Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 21, 2021 - Viva & Barnes

02:36:50

Ep. 88: Rittenhouse ACQUITTED; Dominick Black; Project Veritas; QAnon Shaman & MORE! Viva & Barnes

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Five seconds early to make up for last week.
	Good evening, everyone.
	I say there's never going to be another dull week.
	Is my computer blocking this?
	There's never going to be another dull week for content when it comes to the law worlds.
	Tremendous amount of stuff.
	But I've got to say, if anybody follows me on Twitter, let me just make sure audio is good.
	Is my audio good or do I bring up the mic?
	Let me see here.
	Audio.
	I'll bring it up a little.
	I'm already at 85. Okay, that's good.
	Let me know if the audio is good with an actual, legit...
	If there's a problem, let me know.
	For anybody who follows me on Twitter, at TheVivaFry, I was on a bit of a bend or a tear or an actual rage against the machine last night, not a fake rage against the machine, and I'm going to get there in a second.
	I did a video yesterday about the egregiously bad takes.
	That blue checkmarked individuals who should know better but don't put out on the Twitterverse the day of the acquittal.
	You know, the most egregious of which was Bill de Blasio, who reiterates his stupid lie, misinformation about crossing state lines unlawfully with a firearm, no justice, the victims, refers to Rosenbaum and Huber as victims, even though in law, by a matter of fact of law, they are not.
	Refer some of these victims.
	Talks about a miscarriage of justice.
	Which, if I'm applying the same rules to some as they apply to others, referring to it as a miscarriage of justice places the blame of the injustice on the shoulders of 12 jury people.
	Jury people.
	Jury folks.
	On the jury.
	It places the blame of the miscarriage of justice on those who are responsible for it.
	The jury.
	And as far as I'm concerned...
	If you want to talk about dog whistles, you want to talk about targeted harassment, the mayor of New York coming out and unabashedly pointing the finger of a miscarriage of justice at the jury members, for people who see dog whistles everywhere, I could see that being a dog whistle.
	But that is not what...
	I mean, that peed me off on Friday, going into Saturday.
	I woke up in the middle of the night Friday and it's like, I gotta just pick the three worst takes.
	Have at them.
	Wreak havoc on them.
	I can't do it as well as Rakeda can.
	So I put that video out on Saturday.
	And then Saturday night, I start seeing things that...
	While people trickle in and while I gather my rage, I'm going to bring up a super chat.
	What is the U.S. government's legal justification for ordering contractors to undergo medical procedures?
	Contractors or private employees working under terms?
	We'll get there.
	Actually, let me just...
	We're going to talk about this tonight.
	Just going to ring in the suspense until I get to my rage of last night.
	What is my favorite Supreme Court decision and why?
	I'll have to think about that one.
	One person already dislikes the stream, and then there was one more super chat that I just want to get before I get into my rage.
	Before I get into...
	Now, anybody following me on Twitter last night might have thought...
	Okay, okay.
	Okay, come on, man.
	Took me a while.
	I don't know why that would represent the second part of it, but I definitely got the rest of it.
	But speaking of the rage last night, my family was watching a movie called Like a Boss.
	This is the good Like a Boss, Lonely Island.
	They were watching a movie called Like a Boss, which I thoroughly had no interest in.
	By the way, this was after dinner with Dave Paquette, my thumbnail guy.
	Info...
	At DSLR Dave, if anybody wants good thumbnails.
	The best thumbnails.
	Came over for dinner to celebrate 400,000 subs.
	We had ostrich filet mignon that was overcooked and tasted a little gamey.
	He went home.
	My wife and daughter were watching like a boss.
	I was thoroughly uninterested, so as I'm sitting there scrolling Twitter for inspiration, I found it.
	I found it in takes that were not just legally stupid, but were utterly morally reprehensible.
	Coming out of Mark Ruffalo.
	Calling him out by name.
	And when you read these tweets, you're going to know what I'm saying.
	Who's the other guy?
	Pedro Pascal.
	I don't actually know who he is.
	I just know what pops up in my feed because other people retweet it.
	And these were...
	Let me just see here again.
	Viva, we love you so much.
	Keep being a fact checker to these...
	The blue checkmark, people.
	One day I might get a blue checkmark, and it will only be to dilute the stupidity of the blue checkmarks out there.
	These people out there mourning the loss, rest in peace Huber and Rosenbaum, and Ruffalo actually called him JoJo, which is his nickname.
	When I say that they are celebrating and martyrizing the deaths of people who have no business being martyrs, it's over the top, and it's enraging.
	And I have to call them out because I call them out.
	It's enraging.
	You have people who are out there.
	What is the word?
