the driver's license and some other stuff, but that's not really pertinent.
	He was going to argue the curfew violation and unlawful possession of the gun to argue that's the unlawful conduct that meets that element of provocation.
	Now that's gone.
	That's why he's stuck with Kyle pointing the gun at people as his sole grounds, which didn't happen.
	He's made up something based on fabricated evidence, based on improperly admitted It'll elicit evidence, people's bogus opinions and interpretations, being introduced by the defense.
	But his bigger story will be the broader narrative.
	So it'll make his argument much tougher.
	And for the jury looking at it, they'll be like, hold on a second.
	It wasn't clearly illegal to have the gun.
	It's not clear he violated curfew somehow.
	So all we're looking at is this.
	So it undermines Binger substantially.
	That he doesn't have those two claims.
	It doesn't change some of the aspects of what he's really pitching as a political narrative.
	And that's why the case is going to...
	Closing argument will have a disparate impact, potentially, on this jury.
	Because what closing argument really is, is you're giving ammunition, if you will, for your side.
	You're giving factual and legal arguments for the people that are with you to argue in the jury room to the people that are undecided or against you.
	Unfortunately, I believe Richards will be giving the defense closing argument.
	I was going to ask you, you know characters and you may have some insider information.
	You think Richards is going to do it over Charfezi?
	Almost guaranteed.
	Maybe Richards will prove me wrong and I hope he does.
	I hope he gives a fantastic closing argument.
	I hope he goes out and Kyle gets completely acquitted and he goes out and has cocktails and says, screw you, Barnes.
	More than thrilled if that's the outcome because it involves Kyle being acquitted.
	I'm not overly optimistic, unfortunately, based on performance to date that that will occur.
	But we can always pray.
	Even if it happens, it doesn't necessarily happen because of what was done.
	It might happen despite what was done, which is a very impossible thing to ever measure because we don't know that which was never done.
	Robert, one of my questions.
	What does a prosecutor like Binger get by way of salary?
	Do we know?
	Is it public?
	It varies.
	Yes, it's public.
	It depends on the state and the government, depending on the years of experience.
	It goes from anywhere as low in some states as 65,000 to up to 200,000 in some jurisdictions.
	So it's a wide, wide range.
	I would guess somewhere between 80 and 120, but I don't know for sure.
	Interesting reputation in many circles.
	But that's another story for another day.
	Well, I don't want anything that's not public, Robert.
	The only issue is...
	So it's not a 500.
	It's like 250, 200 max, give or take.
	They're not allowed taking remuneration or income from other secondary sources, I presume?
	For the most part, yes.
	Okay.
	I mean, they can have investments, things like that.
	And it depends also...
	In Tennessee, for a while, you could be both a judge and be private counsel, which was insane.
	So, I mean, it depends on the jurisdiction as to what conflicts are limited and which ones are not.
	And Little Binger might have some, but that's...
	Again, another story for another day.
	Otherwise, it's really what I said at the beginning, that this is a jury case.
	You get people who presume Kyle innocent.
	Kyle gets acquitted of all charges, period.
	You get people on there who think otherwise, and you have a mistrial risk.
	You have now, because of all the lesser included, a higher risk than normal of a split verdict.
	But we'll see.
	We're not doing the story, people.
	We might do that.
	Robert might do that.
	I don't like breaking private information.
	I just like analyzing public.
	So salary's not that much, Robert, but for a cynical, red-pilled, border-black-pilled individual like myself, who now says maybe Binger is buying his future into, you know, six-figure speaking fees later on, what this trial was like, getting on CNN and the like.
	How much does the future promise of remuneration...
	Potentially impact the present-day conduct like, you know, certain politicians, ex-presidents who do certain things with the expectation that even if it's not remunerated then, it will be in the future.
	Well, I mean, he's definitely earned affection from large parts of the political left who, you know, now the hardcore left thinks that because the facts are so bad, they assume Binger is secretly throwing the case.
	So that's what the hard left thinks.
	But your sort of conventional liberal, he's earned a lot of affection from and political validation from and public attention from.
	So it's not clear he will politically suffer as a result of this case, no matter the outcome.
	He's created a perception that the judge was against him and things of that nature.
	And so consequently, even a full acquittals won't likely do him much political harm.
	Now, I've made clear I'm no longer part of Kyle's case, so consequently I'm free to do what I want to do.
	And I'm going to be dealing with Binger after this case and hoping that there will be some consequences to his misconduct and taking a lead on that myself as just an independent objective.
	He's below Tyson Foods, but not below Tyson Foods.
	People who need some comeuppance.
	Never forgive.
	Never forget.
	Hold the line.
	Robert, I said I was going to try to do a new shirt.
	It's been a month I've been trying to do a new shirt.
	Not for lack of will, just for lack of time.
	One question I had.
	Sorry.
	Gage Grosskreutz goes on mainstream media outlets while the trial is pending to rectify his devastating testimony that he gave under oath during the trial, which is still ongoing.
	Is that not material for a mistrial?
	No, because the jury has been directly instructed not to watch or read or review anything related to the trial.
	And he as a witness is free to do it.
	The prosecution probably asked him to avoid media appearances until after he testified, but there's no limitation on a witness appearing on the media at all in any respects during a trial.
	The only risk is if it could be used against him if it's said before he testifies.
	So that's not problematic.
	I mean, I see as more problematic the Democratic governor of Wisconsin letting everyone know in the weekend, building up to the closing arguments.
	It would have been a reason to have the closing arguments on Friday before this could get out.
	But he tells everybody, I'm bringing in the National Guard to Kenosha, depending on the verdict.
	And who is he really sending that message to?
	Why publicly announce that?
	This is the same Democratic governor who refused.
	Multiple public requests to send any help while Kenosha was burning to the ground.
	So it's not like he's overly assertive and overly protective of Kenosha.
	He did this to send a message to the jury, this is what I have to do unless you rule the right way.
	That's my interpretation of what he's doing, an effort to intimidate the jury pool.
	The jury shouldn't know that he called in the National Guard in the event, so they shouldn't be watching the news, but they are.
	It's not substantively about the trial, so they're not legally prohibited from that news.
	Okay.
	And people had asked, how often do jurors end up seeing things?
	We know from the Chauvin case, even if they don't go out of their way to see something, they can be influenced by it if it's so broadly distributed that they can't avoid it.
	And that's why when the...
	Look, he could have...
	Have the National Guard ready without putting out a public press release that would be broadcast all across Kenosha.
	And so why'd he do that?
	He did that to send a message about what verdict he wants.
	The city's going to burn down unless you come back with some convictions.
	I think that's what the message he was sending, and I think it was politically deliberate given his history.
	It's very enraging, irritating, depressing, and it will make an optimist cynical, Robert, I mean, if you had to, I guess, I don't know if you want to do it.
	If you have some things that you would like to be mentioned in closing arguments, I mean, how long do closing arguments last on both sides?
	What has to be said and what has to be done from Richards and team if they're watching, you know, as far as their statements go?
	Well, the, I mean, ideally...
	You would intertwine the narrative.
	I mean, they've kind of missed the boat on some of these things because they didn't talk about it in opening, didn't highlight it during trial.
	But my view is to defend that what Kyle was doing there that night was not just defending Kyle, he defended Kenosha.
	He defended Middle America against these riotous criminal sociopaths who came down to attack not just Kyle, he just happened to be the personification of Kenosha that night, to attack Kenosha.
	Attacking immigrant businesses, attacking minority-owned businesses, using racist references throughout the night, as captured on video and on tape.
	And Kyle was just the personification of Kenosha that night.
	And because he defended himself, Kenosha didn't burn to the ground.
	Because he defended himself, more innocent people didn't die that night.
	More innocent people weren't harmed that night.
	Indeed, as the prosecution is admitted throughout the trial, there was an unusually low number.
	Of arsons and beatings that night.
	Probably because people like Kyle were there that night.
	And so they want you to focus on who suffered certain consequences disproportionately.
	That's going to be Binger's theme.
	Only one person shot.
	Only one person killed.
	Only one person was violently attacked that night.
	Only one person stood up and defended Kenosha that night.
	Only one person stood up and defended himself that night.
	Only one person kept the city from burning down and saved innocent lives and saved the dreams of A wide range of kenoshans, including minority members and immigrants.
	And so, you know, that part of the story, I think, is a significant part of the story thematically.
	Otherwise, just to continue to highlight the clear evidence of self-defense.
	And if people want to see an illustration of what competent defense works, looks like, and maybe this is a good transition.
	Look at the Arbery case.
	There you have an opening statement that brilliantly and calmly goes through fact after fact after fact of what happened.
	Recounting that through Kyle's perspective is critical as part of this closing.
	And the key highlighted points, all of these people were armed because they were either grabbing the gun or had a gun, number one.
	Number two...
	Everybody was only shot at the very moment they could inflict maximum harm on Kyle and on others that night.
	That is a classic case of self-defense.
	You're supposed to look at this through the eyes of a 17-year-old kid trying to defend his community.
	If somebody was grabbing your gun, saying, F you.
	Saying and had been telling you all night long, if I get you alone, I will kill you.
	If they had just tried to bash you over the head twice with a skateboard, a heavy, huge piece of metal that will kill and has killed, and then is trying to grab your gun and only at that point defend yourself.
	And the third person, you also don't shoot when their hands are up and only when, as they admit it on the stand, with the best moment by the defense throughout the trial by Corey, when the gun is pulled.
	And pointing right at your head.
	If this isn't self-defense, we don't have self-defense.
	And so that has to be part of the, and make this part of the bigger, broader cause of self-defense, the bigger, broader thematic cause of Kyle.
	Highlight those parts of the jury instructions that make that clear, that you have to look at it through the defense perspective.
	The defendant's perspective at the time, not with 20-20 hindsight, not second-guessing what he could do, when he could do, how he could do.
	And that would be, hopefully, the way they do it.
	So we'll see.
	Hopefully, there will be a sleazy...
	Slimy, swarmy presentation by Binger.
	Be ready to rebut some of their critical points, particularly the, you know, look into a blob and imagine what you want to see.
	That's not how we convict people of intentional homicide in America because it didn't happen.
	Show them the video that shows it didn't happen to rebut that core point and then otherwise, you know, present the case as it has been, as the evidence, best evidence has developed.
	I'll say only one thing.
	I guess we'll end this subject here, but if I'm the defense and something that has never been done, unless I'm mistaken throughout this entire damn trial, they haven't played the two minute and 55 second series of videos spliced together however you want to do it to show minute one to minute end as to what actually occurred, the time frame within which it occurred.
	It was two minutes and 55 seconds from friendly, friendly, friendly to surrendering to the cops, in which all of this occurred.
	And I don't know why.
	One way you could highlight that is to highlight just the interaction for the first interaction with Rosenbaum, the few seconds that it took.
	You could start with, say, you have a glass of water.
	You sit there and you talk to the jury, or you get up to talk to the jury.
	Take time to sip a glass of water, put it down, and say, that's how long Kyle had to save his life.
	Because that's the reality of it.
	To remind them of how tiny this time frame is.
	That he's making decisions in half a second, quarters of seconds.
	That all the shots took place in less than a single second.
	Because that was his risk.
	That was the situation he faced.
	And I think highlighting that compressed timeline is a very important part.
	And to use analogies that they use in their everyday life.
	Use something ideally that they themselves do.
	They're all going to go back and have...
	A drink of water at some point in the jury deliberation room.
	Have in their head, this is how long this kid had to decide what to do.
	This is how long this kid had to decide what to do.
	You know, to reinforce that.
	Use everyday imagery.
	And like I said, maybe Richards will knock it out of the park.
	You know, maybe the good Lord will make sure that wheel, when they're picking jurors, gets rid of the six bad jurors and keeps the 12 good ones.
	We can hope, we can pray because the kid's innocent and he deserves to walk free next week.
	Okay, look, I mean, let's just, unless we miss something massive for tomorrow, let's just leave it there.
	Maybe we get something tomorrow.
	Oh, sorry, go ahead.
	I was going to say, I think we're both going to be on Rakita's live stream.
	And I'll try to restrain myself.
	I told people, if I'd been there, I probably would have needed a lawyer for my own self-defense because it would have been erratic.
	It would have been between Binger.
	And Richards and Binger and Richards.
	I might have needed self-defense against both because I would have been in an irritable state of mind as I have been throughout the trial, frankly, watching things happen that didn't need to happen, watching risk occur that didn't need to occur.
	But yeah, we'll be on there tomorrow with Ricada's live stream at different points giving feedback as to the closing.
	Can you imagine, by the way, the biggest problem that we have now is that there's only room for 10...
	There's only room for 10 screens on StreamYard.
	This is how amazingly massive this entire, call it a movement for lack of a better word, because it will exist after Rittenhouse.
	YouTube Law.
	We now have too many lawyers to be on one screen at the same time on Rakata Law.
	And you know what?
	This will be a short segue.
	When is Don Lemon's trial coming up?
	It is currently scheduled as a bench trial for January 3rd.
	I'm arguing it should be a jury trial.
	That's up to the court's concern.
	They've brought a sanctions motion that I think is ill-founded.
	The only person who I believe is hiding evidence and doing other illicit things is Don Lemon.
	That's a good always confession through projection.
	I do apply that all the time in the law.
	So if I have a lawyer or a defendant making arguments that make no sense about my client, I tend to sit there and say, hmm, I wonder if they're confessing what they've been up to.
	And if that confession through projection applies, it suggests Donnie Boy's been up to some very bad things.
	And we may be able to prove that come trial time.
	If he gets up on the stand and perjures himself, as I think he Don Lemon likely will at this trial, he should be prepared for that perjury to be publicly exposed.
	So this trial, in theory, will be publicly broadcast as well?
	No, no.
	Federal court, they don't allow any public broadcasting.
	Son of a gun.
	Well, okay, we'll find another one to cover, but I'll be covering that daily.
	I guess it won't be live streaming.
	It'll be probably a day or two trial, pretty short, because it's pretty clear what Lemon did.
	Lemon will try to pretend he didn't do it.
	And we'll see what the...
	It's a New York jury, if it's a jury trial, or it's a bench trial if the court decides to go that route based on what my predecessor counsels did or didn't do.
	But we'll see.
	Dustin, he did two interviews with Megyn Kelly.
	I sat in on one of them.
	He's been very open, very straightforward, admitted where he would have liked to have done some things differently, but he doesn't care about the money.
	He solely wants Don.
	In fact, what I publicly put out there, still out there, is if Don Lemon will admit and apologize.
	I'll dismiss the case with prejudice without a penny, nickel, dime, or dollar.
	Robert, these are the offers that will never be accepted because they would be too damning.
	They would be more damning of an offer to accept than being ordered to pay $5 million in damages because at least you fought and at least you can maintain it.
	It's all about money.
	It's not about money.
	Why is my client willing and has authorized me to accept a settlement that doesn't pay him a penny?
	It's because it's about Don Lemon misusing and abusing his power and he needs to confess that he did so.
	And apologize for doing so.
	And the case will end.
	We're here because he refuses to do so.
	Because he continues to lie about what he was up to.
	And I believe hid evidence.
	And has done some other very questionable things that I believe I'll be able to prove by time of trial.
	So, I guess I won't be live streaming that trial, but I will definitely be covering it in real time because it's one that I have been following since before I knew you were involved in it.
	And therefore, I will be continuing to follow it.
	But Robert.
	Okay, one that we've been talking about for a while now, not directly related to this, but Steve Bannon at large, is now public enemy number one and has been indicted by a grand jury in D.C. for two charges, contempt of Congress for testimony, contempt of Congress for papers, which I guess is producing the documents they requested.
	Call me biased, call me whatever you want.
	How is this not a purely political prosecution?
	How do you not adjudicate on the executive privilege asserted before indicting?
	A couple of components.
	He has a robust defense because of the good faith executive privilege.
	Either executive privilege applies or he had a good faith basis executive privilege applied.
	In either context, in my view, that's a full defense to both contempt charges.
	Of course, if contempt of Congress is a crime, And, you know, that is prosecutable, most Americans would end up in prison.
	So the idea that we're going to start charging people with contempt of Congress is rather nuts.
	It's usually reserved to extreme cases.
	And this is the same Justice Department that Devin Nunes referred people for real criminal prosecutions.