	Well, martyrizing is one word, but deifying the deaths of these individuals in abstractum, as though they do not know or do not care that they were not out there celebrating and promoting equality.
	They were not out there helping black lives.
	They were not out there for any form of racial, economic equality.
	They were, in fact, people with lengthy criminal histories who were out there to wreak havoc on the people of Kenosha.
	And I point this out, and then people come with the predictable retort.
	The fact that they had criminal histories, and the fact that one of them, Rosenbaum, was a P-word of the highest and most awful order, is irrelevant to what happened that night.
	And I agree to some extent.
	One's criminal history does not make them a target of vigilante justice, period, full stop.
	Where it becomes relevant is in not explaining what happened to them, but rather in explaining why they were acting the way they were acting that night.
	Why you had three criminals with lengthy criminal records, and the only three, at a BLM protest, committing arson, assault, and getting into the behavior that they got into, they didn't get...
	They were not the objects of vigilante justice because of their criminal histories.
	They were out there looking for violence because of their violent criminal histories.
	So I'm going to just share some of the most idiotic takes, let me see if I can do this properly, of that evening, because it is important to call it out where you see it and let people know when you see it.
	The best.
	Well, I'll just bring this one up.
	If Hollywood doesn't want to be thought of as glorifiers of the P word, they should really stop glorifying the people of the P word.
	And you got, if you look at this, you have Pedro Pascal, who says Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber.
	I'm not even using that word because that's a legal term, I would imagine.
	They were victims of homicide.
	Victims, no.
	They were...
	They were the object of homicide because of their own conduct, and that's what the jury found, and I'm not second-guessing it because I happen to think they got it right.
	Rest in peace.
	Then you've got, we come together to mourn the lives lost to the same racist system that devalues black lives and devalued the lives of Anthony and JoJo.
	JoJo being the nickname of this individual, and I highlighted the important words.
	Can you imagine Mark Ruffalo using the deaths of Anthony and JoJo?
	Suggesting that they're black based on that tweet.
	Suggesting that they were out there to promote or aid in any black individual's cause.
	They were out there to wreak havoc.
	And they did.
	And they were not out there for any legitimate purpose.
	They were out there specifically to target what they thought were weak individuals to cause great bodily harm to them.
	And Mark Ruffalo using his nickname Jojo?
	I didn't know that his nickname was Jojo until I googled it.
	And then you got, oh, Alyssa Milano, the best.
	Amber Ruffin, what's her name?
	Amber M. Ruffin, who had a two-minute monologue on the verdict.
	And this is Amber M. Ruffin who's saying, I have an audience and I have an obligation to inform them.
	And then she goes, you want to talk about crocodile tears and someone faking, crying, what they were accusing Rittenhouse of during the trial?
	I'm going to take this down here.
	You want to know crocodile tears?
	You look at Amber M. Ruffin's opening monologue and you're going to see...
	Insincerity at its finest.
	And they are taking these two individuals and trying to martyrize them as though they were out there to promote equality.
	And the Independent wrongly claiming that the three individuals shot by Rittenhouse were black, and then they correct it.
	But even in their correction, they leave it ambiguous as though there were three individuals shot at a Black Lives Matter protest, which would lead many people to conclude that they were black because the way they phrase it.
	And then you have, oh, who is that guy?
	The governor of Illinois, who says there's no circumstance under which an armed individual should shoot three unarmed men.
	This is the governor of a state who is getting fundamentally wrong facts in his public address, who is, again, making it look like what was the target here?
	What was the actual victim was a BLM protest.
	Anyone who watched that trial knows the facts.
	First of all, they know that Grosskrauts was armed with an unlawful concealed carry glock with a bullet in the chamber.
	They know that Huber was armed with a skateboard and used it like a bat to strike Rittenhouse over the head twice.
	They know that Rosenbaum, they don't know exactly about the criminal history, but they know that he was released from a hospital the day of threatened specifically Rittenhouse and then sought to carry out his threats.
	Anybody who watched knows that.
	And this guy, Pritzker?
	Pretzker?
	His name is Pretzel?
	I said it sounded like Pretzel because that's what I was going to call his type of logic.
	Comes out and lies, misinforms, whatever.
	I don't know if it's by intent or by ignorance.
	It doesn't matter because the outcome is the same, and that's what I always say.
	Okay.
	Vivek, can you cover the Crystal Kaiser of Kenosha?
	A teen girl was being abused by...
	Yeah, I read about this, and it's another one.
	I don't know the details enough, but I know my initial...
	It was an individual who exacted what some might call it justice or self-defense against that individual under those circumstances and now has been held up in prison forever and will have trouble getting counsel that can pull a dream team type thing.
	So I'm going to look into that, but I don't have any specific opinion offhand.