	Senator Grassley referred to for real criminal prosecutions related not only to Russiagate, but to other criminal activities by government officials.
	and they failed to indict one single one of those people.
	This is the same Justice Department that when Eric Holder was engaged in real contempt of Congress, when Lois Lerner was engaged in real contempt of Congress, when the IRS commissioner was engaged in real contempt of Congress, refused to take indictment of any of them.
	When witnesses perjured themselves, as Clapper did previously, When John Brennan illicitly spied on Congress while at the CIA.
	Once again, what did the Justice Department do?
	Did not bring one single indictment.
	But Steve Bannon, for asserting executive privilege, gets indicted?
	Also, for totally innocuous, for having made certain statements prior to January 6th, back it up three steps.
	Eric Holder, I'm familiar with.
	Fast and the Furious, they asked for documents about the gun running over the U.S. border.
	Actual crimes resulted in actual death from the actual events, not from...
	Capitol Police shooting an unarmed woman, Ashley Babbitt.
	So the Fast and the Furious I know about, what's the Lerner one?
	I don't think I'm familiar enough with the Lerner.
	So the IRS commissioner misused her authority to target people forming 501c3s and 501c4s, non-profit entities, for political purposes.
	And they were targeting Tea Party people in particular.
	Now, that wasn't the only one.
	The IRS was also, in a Bivens case that I brought, the IRS was illicitly and secretly seizing and stealing the medical records of millions of Americans under the guise of enforcing the Obamacare provision, which included the private medical records, including very embarrassing medical records, of Major League Baseball, the Screen Actors Guild, the Directors Guild, every judge in the state of California.
	And the family members of all of those people.
	I mean, I'm talking about which movie director has a foot fetish?
	Which actor has an undisclosed heart problem?
	Which baseball player has an undisclosed injury?
	Which judge's son is in and out of drug rehab?
	Those kind of details.
	I called it a J. Edgar Hoover wet dream of blackmail and extortion.
	And she was there when that happened as well.
	So she was systematically weaponizing and politicizing the tools of the IRS to go after the opponents or perceived opponents of the Obama administration and to gather blackmail and extortion information on high-profile people all across the country.
	She refused to answer a whole bunch of questions from a legitimately formed congressional committee that was lawfully had a legislative purpose, unlike this January 6th committee, which in my view doesn't meet Either definition.
	And once again, it was referred for contempt and the Justice Department did nothing.
	So, you know, that's the scope of it.
	Not only all the fast and furious activities of Eric Holder, but also the various activities of the IRS commissioner during that time, which, again, she faced no consequence for.
	He not only has the full robust defense that he, in good faith, asserted executive privilege and that executive privilege might apply here independently.
	But on top and the reliance of counsel defense, the counsel advised him of such.
	So he has robust defenses to the contempt charges that he had no intent to form contempt when he had a good faith basis to withhold that evidence based on a good faith reliance on counsel and a good faith reliance on the former president.
	And that the executive privilege may in fact apply.
	But on top of that, this January 6th committee is not a normally formed committee of Congress.
	I still have problems with the way it was formed in its foundation.
	And they have to prove that their subpoena to Steve Bannon had a legitimate legislative purpose that was not for the purposes of harassment.
	They can't meet either.
	And that's an independent grounds to move to dismiss both of these charges.
	Which the only reason they're here is because of the political prejudice in grand jurors in the District of Columbia.
	And so everybody who appreciates, I don't know what resolution it was, House Resolution 503, that said we're going to look into domestic terrorist activity.
	Because they had deemed Jan 6 to be domestic terrorist activity.
	I presume before the FBI came out and said there was no coordinated effort for anything.
	So they formed this committee.
	They empowered themselves to pursue the objectives of this committee before the FBI actually came out and confirmed no coordinated efforts, nothing.
	They then subpoena Steve Bannon because on January 5th, I don't know what the place was where he gave a speech or whatever.
	He gave a speech and said, at some point in the speech, there will be hell or all hell is going to break loose.
	Not knowing, I mean, it's a one sentence, even in the indictment, not knowing if he's saying it in terms of hell will break loose if they don't follow the law, hell will break loose if people don't believe.
	Context irrelevant.
	That's the basis for which they then go after him to ask for any and all information documents, come testify as relates to these events.
	And then he invokes an executive privilege that apparently Trump said, invoke whatever you can under the extent of the law.
	And he does.
	And they indict him.
	I just, I don't even understand how it gets here.
	When was the last time anyone was indicted on a contempt of Congress charge?
	Well, I mean, other than going after Roger Stone is somewhat comparable.
	Except for right wing guy.
	When was the last time a left person was...
	Okay, so Roger Stone was indicted.
	The National Security Advisor, National Security Director, lied and committed perjury to Congress so offensive it led Ed Snowden to become one of the most famous whistleblowers in history, and he faced no consequences.
	John Brennan illicitly spied on Congress, and he faced no consequences.
	Holder committed real contempt.
	Lerner committed real contempt.
	Neither faced any consequence.
	But little Steve Bannon, not a federal official, unlike those other people I mentioned, someone who is before this made-up committee that's not a normal committee of Congress, that has no apparent legislative purpose whatsoever, that the subpoena to him has no apparent legislative purpose for it whatsoever, asserts in good faith and reliance on counsel and reliance on the former president.
	The good faith basis by which he should not participate or produce information that may be privileged under law and he's criminally prosecuted?
	The Justice Department is a joke.
	They are being politically weaponized for these purposes and the next Republican Congress, and the next Congress will be a Republican Congress, better start looking at getting rid of the District of Columbia as an independent federal...
	This is like having Mississippi in 1960 be the sole judge of civil rights, where they excluded all black jurors.
	There are more people that were pro-civil rights on an all-white jury in Mississippi in 1960 than there are nonpartisan jurors in the District of Columbia.
	So they need to get rid of the federal district that's only on the District of Columbia because they're ram-riding civil cases there, ram-riding criminal cases there.
	You cannot get a fair grand jury.
	You cannot get an impartial jury.
	And the Justice Department is so politically tainted that it is using all of its powers to go after political dissidents in ways that historically, they are bringing charges they historically have never brought for similar conduct or worse allegations against other people on the other line politically.
	Well, D.C. is a cesspool.
	It goes without saying.
	But now, am I wrong in thinking that Merrick Garland, Merrick Garland is the head of the DOJ, correct?
	Correct.
	Yes, the Attorney General for the United States, who it turned out was secretly conspiring with leftist organizations to go after school board members, to use the school boards as a guise to go after dissident parents.
	You know, he's trying to lock up parents for raising questions about critical race theory in their schools, lock up parents for raising questions about whether people are assaulting their daughters in the bathroom.
	Lock those people up while he's busy going after Steve Bannon on complete nonsense and at the same time is conspiring and colluding with the New York Times to go after a political dissident who is being sued.
	The New York Times is being sued over their political, over a journalistic adversary, and weaponizing the only place worse than the District of Columbia, the Southern District of New York, for politically partisan, motivated prosecutions, to go after Project Veritas and James O 'Keefe.
	Now, so for anybody who doesn't know, it's a good segue.
	Although, before we close it up, I'm always curious about the human element of this.
	You know Steve Bannon better than I do.
	I know me better than I know Steve Bannon.
	If I'm in Steve Bannon's shoes, I don't know how I relax.
	I don't know how I go about with life.
	How does Steve Bannon deal with this type of stress on a human level?
	Does he shrug it off to say it's part of the battle and use it for content in a non-cynical way for his podcast?
	I think he responds the way Breitbart famously said, where he has a short video.
	He's like, when you decided to do this and this, war.
	And that's who Steve Bannon is.
	You know, Steve Bannon comes from the military background.
	So I think he welcomes this.
	He doesn't fear this.
	He sees it as an opportunity to engage in the battle and expose this for what it is using the powers he now has for discovery purposes, for a wide range of purposes, I hope and believe he will, to respond accordingly.
	So he's not someone who's easily intimidated and generally welcomes these kind of battles as an opportunity to...
	To show to the public what's really going on in the world.
	I'm not going to bring up...
	A lot of the chat is reiterating some of that comment.
	By the way, for my own benefit, Andrew Breitbart nonetheless, war is fun, but war has stress.
	Breitbart died of a heart attack, unless we go with other theories, but Breitbart died of a heart attack, which stress-related stuff does tend to induce.
	War is fun, but war has stresses to it.
	Is Steve Bannon...
	I guess he is fit for this type of war, correct?
	Yes, yes, yes.
	Quite frankly, he looks for it.
	He's not been known to be bashful in these contexts.
	Okay, fantastic.
	Now, speaking of another person who seems to be maybe not looking for war, but not avoiding war, James O 'Keefe, people.
	This is something I struggle to understand the procedural posture of what was going on.
	I think I now understand better what's going on.
	James O 'Keefe, everybody.
	This goes back about a year.
	Got contacted by anonymous sources saying we have the acquired diary of one Ashley Biden.
	By the way, everyone out there, I'm going to bring up this chat and then I'm going to ask you, did anyone know that Biden had a daughter named Ashley Biden?
	Because it seems a lot of people did not know.
	We thought it was Beau Biden who passed away from brain cancer and Hunter Biden.
	A lot of people did not know about Ashley Biden while I asked that after 34 years of complaining about religious persecution.
	As a prophet, I tip my hat to Barnes as someone who can outbitch me as a prophet.
	Okay, good.
	Ashley Biden apparently left a diary in some place where these people allegedly, after she had stayed there, came in and found a diary.
	They then took this diary, shopped it around some news outlets, one of which was James O 'Keefe, Project Veritas.
	Project Veritas, I believe them.
	I trust them.
	And I think they're responsible.
	They say, we want to vet this source.
	We want to vet the authenticity.
	We're not publishing it unless we know that it's true and correct and that it was not stolen, arguably.
	Maybe I'm reaching there.
	But they didn't know how the people got it.
	They said they didn't steal it.
	They, James O 'Keefe, Project Veritas, after some time, finally say, we're not publishing it.
	We can't independently verify.
	We want to give it back to the attorneys of the anonymous individuals who found it, which is already suspicious.
	The attorneys refused to take it back.
	James O 'Keefe then says, okay, we're going to give it to the authorities because if it is, in fact, stolen, we don't want to really be having this take it back.
	That was a long time ago.
	That was about a year ago, unless I'm mistaken on the timeline.
	Two weeks ago, three weeks ago, four weeks ago, whatever, they basically get raided by, I don't know if it's the FBI or who else it would be.
	They get raided by the FBI.
	Two former journalists from Project Veritas who were Not the contact points, but they were involved in that particular story, which never aired.
	James O 'Keefe goes on social media after those two journalists, ex-journalists, former journalists, former employees of Protea Veritas, and gives a video.
	Shortly thereafter, James O 'Keefe is raided at dawn, a la Roger Stone, a la the other guy on his boat.
	Robert, what's his name?
	That was rated at dawn?
	Other than Roger Stone?
	No, the other one who was arrested.
	Oh, Manafort rated.
	He was rated at his house.
	So, rated at dawn by the FBI, cuffed in, you know, whatever.
	For whatever the reason, however it occurred, and this is public because it's been made public, the New York Times quickly contacted James O 'Keefe after the arrest, which indicated that allegedly they had some advanced knowledge of what was going to happen.
	However that happened, throw your...
	Suggestions in the ring.
	And last week, Harmeet Dillon, who is representing James O 'Keefe and Project Veritas, got basically an order in joining the FBI or whomever to cease extracting data from that which they, what's the word, seized from James O 'Keefe and others.
	And there's a scheduling scheduled for next week for Department of Justice to respond, O 'Keefe to respond to their response.
	If I've missed anything, let me know and then give us the rundown.
	What in the name of Gone Grease Earth is going on right now?
	Well, the other thing is what the New York Times published.
	Okay, sorry.
	Go for it.
	You do it.
	You say it because I...
	Sure.
	So, I mean, it appears the backstory now is that Ashley Biden was in drug rehab during the campaign.
	Something that...
	It is good to know.
	Why is it so few people knew?
	Our president had a daughter.
	That's sort of red flag number one.
	And apparently what this was was what's often called you journal during some drug rehab facilities.
	And apparently that's what this is.
	And so apparently she left it behind or something else.
	Somebody else knew about it and provided it to Project Veritas.
	Project Veritas couldn't independently verify that it was her journal and could not independently verify that the underlying facts she alleged in it were true.
	And so they asked Ashley Biden's counsel to return it to Ashley Biden's counsel.
	He refused, fearing his acknowledgement, his accepting of it would be acknowledging its authenticity.
	So Project Veritas gave it to law enforcement.
	What has happened is that the FBI and the Justice Department in the Southern District of New York Rather than investigating the underlying allegations, has decided to go after how Project Veritas got on to this incriminating information that apparently his daughter was disclosing in this drug rehab information, including very impermissible involvement between a father and a young daughter, and very disturbing information.
	And so, instead of investigating that...
	And investigating where there's been other activities to get her to not talk.
	They go after anybody who knew about it and use it as a pretext to collude with the New York Times to go after somebody who has successfully sued the New York Times into discovery.
	And that is Project Veritas and James O 'Keefe.
	And they do this at the same time.
	That Project Veritas' latest rounds of disclosures have come from whistleblowers about Pfizer and about big drug companies in the context of the COVID-19 vaccines.
	So that's the political backdrop to this sudden focus on not only doing grand jury subpoenas, but then following it up with search warrants of journalists' private residences in the most shocking, dramatic manner.
	And then...
	Seizing information that legally they're not entitled to seize.
	So when you go after a journalist, that has to get the approval of the top people at the Justice Department, and they're supposed to limit the scope of it.
	And I would note that they have agreed, this Justice Department agreed they would not do this to members of the press.
	They have agreed to a binding order by the Chief Judge of the District of Columbia to not...
	Go after the press.
	And yet that's very clearly what they're doing here.
	They seized more information than they could be legally entitled to, including they seized not only confidential source information for Project Veritas, but also attorney-client communications between the lawyers and Project Veritas.
	And then they turned around and leaked it.
	Robert, if we back it up a few weeks, because if anyone's wondering what I'm doing, I'm taking notes while we talk.
	A while back, you did mention, when we first talked about this, and I forget when, that leaving the diary, conveniently forgetting about it, could be one of those elements of...
	Trying to let the public know what's going on in a manner that absolves the individual, the victim, of so disclosing it.
	The rehab stuff, it is public as well.
	It's been made public now.
	The diary itself has been published where?
	There was a place that actually published it, right?
	There are people that claim to have published it, and that has not been confirmed.
	If it is what people have published, then the allegations are inappropriate, well, beyond inappropriate.
	Illegal behavior by President Joe Biden towards his daughter when she was younger, when she was underage.
	And so, I mean, it's very serious allegations that would be disturbing and shocking to most people that if it was reversed, if this was Ivanka Trump at a drug rehab and left this and his allegations against...
	It would have been front page of the New York Times for a week.
	CNN would have run it with three weeks.
	It would have had Trump locked up in a day.
	I was going to say it would be impeachment 3.0, but now the rehab aspect is very interesting because that's also relatively new, but also public information.
	I've never been to...
	I have no experience with these things, so I don't know about keeping a diary, which might explain, because my initial reaction was, why would an adult person be keeping a diary of anything?
	Some people had said, well, maybe they were looking to write a book like Mary Trump about their father.
	Other people who were smarter than me said, What was the expression?
	To document.
	Now, not knowing that she was in rehab at the time, that is an additional layer of explanation as to how this goes about occurring in the first place.
	How they got it is another issue, but how they got it is the underlying issue, Robert.
	Because you journal a drama.
	This is not subject to federal jurisdiction.
	Whether somebody got somebody's diary or rehab journal and gave it to someone else, how is that a federal crime?
	How does that have anything to do with the FBI raiding journalists on a morning raid and seizing their attorney, client and privileged source private information?
	This is insane.
	What you have is the Department of Justice.
	It's like the movie Spartan, made by David Mamet.
	Great film.
	It is basically the Justice Department acting as not only the political police for the Democratic Party.
	Targeting the political opponents of the Biden administration, but acting as the secret police of President Biden to cover up his own criminal behavior and misconduct, which is very analogous to how they handled the Hunter Biden laptop story as well.
	I don't want to draw analogies.
	And some people in the chat say, what are you laughing at, Viva?
	I laugh at incredulity.
	I laugh when things are so violently offensive that you would have to be...