	So that's it.
	I put out a tweet, basically said there's three levels of ignorance and it has two tangents.
	One, it's either willful or it's either naive ignorance or willful ignorance, but then that would just be an aggravating factor of the three levels, the three degrees of ignorance.
	One is just ignorance.
	You're ignorant.
	Willful or by happenstance, you're ignorant.
	The second degree, which is a little bit more serious than the third degree, is being ignorant but taking a position on something, notwithstanding your ignorance.
	And then first-degree ignorance, which is the most serious violation of ignorance, is taking a public position and trying to convince others of your position despite being in a position of ignorance.
	And there are too many blue checkmarks.
	There are too many politicians out there right now who are either ignorant willfully or ignorant by happenstance or just malicious dishonest who are out there trying to exploit of the ignorance of others to convince them based on lies, misinformation, and outright...
	New York Post breaking news.
	Prayers for families.
	SUV drives it to specters at parade in Wisconsin.
	Shots fired.
	I have no knowledge of this.
	I have no knowledge of this.
	Someone was saying, you know, what were the different levels of pills?
	Blue pill, red pill, black pill, white pill.
	And I think someone said black pill counts before white pill, but I think the black pill is...
	Difficult to come back from after a black pill, so let's hold off on that.
	All right, now with that said, people, standard disclaimers, we are streaming live on Rumble.
	By the way, I'm an idiot, because I think there might be a lot of new people here who are here because of the Rittenhouse trial, the coverage on Rakata Stream.
	So if there's anybody in here who's new to the channel, I should introduce myself.
	I am Viva Frye.
	That is not my real name.
	People are going to feel deceived.
	It's David Fryeheit.
	Freiheit means freedom in German.
	A Montreal litigator turned YouTuber, rumbler, ran for office for the People's Party of Canada, which I guess now people can say I'm no longer non-partisan.
	I guess I'm partisan now, but I still think I'm objective.
	And we've been doing this beautiful law thing for years now.
	And it's blossomed into something absolutely amazing.
	And I'm always reluctant to say this because it sounds like a lofty way of glamorizing what we do, but the community that we have here...
	At first, it just started off as truth-seeking.
	Just wanted to tell the truth.
	Just wanted to understand the world around us.
	And now I realize that in telling the truth, you become a defender of the truth.
	And in promoting the truth, you become an enemy to those who want to misinform, who want to exploit of the ignorance of others.
	And we are, as a community, and not just this community on Viva Fry, on our Locals community, vivabarneslaw.locals.com, on everybody's...
	We are what people are relying on right now for information.
	Not for spin, not for bias, not for manipulation.
	For information.
	And I try not to be emotional when I convey this because then that looks like manipulation or...
	Some might say, you know, the more emotional you get, the more manipulative and propagandist it gets, but...
	No.
	We are just breaking things down and delving into the analysis that the mainstream blue checkmarks are not doing.
	And why they're not doing it?
	Up for grabs.
	It doesn't matter.
	All right.
	With that said, I see Barnes is in the house and he's looking dapper.
	Pascal is the actor who worked with Gina Crano and then vilified her for her tweets.
	Well, I do not promote cancel culture.
	But I believe, he's the one, I believe he referred to it as consequence culture.
	Like a boss.
	Oh god, I just inhaled something.
	Sorry about that.
	So with that said, standard disclaimers, no legal advice, no medical advice, no election fortification undermining advice.
	If you want to support us, vivabornslaw.locals.com is a place to do it.
	YouTube takes 30% to Super Chats, so if you don't like that, we are live streaming on Rumble.
	Where you can also find a link to the Locals community.
	Rumble takes 20%.
	And you can feel good supporting a platform that supports free speech.
	And be nice.
	Be as polite as you can.
	We're big boys on the internet.
	We know how to deal with this stuff.
	But I will not get to all the super chats.
	So if you feel miffed, if I do not bring it up, do not bring it up.
	I don't like people feeling miffed, rooked, shilled, grifted, whatever.
	One more.
	One more while we're here.
	I keep hearing from my lefty friends that, oh, he was just a vigilante.
	If he was charged with manslaughter or negligent homicide, he would have been convicted.
	What can I tell the ignorant fools like this?
	It was a legal carry and Wisconsin has legal open carry.
	He was assaulted, he was threatened, and then pursued and assaulted by an individual who said he wanted to kill him.
	He was pursued and assaulted by a man with a skateboard who tried to take his gun from him, and then he was assaulted with a man with a loaded Glock with a bullet in the chamber.
	They all admittedly wanted to do bodily harm to him.
	It was an unfortunate circumstance, because like I said from the beginning, Kyle should never have been in that position, because the police should have been in that position, but it's an open carry state.
	When people make it look like Kyle was the only one out there with an open carry firearm, there were so many.
	The police not only tolerated but almost condoned their presence, as we saw from the evidence of the trial.
	Kyle had an open carry as he was within his rights, and he was openly pursued by three violent criminal individuals with violent criminal histories, and he was well within his rights to use the privilege or the fundamental right of self-defense.
	That's what you tell them.
	All right, with that said, I can see Barnes.
	Twirling the cigar barns, how goes the battle?
	Not guilty.
	All counts.
	I'm going to sip from Joy Reid's tears right here.
	It tastes pretty good.
	Now this is one thing I also forgot to say.
	We are on so many platforms and we discuss these things on other people's channel.
	I sort of take for granted we've had this discussion on our channel.
	But Robert, we have not had the actual discussion of the actual acquittal.
	A lot of people...
	Robert, we have to be fair, and I can't go easy on you.
	A lot of people are going to say you gave Richards too hard of a time.
	If the outcome was good, so your critique was bad.
	I know how I would respond to that, but I will give you the floor.
	How do you respond to those individuals?
	Don't care at this point.
	Not guilty all counts.
	All I ever cared about.
	So I didn't care how it got there.
	Just cared that it got there.
	And so that was it.
	I'm thrilled.
	So that was very relieving.
	I couldn't watch it live because I've never been as emotionally attached to a case that I'm not personally trying in the courtroom as this case.
	But it's because the kid was one of the sweetest, nicest, most innocent human beings I've ever had the privilege of representing in my life.
	And it was critically important he get acquitted.
	And I understand the broader public policy consequences.
	I've articulated that as much as anybody.
	But I was attached to the kid not ever being found guilty of something he didn't do.
	And this is a system that normally crushes poor people like him, and that Little Binger thought he could do the same, and Sour Kraus thought he could do the same, and they found out otherwise.
	Thanks to blue-collar, hard-working Kenoshans who stood with their verdict, even when there was a rogue juror who was the foreperson trying to take them astray, they didn't go astray.
	They stayed on the straight and narrow and led to where the facts and the law and justice compelled, and that was not guilty.
	All counts.
	End of story.
	And I'm going to read this because it's on point.
	Viva Frye angry folks.
	They did not follow the trial, therefore plausible deniability.
	I like that.
	They don't need to be factual.
	They need...
	And then for them, it's a win.
	That's what self-defense and gun rights.
	For US, that was a win.
	No question.
	No, but Robert, actually, you mentioned it, and it's an interesting question.
	You were emotionally invested in this in a way that might have been unique.
	Hypothetically, had you been lead counsel, would that emotional attachment have compromised, or would that have affected your ability to remain?
	I won't say objective, but to remain professional in the file.
	I wouldn't have been objective.
	I would have been a partisan advocate.
	But in my experience as a lawyer, being passionately committed to your client and caring about your client makes you a much better lawyer.
	I agree with Robert Grueler on that.
	Robert Grueler was critical.
	At times, the defense didn't communicate their empathy and support and compassion.
	For Kyle in demonstrative ways in the courtroom.
	And I think that's a function of just being a defense lawyer a long time.
	I don't have any doubt Mark Richards cared about Kyle and wanted the best outcome for him.
	But when you do too much defense work, you can become hardened.
	And the hard part of caring about your cases is not...
	That helps your client almost invariably, universally.
	It makes your own life more difficult.
	So there are plenty of times it would be easier as a lawyer to not take your job home with you, to not be personally attached.
	When you're not personally attached, you don't fight for your client the way you can and should.
	You're not demonstrative.
	Because juries read all kinds of crazy things into what's happening.
	So that's why it's critical.
	Like Roy Black, for example, was very impersonal with Mike Tyson in his trials.
	Jurors interpreted that to mean that Roy Black thought his client was guilty.
	That was just Roy Black being Roy Black, if you understood.
	I mean, Roy Black usually represented drug dealers.
	It's advantageous for your personal well-being as a lawyer to not get emotionally attached.
	No doubt about that.
	You just go in, just do the job, just treat them like they're a piece of meat at the slaughterhouse.
	For your own well-being, that's a lot less stressful, a lot less difficult, a lot less emotionally taxing.
	It's the way Sean Penn once described method acting.
	He said it's brutally taxing.
	It'd be much easier not to be that, but then you wouldn't be as good as an actor either.
	And so the same is true as a lawyer.
	So there are times when I thought, you know, could I find a way to disassociate from a case or a cause or a client?
	Anytime I have, I'm a less effective lawyer.
	But it's a much more relaxing lifestyle.
	But I just couldn't avoid this one.
	Because, I mean, partially I related to it because of his background.
	There are people who are like, oh...