	You'd have to have a dead soul not to react.
	And so I'm not going to react with anger.
	I'm not going to react with rage.
	I'm going to react with, I can't believe this is happening because it just keeps happening.
	With Hunter Biden, you had the incident of him, apparently, I don't know how the laws work, feloniously applying for an unlawful firearm given his history.
	You then have his, it wasn't his wife at the time.
	That was my mistake.
	It was actually his sister-in-law who he was dating.
	It's the deceased.
	Wife of his stepbrother, and I say that without judgment because I say that without judgment, feloniously disposing of that feloniously procured firearm, and what happens when that news breaks?
	They don't go after the felonious actors in that.
	They go after the dude who had the computer and then suggested he hacked him, whatever.
	They go after him.
	In this case, I don't know what the allegations are in the diary.
	I don't have any sordid interest in that for the sake of it.
	I know what I think I know of what could be in there.
	Someone anonymously contacts Prodry Veritas, gives it to the diary, they try to do independent verification, cannot do whatever satisfies their journalistic integrity as an entity, seeks to return the diary to the attorneys of the individuals who were representing the procurers of that diary, they refuse to take it back, they then give it to the authorities who sat on it for an extended period of time, and then overnight it becomes an emergency justifying...
	Well, right now it is.
	I mean, we have a dementia candidate like Biden, who both of his children keep signaling that their problems as adults stem from his misbehavior when they were children and as adults.
	And the reaction of the FBI and the Justice Department is to act as his personal private secret police in Stassi and try to punish anyone who investigates or exposes it while the Justice Department is busy targeting the political opponents of the Democratic Party for criminal prosecutions and criminal punishment.
	I mean, it's extraordinary and rather startling.
	But on a white-pilled notice moment, what also happened...
	This week is that the effort of the Biden administration to force-feed a vaccine mandate through OSHA rules on two-thirds of private employees was unanimously shut down by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
	Who said it was patently illegal what the OSHA was trying to do, that the Biden administration doesn't really have even constitutional authority to even try this.
	And that was one of the biggest rules against vaccine mandates, biggest rulings against vaccine mandates to ever be issued by any court.
	So much so that Scott Gottlieb, former FDA commissioner who now sits on the Pfizer board, I believe, was admitting that all these vaccine mandates are backfiring.
	And creating a huge community and constituency, raising questions about what Big Pharma has been up to for a while that might extend and expand beyond the COVID-19 context.
	So that was a great ruling that hopefully will do a crack in the dam of these vaccine mandates that will unwind and unmask them for the unconstitutional illicit activities that they are, using that decision as the first basis of it.
	But very big win.
	For those concerned with constitutional liberties in an environment where we're seeing a lot of constitutional liberties routinely, flagrantly violated.
	Was it unanimous from the Fifth Circuit?
	Yeah, it was.
	And so if the Biden administration is dumb enough, they'll try to run it up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
	There's multiple claims in multiple circuits.
	And so one way they can do it is they go through this random assignment process, and they can assign the whole case to one circuit.
	And if they assign it to a different circuit, that circuit can revisit the Fifth Circuit's ruling.
	But otherwise, the only way to revisit that ruling is to go up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
	It was a full preliminary injunction, which means pending the whole litigation, and that effectively kills the OSHA rule.
	So the OSHA rule is dead for the time being.
	I don't think it will be resuscitated.
	I think it will be killed, and I think it will open the door to the challenges on the federal contractor provision, then the federal employment provision, then private employment provisions.
	And on top of that, an Oklahoma court stopped a private employer from issuing vaccine mandates on the grounds that without giving full accommodation to religious rights, which means they couldn't just put the people on unpaid leave.
	They had to give them a comparable position as the ones they're giving people that have medical accommodations.
	And as well, a bunch of states are looking at passing more and more laws.
	Tennessee passed one this week, which I was partly involved in drafting.
	They watered down bits of it, but it's still pretty good.
	That prohibits employers from discriminating against people.
	Other states are looking at passing laws that are going to make employers liable for any injuries that occur from the vaccine if it's been mandated on the employee.
	Those are the two next great methods of relief aside from the EEOC lawsuits.
	But vaccine mandates got the biggest loss they have ever got in American history this week in the OSHA rule getting struck down.
	And I just, from a selfish perspective, as a Canadian who does not seem to have a country that fights the way the U.S. does, I hope this trickles up.
	But in terms of not eliminating, but incurring the liability of employers for adverse effects, that would be the next big step in terms of lawsuits going forward?
	Yeah, and getting legislation passed to make it clear that that is available as an option.
	So the other thing is on this front, a great new project was announced called the Unity Project.
	It includes some of the top medical people, the top scientific people, some of the best legal people are all part of it.
	To fight vaccine mandates particularly.
	It is a well-funded organization by some big hedge fund people and some other people that are stepping up to the plate that see what's happening and are very disturbed.
	See what's happening to soldiers and are very disturbed.
	See what's happening to school children and are very disturbed.
	See what's happening to first responders and are very disturbed.
	So the legal political pushback, which got a big boost by that Fifth Circuit ruling.
	...
	Not only in the court of public opinion to change legislation to get better laws passed, but also to help with lawsuits that are going to be timely filed as necessary, including a potential claim.
	against Sanjay Gupta and CNN for falsely advertising a unnoticed A unauthorized, unapproved vaccine to children using Big Bird and Sesame Street to do so, which violate existing laws because they're not allowed to market it in the way they are to children.
	Okay, you know what?
	This wasn't on the menu, but I did take outright offense to that tweet or that video.
	It was a tweet.
	A tweet and a video.
	I mean, it was a combination.
	Well, I thought it was a joke.
	And then when I realized it wasn't a joke, I made a comment.
	Then I saw Joe Biden or the POTUS respond to it saying, thank you, Big Bird, for letting us know or for stepping up.
	He doesn't say step up.
	Trudeau says step up.
	And I think that couldn't be a real response.
	And it was a real response.
	Then people said, look, who does Big Bird think is on Twitter that's a kid?
	But regardless, using a kid's character.
	To market a pharmaceutical, any sort of intervention, ostensibly to kids, is itself problematic, Robert, to understand it?
	And particularly one that does not have any biologic licensed approval for children.
	Doesn't have it.
	That's a direct violation of federal law.
	A direct violation of the medical ethics of Sanjay Gupta, who apparently is licensed in six different jurisdictions.
	So people are looking at filing ethics complaints against Gupta in the various medical boards.
	The medical boards are going after anybody who doesn't go along with the CDC narrative.
	It's time for those medical boards to face consequences and to do something to show whether they can actually be equal in their approach with Gupta, but also looking at filing a potential suit that the Unity Project is looking at.
	People can look up Unity Project and find it both on Twitter and elsewhere.
	They're going to be a one-stop shop for all kinds of information.
	So information to present to your school, information to present to your employer, information to present to your doctor or other health officials, information to present if you're a soldier in the military or a National Guardsman.
	This week, Oklahoma came out and National Guard said they will not abide by the order issued by the Defense Department to mandate a vaccine on their National Guardsman.
	Said it exceeded their authority and violated certain rules.
	That was a good sign.
	But the Unity Project is going to be creating this one-stop shop where you can get very valuable information, both to influence the court of public opinion and as needed and beneficial to you individually.
	Of course, the religious exemplar examples to object and for religious accommodation rights remain pinned at the vivabarneslaw.locals.com board.
	You can still go there for that as well.
	But the Unity Project will be adding some information and presentations with the influence and involvement of both Robert Malone, some of the top medical people, and top legal people.
	So all of it, a lot of promising signs, a lot of pushback against the vaccine mandates.
	And when even Scott Gottlieb is saying this is a disaster for big pharma long-term politically, that means we're making real headway in the fight against this mandate.
	Bobby Kennedy Jr.
	Whose book is about to come out on Anthony Fauci, was over in Italy and doing a European tour, resisting the vaccine passports there.
	He'll be coming back to the States.
	And Dr. Mercola filed suit against Elizabeth Warren.
	And I believe a coming suit is coming against Adam Schiff because both of them have been trying to intimidate Amazon into deplatforming any author who questions what they think about vaccines.
	And so the problem is that's efforts to coerce, efforts to intimidate, efforts to use legislation to induce in certain aspects of what they're doing with big tech to censor under the First Amendment.