	Kyle kind of looks like Barnes.
	I bet he's a secret love child from law school.
	That was not the case.
	But it was just because of how innocent this kid was and how consequential the case was.
	But it was more the former than the latter.
	I know for most people it was the latter, or many people it was the latter.
	But for me it was the former.
	You meet the kid, it's just stunning, naive innocence.
	That's the reason why he was there that night.
	That's why he's saying friendly, friendly, friendly.
	He doesn't understand these people.
	Why would they try to hurt me?
	I'm here to help people.
	I mean, I think he was shocked all the way through.
	And then he had severe, severe post-traumatic stress disorder.
	And he's been lied about by so many people in positions of prominence and power.
	And it's a system that normally would have locked him up for a year and a half waiting trial.
	And he may not have survived that.
	He's not someone who could survive jail or prison.
	He's not a criminal.
	He's just an innocent kid.
	Who saved his own life and probably saved other lives that night.
	No doubt about that in my mind.
	And so a lot of people have wanted to politicize him.
	He's not really that political himself.
	He wasn't seeking fame and fortune and all the rest.
	He was just trying to help people.
	But that's what he knows how to do.
	That's what he does.
	That's why he wants to be a nurse now.
	He was always deciding between nurse, firefighting, and police.
	That's because what unites those three professions.
	Helping people in the way he sees the world.
	So it was critical he'd be acquitted.
	It would have been a real big black pill if he got convicted of anything.
	So it was a real nice white pill that he was rightfully acquitted.
	And I was going to say, even a compromised verdict would have been something of a black pill.
	It's as though you can't let him off because of the politics of the case, so find him guilty.
	And it could have involved jail time regardless.
	Now, Robert...
	Are we understanding something correctly that the acquittals came on different nights so that by Friday, apparently he had already been acquitted on certain charges, but we didn't know about that yet?
	Yeah, so different people were questioning our jury interpretation.
	Andrew Branca and I, Law of Self-Defense, had the same jury interpretation.
	Now, in this case, my read on the jury came from three things.
	First, I've been doing this for about 20 years.
	So, you know, I've been involved in dozens of jury trials.
	So you get practiced at understanding, you know, being able to read some tea leaves that are difficult to read.
	I'm the first to say it's brutally hard to read a jury, especially if you have limited information.
	Second is, I've studied, I've done hundreds of mock juries and studied all the jury data going on a half a century.
	There's probably not a study or survey I haven't read, reviewed or followed or watched or studied, you name it.
	A lot of good intel and information out there such that you can help make predictive what other people find random.
	And then the third was, of course, I had an edge in this case because I had done massive poll testing, was privy to all the mock trial stuff, all of it.
	So I knew exactly what the likely, if the case went a certain way, this is what a random jury would pick.
	And my view is they mostly got a random jury.
	And a random jury would be eight to four, not guilty, out of the box.
	And historically, in most cases, when you only have four people against your position, they fold.
	Now, they usually fold, honestly, in a day or two.
	What was also true from the polling data was that there were several people willing to hold out and maybe hang the jury.
	That was the only X factor in this case.
	So our read on the jury...
	On Rakata's panel and other places was this was a 10-2, 9-3, 11-1, somewhere in that category.
	I had additional information because there were journalists that were watching the trial that were reporting back to me what they were seeing in the jury.
	So that gave me another edge.
	And then Jack Posobiec and other people had sources connected to people that also had good intel.
	And so what appears to have happened is so they, on Monday, remember half the jury wanted to go right back to the jury right then.
	They didn't want to, wait.
	There were eight jurors not guilty across the board.
	My understanding is, and we'll never know for sure because we don't have a video camera in the jury room, and jurors' self-recollections can be convenient.
	In my experience, holdout jurors will never admit they were holdout jurors.
	You find out from the other jurors that they were holdout jurors.
	I say get away with it.
	They get outed by the other jurors who were a little peeved that you had maybe one or two activist jurors trying to...
	Hold things up from the consensus.
	And Kenosha is a small town, so folks talk.
	So people shouldn't be surprised that Posobiec had sources.
	So on Tuesday, there were eight people wanting not guilty and go home.
	And there were three leaning not guilty and one undecided, is my understanding.
	Again, this is based on limited information.
	And the holdout, unfortunately, the key holdout, the geeky rogue juror, my understanding, was the foreperson themselves.
	And this was consistent with what the polling data and the mock trials had shown.
	A random jury, this is what you would get.
	And I don't think the defense did what they could have done in jury selection, but nor did the prosecutor, by the way.
	Prosecutors didn't do much in jury selection either.
	So that's why if you got a random jury, it was going to be 4-4-4 with four leaning guilty to start.