	And that is a First Amendment violation under existing law and hopefully will be further established as such.
	And it's reflective of the case of the appeal that was filed for Bobby Kennedy and Children's Health Defense also this past week.
	That is the leading case to breach big tech efforts to censor people because it gives detailed proof about how they are conspiring and colluding and the government is using coercive techniques and inducements of immunity and inducements of threats to break up big tech if they don't censor people like Bobby Kennedy and that makes them a state actor and that case presents the best chance to establish a right against big tech big Government colluded censorship
	in America.
	Now, I'm not laughing at the seriousness of the situation, just some of the chats, which I cannot bring up ever.
	But Robert, is the issue of children being vaccinated without the consent of their parents at school or wherever?
	An issue in the States or only in Canada?
	It's about to become one.
	The United Nations put out a statement that basically said what schools should do is announce that on certain days they're doing vaccine treatment and then do it and then just give the vaccine to the kid without the parent knowing on the theory that that's implied consent, which is complete hogwash.
	And so people are going to have to be proactive, I mean, this past week, apparently someone at a CVS pharmacy and someone at a school gave a vaccine to a young child that they thought was the flu vaccine, apparently, and they actually gave him the COVID-19 vaccine at the wrong dosage.
	What people don't know is all of that's immune.
	Anything that happens related to the COVID-19 vaccine, complete immunity.
	Even if they were supposed to be giving you something other than the COVID-19 vaccine, complete immunity under the law.
	That's how bad the immunity law is.
	There was a situation in Canada where they were, some pharmacy unilaterally decided that they were going to administer a vaccine.
	Lower doses of the adult vaccine to kids because they just didn't have other vaccines.
	My wife sent me the article, which I might pin.
	I don't want to get accused of any issues on the interwebs.
	But yeah, a lot of unilateral decisions as to what can qualify under the circumstances.
	And then if you find out, you find out.
	Okay, that's interesting.
	But Robert, we might get into trouble if we don't.
	We will not give a full hour and a quarter or hour and three quarters to Arbery.
	But what is the latest in the Ahmaud Arbery trial?
	For those who have not been following it, because it's running at the same time as Rittenhouse, opening statements we touched on, but just an overall quick recap.
	Where's the trial at?
	What stage are the proceedings?
	And how does it look, irrespective of how you feel about either of the positions of the parties?
	Two people who are doing good coverage on it is Nate, Nate the Lawyer, on YouTube, and GoodLogic, Joe Nehrman.
	Kind of like a New Yorker, good logic, L-A-W-G-I-C.
	Playing on the law word.
	But basically, it was a very bad week by the end of it for the prosecution.
	Because this is another case where the media narrative is a fake narrative.
	Because the media narrative was that Ahmaud Arbery was jogging through a neighborhood when a couple of crazy white people hopped in a truck, chased him down, shot and killed him.
	And the prosecution tried to actually play off of that false narrative.
	What came out at trial was, first of all, he was never a jogger and he wasn't a jogger.
	That's problem number one.
	He, in fact, was clearly casing out the properties for weeks and months before, had been caught on tape doing so repeatedly, and was the person, but that's part one.
	Part two is, what also came out is that the homeowner, that the media had done this fake narrative that the homeowner was never concerned about him, the prosecution made that presentation and opening, but on cross-examination, he changed his tune.
	Because it turned out he called 911 over a dozen times on Ahmaud Arbery.
	That he had asked his neighbor to not only watch out for Ahmaud Arbery, but to detain him if he saw him on the property.
	So that's problem number two.
	That it turned out the homeowner was in fact greatly concerned about him.
	He was in fear of him and had told neighbors to not only be proactive, but to actually detain him if they see him.
	Third problem is what the police said.
	The police advised the neighbors that Ahmaud Arbery was committing burglary, that they believed he was armed, and to be very careful and to arm themselves if they see him.
	So when that's what comes out at trial, not a jogger, casing out the place, homeowner terrified, cops terrified, that radically changes the perspectives of what the McMichaels had that day.
	What it doesn't change is evidence of racist beliefs and statements by the McMichaels and evidence that they admitted in their statements to the law enforcement right afterwards that on the day in question, they had not witnessed Arbery commit a crime.
	Now, that's not necessary for a felony.
	If you believe someone has committed felony burglary, it doesn't matter that you didn't see them do so.
	It doesn't matter if you didn't think they did so on that day.
	What is felony burglary versus misdemeanor burglary?
	Burglary is almost always a felony.
	So it has to be a really small amount and not an intent to commit a certain kind of crime, not enter a home.
	Like, the prosecution liked to call it a construction site.
	The media liked to call it a construction site.
	It was a home.
	The fact that there was a home under construction is not a typical construction site.
	That was deliberate misrepresentation.
	So the prosecution got caught with their pants down this week by very effective cross-examination that follows very effective opening statements that follows two weeks.
	This is how jury selection should work.
	Two weeks of jury selection.
	So imagine the irony if the McMichaels walk and there's some sort of split verdict or mistrial in the Rittenhouse case.
	That'll tell you, the only explanation for that is utter incompetence by a defense team in the Rittenhouse game, if that happens.
	Hopefully, pray for Lee, it doesn't.
	And then they can write me all the nasty letters and emails they want.
	I'll be happy.
	I'll toast to them.
	But so, big developments in the McMichael case this week, Aubrey case this week.
	They still have weaknesses because of that.
	The real question is, but basically, if they got a jury that was not pretrial prejudiced against them or wouldn't judge them just based on their racist beliefs or apparent racist beliefs or racist statements, then they have an above-average chance at acquittals just based on what's happened so far in the trial.
	What stage are they in?
	Prosecution is still administering its evidence?
	Yes.
	First full week of trial this week, and I believe they continue to go next week until the defense gets up.
	The court was unhappy with the defense lawyers, gave them long lecture.
	Yeah, okay, so Nate posted that, and there was no immediate or concise, sorry, wrong one.
	There was no context for what the judge was reacting to.
	The judge was reacting in a very different manner than Schroeder in Rittenhouse.
	No raising the voice, just a stern discipline.
	Think about your behavior.
	I'm going to adjourn and then come back.
	But what was the judge reacting to concretely that we might not have seen?
	There has been obvious hostility between some of the defense team and the court.
	They think the court's not being fair and is not impartial.
	And they're not hiding that.
	So there's overt and open hostility between them, and basically anything can set that off at any given time.
	And they apparently are voicing either visually or directly their hostility to some of the court's rulings, and the court didn't like them doing it right in front of the jury.
	And yet you do have to be careful with that as a defense counsel to figure out where that angle is.
	Now the defense counsel, one of the defense lawyers, unfortunately used some phraseology that...
	I don't think he quite meant it the way he said.
	Do we repeat it here or do you want to just give us the idea of what the defense attorney said?
	Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have been showing up at the case.
	They're unhappy with that because they think it will intimidate or affect the jury.
	I don't think there's any legal right to exclude them from the courtroom.
	I think that's a violation of their rights.
	If I were the defense, I would not have been bothered by that at all.
	But one of the defense lawyers gets up, and what I think maybe some people thought he meant to say was, we don't need any more celebrity pastors who might be politically influencing the court.
	But instead, he said, we don't want any more black pastors coming to court.
	That kind of reinforces the racist narrative that's surrounding this case.
	So that was not the best lingo that could have been used.
	He went straight for the race of the individuals that he wanted to not have present.
	And I thought I was given the benefit of the doubt.
	It might have been, I don't want any more of those people.
	Maybe referring to celebrities and not race, but no, he went straight to race, so we bypassed.
	Explicitly, right there on the record, video.
	Was there any explanation as to what he meant by that statement, or no?
	He didn't clarify.
	So it's like, I think he actually does mean, he doesn't, he sees it political that black pastors with influence in the community will create problems and intimidation of the jury, is I assume what he means.
	But one, you're not entitled to that, and two, I think that's unfortunate lingo and language.
	Yeah, well, especially given the context of what is at issue here.
	Do we know what is going to be brought in as evidence as to contemporaneous statements uttered by one of the McMichaels after the incident?
	Has that been brought in yet?
	He said so at the opening statement, and so presumably it does.
	So there's that allegation against the best evidence by the prosecution.