	But those four leaning guilty, when they saw the evidence, they were almost always flipping.
	So that's why you were going to have 8-4, 9-3, somewhere in that territory.
	And that was all day Tuesday.
	Go ahead, sir.
	No, no, no.
	You go, because we'll talk about the juror 54 after.
	Yes, yes, indeed.
	The presiding juror.
	So they held out all day Tuesday.
	When they came back, three of them were sitting together.
	These were three of the four that we were, the three most concerning jurors by people that were in the room that fed me information that fit the bad demographic.
	Karen personalities is what they were colloquially called by local journalists.
	And it was like, and they were sitting together suddenly.
	It was like, that's not good.
	That means they're the holdout.
	But the good news was, so on Wednesday they came in, then they asked for the videotapes, all the rest.
	The defense completely misread the jury, which I'll get to in a second.
	And the three were still sitting together, but by Thursday they were not.
	And that was a sign that it was only one.
	So on Wednesday, they started with the weakest count, which was Jump Kick Man.
	Jump Kick Man, they were never going to convict.
	This was clear from the mock trials.
	They weren't going to convict on some guy who didn't even show up in court.
	What wasn't going to happen?
	So Jump Kick Man was the first not guilty, first for the holdouts to fold on.
	The next was Anthony Huber.
	It turns out trying to bash somebody's head in twice with a skateboard and then trying to grab their gun and getting shot is not in a very sympathetic position for you to be in.
	And so that led, so both the jump kick man and Huber, they voted not guilty already on Wednesday before they looked at the videotapes and other stuff.
	And that's when they, the reason why the videotapes focused on Grosskreutz and Rosenbaum is on Thursday they came back and acquitted.
	On Grosskreutz.
	Here's my hunch.
	What we speculated at the time was the part of the videotape they'd asked for was probably the holdout jurors.
	And it was probably based on Little Binger's lies.
	Because Little Binger lied, and Grosskreutz lied, about what Kyle said.
	And when you listen to the actual tape, it isn't what Little Binger said it was.
	And what he said in opening that it was.
	And my guess is those...
	Rogue jurors took down Little Binger's notes and thought it was true, and then they had the video play, and they're like, oh man, another piece of evidence that turns out false.
	So they fold up Grosskreutz on Thursday, when only one juror was with the three on Thursday, they were no longer together.
	That meant she was all by herself, all by her lonesome.
	And she's the only one who asks for jury instructions, doesn't do so through a proper juror question, and only asks for herself.
	For the jury instructions.
	What that meant was, she was on an island, and the question was, would she actually hang the jury, hold out there through Thanksgiving, or was she going to fold?
	My own speculation, and this is just speculation, is that the politicians and the press made a mistake.
	That by trying to, MSNBC trying to dox the jury by stalking them and trying to follow them, and they got outed for it.
	And then on top of that, the local Democratic politicians shutting down some schools near the courthouse so the kids couldn't go to school because of how scary the verdict could be.
	The governor sending in the National Guard because of how scary the verdict could be.
	May have backfired.
	Because if you're that lone holdout and you realize, okay, do I want Kenosha to go through this again?
	Do I want this to keep going on for months?
	Or do I just say, screw it.
	It's done with it.
	I have my position, but I'm definitely not persuading anybody else.
	I'm losing my only allies.
	I'm going to get the jury instructions and find something in them that I'll get one last-ditch effort.
	If it doesn't work when I come back, I'm folding.
	We're going home.
	And my understanding and my informed speculation is that that is what actually took place.
	Now, the defense didn't realize that.
	Now, first technical question.
	If they had already acquitted on the other charges before Friday, why didn't we hear about it?
	I thought I was going crazy, but we only heard of the acquittal of all the charges.
	They only returned the verdicts formally all at once.
	That's why.
	Okay, so then how do we know the time frame of when they internally decided on which charges?
	They dated them.
	They're Kenosians.
	They're Wisconsinites.
	They're like, okay, put the proper day here.
	That's just Wisconsinites.
	They don't want too much Havok.
	To paraphrase Richard.
	So I will never hear Richard's voice without hearing Nick Ricada's version of it ever again.
	Your Honor.
	I mean, I could do a good Kenosha accent.
	I just won't.
	Okay, so that's...
	Because this is where you think you're going crazy.
	Everyone...
	When I did the stream with Nate, came on Friday night, we talked about it.
	Everyone's like, they acquitted on the other charges Tuesday, Wednesday.
	I was watching the whole thing.
	I didn't see that happen.
	So we only knew that that happened on Friday because they dated their earlier decisions.
	Were they unanimous, Robert?
	They had to be.
	So they had a unanimous verdict.
	They actually print out their guilty and not guilty verdict form, which is unusual.
	And normally, you get one verdict form that has all five counts on it that lets you check guilty or not guilty.
	Instead, what they did in Wisconsin was they gave them ten verdict forms, five guilties and five not guilties, and they just had filled out, and they're supposed to date.
	And they dated them, and that's how we know.
	They don't always date him.
	That's its own, that particular judge.
	I don't know if everybody in Wisconsin, and to my knowledge, they don't do that in all of Wisconsin.
	I think that's that judge.
	But they dated him, and that's how we know the date timing.
	Now the defense had completely misread the jury.
	They got a random jury, which is signs.
	They not only put a rogue juror on the jury, she was the foreperson.
	So they put a leader, authoritarian leader.
	I mean, it was about as bad a decision as you could make in jury selection.
	But they had completely misread it so badly that it leaked that they thought on Wednesday night, or early Wednesday apparently, that it was a 6-6 split and there was a real risk of conviction.
	I had said before trial the risk of convictions was low.
	Maybe a split verdict, but conviction on the top counts was very, very low.
	You would have to deliberately pick a bad jury.
	Maybe not deliberately in the sense that's what you're doing, but you would have had to have actually done that in order to get anywhere near convictions, particularly given the facts because they're on video, but also because of all the data we had going into the trial.
	So the risk of convictions of the top counts was just, it would take a ridiculously badly chosen jury to get that.
	And there was evidence that even what they got was a random jury.
	They didn't take long enough to screw it up that bad.
	But apparently they totally misread it.
	It leaked that they thought it was split 6-6.
	And how can we trust that leak?
	Because they moved for mistrial without prejudice, which is basically saying, hey, judge, let's just retry this whole thing late Wednesday after there had already been two acquittals in the case.
	So they didn't know that.
	But that tells you how badly they had misread the jury.
	That they were on pace for acquittals.
	Worst case scenario, mistrial on Rosenbaum and McGinnis.
	But they almost blew it because they completely misread the jury because they had not done their jury selection work that they should have done.
	And luckily for Kyle, the court rejected it.
	Also luckily for Kyle, the prosecution got arrogant.
	So they should have taken it.
	I mean, you guys were alive and you're like, Prosecutors should take this.
	It's a no-brainer.
	But they didn't because they misread the jury, too.
	This is everybody...
	In poker, you don't overplay your hand.
	This is, on the one hand, one person panicking and then the other one overplaying their hand.
	It's...
	I said...
	When Sherefizi made the offer, I was like, well, holy crap.
	That, in my mind, if I'm Binger and Krauss, that trumps their written motion for dismissal with prejudice because...
	You don't consider both at the same time.
	And if I'm cross, I immediately accept it and then boom, start over again.
	People say, Judge, this wasn't intentional, but we do understand their problem.
	They got a point.
	We don't want a conviction on these terms.
	We just have to do a retrial, Your Honor.
	Had he read the jury correctly, but they hadn't.
	Like the defense, they didn't spend any time on jury selection.
	And so they got a random jury and they didn't know what that meant.
	They thought a random jury meant, oh, it probably is people fighting for us and we're probably going to win.
	And they just misread it because they didn't know the data.
	And some people out there were hypothesizing that Binger and Krauss didn't want a second, they didn't want to accept a mistrial without prejudice because they don't want their misconduct being on front and center for everyone to see.
	I was like, that makes no sense and it makes no difference.
	Any misconduct they've already committed.
	It's already front and center.
	It's not going away.
	So they may even want to...
	It would have been on trial.
	It would have been on trial had there been convictions.
	Whereas it would be gone if you do a retrial because then all of those things are wiped away.
	And so it was a huge mistake of the prosecution not to take the defense that got nervous and panicked because they didn't pay attention to the jury part of the process.
	There was no realm of the universe in which it made sense for Sherefizi to make that offer for mistrial without prejudice.
	And these are the types of things where outcome be damned, nothing on earth could justify that strategy.
	Except, if I'm being cynical, Sherefizi and Richard say, okay, well, Kyle is a...
	He's an ATM.
	He's a golden goose.
	If we do another trial, we'll get another million bucks.
	We can pay ourselves it.
	It'll last us another two years.
	That would be the cynical side.
	But other than that, there was nothing in Kyle's interest to ever justify that request because I presume, Robert, the judge could have always granted a mistrial without prejudice if they had asked for one with prejudice.
	And he said, okay, I'll give it to you, but not without prejudice.
	They'll have a second kick at the cap.
	There's no reason to change that request.
	That was a huge gamble, and you only take that gamble if you believe you're losing the jury.
	And they only believe that because they never understood the jury.
	And so the other thing is the prosecutor probably misread that the foreperson was on their side by the language used by the interaction with the court.