	Is evidence of racial bias by the McMichaels, both in statements made before and at the time, and then admissions that they didn't have direct knowledge of any criminal activity by Arbery on the day in question.
	But everything else so far has broken the defense way, and key aspects of the prosecution's narrative have fallen apart in the first week of their own witnesses.
	What of the element that we had talked about at length that allegedly the driver of whichever vehicle it was had hit Arbery?
	Do we know if...
	So far, I haven't seen.
	To my knowledge, that evidence hasn't come in yet.
	But I only saw highlights of the testimony.
	So I assumed if it did come in, we would see it.
	So to my knowledge, that has not yet been adequately presented.
	And it's been impossible to follow this in real time with the Rittenhouse.
	My personal legal interest has been much more in Rittenhouse than this, because call it bias, call it preconceived notions.
	I had my feelings about the McMichaels Ahmaud Arbery shooting, and they were much more...
	They were sharper than the Rittenhouse.
	Or at least they were...
	Rittenhouse was out there with a gun defending against riots, and I said, like, when people get in pickup trucks and start, you know, arming themselves to address alleged...
	Alleged burglars, even if they were burglarizing a neighborhood, I have a bit more of a visceral reaction to that than to what Rittenhouse was alleged to have done.
	So I have not been paying attention to this.
	And that's why pretrial perceptions will heavily influence this case.
	So it really depends on how well they did in jury selection.
	But we know they spent two weeks on it, so at least there's better reason to believe they were more diligent in jury selection than, it appears, the Rittenhouse.
	One thing that hopefully all we see in the closing in Rittenhouse is some personal, physical affection for Kyle.
	As Robert Grueler, watching the Watchers, who does really good breakdowns, noted, it agitated him that after Kyle got off the stand, Richards and everyone else at the defense table completely ignored him.
	There was no hug.
	There was no nothing.
	It was not even an acknowledgement of him.
	And Roy Black made that mistake in the Mike Tyson.
	A rape case where I think Tyson was wrongfully convicted.
	And because he ignored Tyson, he wasn't physically affectionate with Tyson.
	And I think you have to be his defense lawyer.
	Particularly an 18-year-old kid just went through a grueling experience like that, and he's as innocent as he is.
	You can show some affection.
	Make sure the jury knows you're completely in his camp.
	But also, it's why, as a lawyer, you do need to be more passionately engaged for your client and remember to show that to people.
	Because otherwise...
	Jurors can misconstrue all kinds of things.
	But also do it just because it's the right thing to do, especially for someone like Kyle.
	There was only one client I had that I had difficulty being nice around.
	And I got out of that case as soon as...
	Okay, because I was going to ask, but I know that I shouldn't ask, so I'm not going to ask, Robert.
	Someone in the chat said, race hustlers, but with a...
	Here we go.
	That might have been the more...
	Appropriate way of referring to what might be perceived as race hustling, but once you invoke the race, you sort of effectively allow the alleged race hustlers to confirm the reason for which they're there when you refer to them by race.
	Bringing in race in the Arbery trial is probably the biggest mistake you can possibly make, but okay, we'll see.
	How long is Arbery scheduled for?
	Hopefully Richards doesn't repeat the N-word with a hard R in closing like he did in opening.
	No one watched that and thought that was a good idea.
	And that's a weird time to try such a bold strategy during the highest profile murder trial.
	I think this is bigger than Chauvin and arguably since OJ.
	But yeah, not something to do.
	Okay, so speaking of, I don't know, do we say trauma and we're going to go to...
	Do we go to Baldwin?
	Baldwin's going to be another quick one.
	The best people to follow on Baldwin is Eric Hundley's and Mark Grobert's America's Untold Stories.
	They're breaking down all the possibilities, where everything could lead.
	There's some really fascinating places it could lead.
	But it's a live time if you want to understand how the crisis communications people operate, how Hollywood operates, how criminal cases operate.
	It has all three.
	And they're doing a great job of breaking it down.
	So if you really want to follow the Baldwin case, that's where to go for the Baldwin updates.
	And Mark Robert has connections, so he has information which may not, I won't say it's not public, but it's certainly insider and comes out sooner than that which comes out to the public.
	So it's America's Untold Stories.
	I don't know how Eric goes about now the two channels, because the one that was taken down by the copyright troll has been restored.
	I don't know how he goes about the two new channels, but the one with the more subs, America's Untold Stories, and they've had series after series of this, and it's amazing.
	Fascinating.
	Crazy.
	The story keeps getting crazier, crazier, crazier.
	Somebody filed a civil suit this week who wasn't even related to anybody hurt, saying he wants his piece of the pie, too.
	He's emotionally traumatized, just traumatized by what took place.
	Well, apparently...
	Apparently, it was, I don't know who it was, it was someone, a boom operator, someone on the set, apparently so close to the firearm that Alec Baldwin discharged that granular fragments from the discharge scraped his glasses, scraped his face.
	He was holding Helena Hutchins as she passed away, which, again, that's going to lead to PTSD, and there's no ifs or buts about it.
	No one is supposed to go through an experience like that.
	So the guy's suing.
	And rightfully so.
	He's a little soft on Baldwin from what I understand are the allegations, giving Baldwin the benefit of the doubt that it was totally inadvertent, unintentional.
	He wants to shake down...
	Well, he wants some money from the production companies, but whether he was in the...
	You have to be within the zone of danger.
	In other words, I have to know that by doing something negligent, it's foreseeable that you get hurt.
	And whether he is, that's usually a tough claim to bring.
	But he wants to be ahead of the curve so that he gets the first payment out.
	That case may get dismissed on the pleading right out of the gate.
	Why?
	Because he's not within the zone of danger that's foreseeable that the act would cause him harm.
	The issue about getting first in, let's just hypothetically say...
	There's going to be a number of lawsuits that would ordinarily be enough to bankrupt any one of these production companies, maybe not the individuals as far as Alec Baldwin goes.
	He is an individual defendant to the lawsuit.
	There's no hierarchy of priority based on who filed suit first?
	No, it's just as a matter of insurance proceeds, they have limits usually.
	So whatever they ascribe and assign, at some point they tap out.
	And so often in a personal injury case, people want to sue sooner so that they tap in quicker if they think claims might exceed the limits.
	All right.
	And I guess speaking of insurance claims, which will bring us to our last subject of the evening, Robert, we've gone overboard.
	But if we can do three hours and I don't get bothered by familial responsibilities, we can do this every week.
	You have different photos behind you.
	Oh, yes.
	We changed the background.
	This one here is St. Joseph's Oratory.
	A picture I took myself away back when.
	This is the Scottish Highlands.
	Right before, if I recall correctly, it's right before we got to the Isle of Skye, where Talisker was.
	It was with my father-in-law at the time, now deceased.
	Best trip I ever took in my life with my father-in-law.
	It was amazing.
	So yeah, I changed the backdrop a little bit.
	So those are your photos?
	Yes, those are wide-angle HDR.
	Excellent.
	Speaking of insurance, Robert, okay, the Travis Scott Astroworld fiasco.
	Travis Scott's real name, oh, I'm not going to remember it.
	Something, something, something the second.
	Something, something, something Bowman the second or third.
	One of those names that is the only name you can understand being changed for celebrity purposes.
	So this, everyone's being sued.
	Everyone that had a hand in putting on that festival or that show or whatever.
	For obvious reasons, I have two major questions.
	Everybody who knows what happened, eight people were trampled to death, a number of people injured, because the security fences were breached early on in the concert.
	Travis Scott kept on performing, allegedly encouraged people to come in, allegedly continued performing when they knew that serious stuff was up, hospital ambulances coming in to carry people out.
	People being whisked off by the hands, like we've seen in some videos.
	So, obvious lawsuit.
	The question is this.
	The past conduct is being alleged, because if anyone goes and looks up Travis Scott concerts, there's a lot of video evidence of reckless, if not outright illegal behavior at prior concerts.
	In a civil suit, Robert, how much does that play in, in terms of probative value or even admissible evidence?
	Well, they're trying to show a custom in practice.
	They're trying to show prior notice.
	And they do have evidence of both in the suits.
	The biggest, trickiest part is causation in this case.
	So how foreseeable was the injuries being a direct result of negligent actions or illicit incitement by Travis Scott and the other people involved?
	So I think that will be the tricky part from an evidentiary perspective.
	But I think they alleged enough to get to discovery.
	And obviously it's a sort of public debacle, public relations debacle, for everybody involved and connected.
	And in the court of public opinion, and even with a court of law, the prior incidents are probably created different.
	The instinct might have been, this is an attempt to blame.
	People who really blame the deep pockets, as they say.
	So the old saying is a personal injury or plaintiff's work.
	You don't sue who's responsible.
	You sue who has deep pockets, who can pay.
	And that might be an instinctual court judicial reaction to this kind of suit.
	But that changes when you see a history of incitement of this precise conduct with these kind of bad things happening in the past.
	So I think it makes them look really bad, both in the court of public opinion and with a court.
	Who then will look for reasons to sustain the suit rather than reasons to dismiss the suit because they'll see him as more blameworthy than they would have otherwise.
	So my legal question, first of all, I've seen a lot of comments on the video and in the chat here talking about ritual sacrifice and all these things.
	It's interesting that so many people saying that about this particular incident, and I'm not getting into it, but I do like to hear what other people say even if I don't necessarily agree with them.
	So that parentheses closed.
	The issue that I was just about to ask was, in the lawsuit, because the civil lawsuit was filed, it was against one of the survivors who got injured.
	It's a standard, straight-up action for damages to be determined.
	I don't know what the injury of this individual was in particular, but they're asking for an injunction to preserve the scene, or to preserve the evidence, which I presume means to preserve the scene.
	So I guess the two questions are, how typical is that in a civil lawsuit to preserve the scene of the alleged incident?
	For however long it is required.
	And also, if there's a criminal investigation ongoing, do they not preserve the scene as a matter of law?
	They usually only preserve the scene long enough to take photos, digital evidence, whatever they need.
	And that's that.
	And then it's usually back to normal.
	So it's pretty unusual to have them continually preserve the scene.
	And very unusual in a civil case to even request it.
	So both of those are very unusual events.
	To occur.
	And it depends on the consequences of intervening.
	In other words, how much money is going to be lost for Astroworld if they have to preserve the scene and can't have anybody there.
	And so that's usually courts are unwilling to basically inflict economic harm that presumes guilt from the get-go unless there's real compelling evidentiary grounds.
	But it wouldn't surprise me if they said like a week or something like that, if they didn't think that would cause too much economic harm.
	But it's unusual to preserve it much longer than that for either civil or criminal cases.
	Okay, and I mean, I say the civil suit, again, there's going to be a number of parties involved, all of whom have insurance, criminal investigation ongoing, so we'll see where that goes.
	Some people in the chat are saying a nine-year-old individual died, which I don't know how a nine-year-old gets into that concert, but that might be a separate issue.
	Robert, did we forget anything this week?
	No, I mean, that covers the big topics.
	There are always some smaller ones, but we had a lot of detail of big, big...
	The Rittenhouse coverage has been extensive and expansive, and it's great to see Nick Ricada's channel do as well as it has by providing insightful commentary by a wide range of lawyers across the legal space and political space, and that's great to see.
	So that's been one of the good things.
	The best thing that could come out of this is full complete acquittals, and it's unfortunate that Kyle needs a little luck or God's blessing to achieve that, given how innocent he is.
	That is, I think, the situation he finds himself in.
	But I still believe that will occur and he'll get complete acquittals and be a free man this week.
	From your mouth?
	This is not a question of bias either, by the way.
	I've watched the trial.
	I've watched it day in and day out.
	What Rokita has done has been amazing because it has created, I say a market for lack of a better word.
	It's not to be opportunistic.
	It's created like the same market that never existed about quality olive oils until they decided we need to make a market for quality olive oils.
	People now know that there's lawyers.
	And it was Ian Runkle, by the way.
	I apologize for not having mentioned him earlier, but you mentioned him, Robert.
	Canadian firearms attorney, who also is in the mix now in terms of public awareness.
	People know that there is an entire ecosystem of law YouTube that they can go to.
	For real-time, insightful, I call it objective, even if it might have some leanings to it, it's objective breakdown.
	And Nick has been doing it day in and day out for the Rittenhouse, and it's allowed others to blossom and get some exposure, and it's magnificent.
	That was my plug for that, but the question that I was just about to bring up, what did I bring up?
	I forgot it.
	Praying for Kyle.
	Oh, sorry, that's right.
	Praying for Kyle is not a question of bias at this point.
	For anyone who has been watching this trial, we know what's going on.
	Even people on the left, like the Pacmans, like the Young Turks, even though they've regressed in terms of their apologies, know what needs to happen for justice to be served.
	But politics is a nasty, nasty, filthy cesspool of an industry.
	And like we discussed earlier, you know, calling in the National Guard and denouncing it is...
	Every fear hides a wish, but I think this is just a wish that's trying to bring about the fear.
	So we know what's going on.
	If justice is served, Rittenhouse will walk.
	And that's going to be the Rittenhouse.
	That'll be over this week.
	Then it's Ahmaud Arbery, which is a touchier case, which will be more divisive or at least have better arguments on both sides.
	Then we get into Don Lemon, Cardi B, upcoming, women's soccer.
	Nate's covering that as well.
	So a ton of stuff to cover.
	But with all of that said, Robert, what do you have coming up next week?
	And what do we have to look forward to in terms of latest developments on vaccine mandates and other issues that are on people's minds?
	I'm looking to file suit this week against Tyson Foods and a bunch of different courts all across the country for their illicit actions of meaningfully denying religious accommodations.
	Looking at also filing suit this week against the emergency use authorization by the FDA for children.
	I'm going to bring that suit on behalf of the Children's Health Defense.
	So those are the two main public.
	There's a lot of matters I'm involved in that are not public.
	But those are the two major public matters that I will be involved with this week.
	And we'll be commenting tomorrow on Ricada's channel on the closing arguments and the jury charge.
	And we'll try not to curse little Binger too often.
	And so I'm going to jump in.
	I'm going to be there as well.
	And then maybe we'll, if we have time, try to get a live stream recap tomorrow after closing.
	Because in theory...
	Closing arguments, done for deliberation.
	Then they go into deliberations until they have an acquittal conviction or a hung jury.
	Yeah, though I think this judge allows them to go home at like 5 or 6. So I would be, in that instance, we likely would not hear of a jury verdict until Tuesday.
	And I'll also be on Tuesday night tights on the Geeks and Gamers channel discussing the Kyle case and other components.
	And then Wednesday...
	I haven't heard back yet, so we'll find out who our guest is probably by Monday and get confirmation on that.
	Some of that, we may have a specific topic to discuss if certain cases develop in certain ways.
	Otherwise, we'll be one of the guests that we've invited.
	We have a lot of people invited.
	Oh, I should say, on Monday, I'll also be on Michael Malice's show.
	You're welcome to discuss the Rittenhouse case as well.
	Fantastic.
	And now people are saying, Jelaine Maxwell, what's the deal with that trial that's going on?
	It should be coming up, so we'll see what the schedule for that is.
	So that'll be another, of course, high-profile case coming.
	So the law news does not go away.
	Will it be broadcast live, the Jelaine Maxwell?
	No, it's in federal court.
	Federal court has never, to my knowledge, no federal court has ever allowed live visual testimony to ever be visually broadcast.
	Okay.
	And we got Vienna waits for you.
	Three hours of Viva Bar on Sunday night.
	What a great way to start the week.
	We'll see if we can't...
	If we can't get away with this more often on a Sunday night, we'll do it more often on a Sunday night.
	And we'll do also...
	Whoever is supposed to be scheduled for Sidebar Wednesday, if we don't have one, we're going to have a show Wednesday regardless.
	So, everybody, you know...
	Okay, Rakeda's broadcasting the stream tomorrow for Rittenhouse Trial.
	We will be there, as will other lawyers.
	And then other stuff will be coming in.
	So, people, everyone in the chat, thank you very much for coming in.
	We had a massive, wonderful crowd tonight.
	I believe it was about 20,000 YouTube and Rumble.
	And that's just the blossoming of the ecosystem of the law YouTube, which now the world now exists, and they know where to go to get the information that they know the mainstream media is not providing them.
	Thank you for tuning in.
	Robert, stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.
	Everyone else, enjoy the night.

▲