	The problem was, should have recognized the fact that there had been not a single guilty verdict back and certain questions weren't being asked, and where she was isolated in terms of seating patterns and other aspects, and if they'd known the prior data, known what I knew going in, was that a random jury, eight of them are going to, at least eight, are going to be with you.
	And once you see her more and more isolated...
	Just because she's the foreperson, she's not reflective or representative of the rest of the jurors.
	And so they misread that.
	They thought, oh, the foreperson is with us, must mean the whole jury is with us.
	And then they had that embarrassing defeat on Friday.
	But a great victory going on.
	Andrew Branca speculated that Kyle went along with the mistrial without prejudice because he was nervous.
	about whether his defense lawyers had properly read the jury.
	That's probably true because clearly they hadn't read the jury correctly.
	And also, you made a good point.
	I think it was Wednesday, but it could have been Monday.
	It could have been Sunday.
	I don't know.
	This last three weeks has been one night where you did say that he might have been under the impression from counsel that if it's not a quick acquittal...
	You're in trouble.
	I'm sure they had told him quick acquittals.
	Or at least members of his team.
	Mark Richards went public afterwards saying that the key advice...
	Some people thought he was being critical of me.
	He was referencing Lin Wood and John Pierce.
	He had nothing critical to say about me whatsoever.
	And I'm not personally critical of Richards.
	I just would have liked things to be done strategically, tactically different.
	But Kyle's acquitted, so I'm happy that that finishes that debate.
	But he also came out and said that it was critical of certain advisors that Kyle had.
	He didn't say the name.
	David Hancock is the name.
	So that's who he's talking about, that he's told Kyle to try to get distance from him to make his own decisions about a whole lot of crazy things that apparently were happening behind the scenes.
	And that David Hancock had invited a film crew to be embedded with Kyle during the trial.
	Yeah, Robert, this is where I start to...
	I don't doubt you, but this is where you really...
	I start to give you more credit.
	Even if I'm Richards, you can come out and criticize strategy because you were not, I guess, formally the attorney of record before the trial, before the judge, yada yada.
	Richards was.
	And when Richards comes out and starts saying things that the team, whether it's not his decision, had made decisions that he doesn't agree with, I have a problem with that when he says it publicly because he's basically undermining his own team.
	Regardless of whether or not he says, I didn't have that decision-making in the first place.
	When he says it on CNN, they are the enemy of the truth, all attenuated with that.
	When he does it on CNN, that is giving to CNN the fodder they need now to say that the entire defense was corrupt, this was about a money grab, etc.
	So I question Richard's decision to do that, and I think it's even more problematic.
	Which goes back to what you were saying from the very beginning about Richard's counsel and Richard's But, I mean, how do you feel about that?
	He goes on CNN, it's either the day of or the day after, to basically criticize the defense team and say that I wasn't in full control and they started doing things that I found questionable.
	I have a problem with that.
	I think he's right about the criticism that he's tendering, but it tells you a lot about who actually ran that case in the sense of behind the scenes.
	Who's making all the decisions?
	Here you have a defense lawyer who can't even stop a film crew.
	From filming his client during the trial, including while he's sleeping.
	I mean, how little power?
	He admitted that he was totally against it, and it's like, well, obviously you had no power.
	Now, it also explains the timing of people wanting me out, of David Hancock wanting me out, because I would not have approved filming Kyle while he sleeps during the trial.
	No.
	And there's multiple issues with it, especially a big news network.
	You have to pray to God that doesn't leak.
	Because you can have any camera guy leak and all of a sudden somebody's material is subpoenaed sitting over in the government's room.
	So if you're going to do that sort of thing, you don't use a news crew.
	Let's say you want to do something for future purposes.
	You want to preserve it.
	Okay.
	Snipes filmed me throughout the whole trial.
	He was getting an angle when he was closing argument.
	He was standing up on the table.
	He was like, oh, let me look at this.
	I was like, this is surreal.
	I'm in a totally different world.
	But if you want your own film thing, okay, news crew is risky because it could leak.
	And people might hear things that all of a sudden become evident to trial.
	That's why you have to be careful.
	You might say things in the heat of an argument with counsel as to strategy, as to what's admissible and what's not admissible.
	And in speaking about something that's not admissible, you make it public even though it would never have been part of the trial.
	So, obviously.
	But it shows how little power he had.
	David Hancock runs the show.
	And that's why Tucker now has an exclusive.
	William Slattery, Robert, says, who is Hancock, Barnes?
	David Hancock is this sort of spooky security guy who was the one to actually get control of, to recommend to Lin Wood, was security for Lin Wood.
	Causing all kinds of problems for Linwood, actually, over time.
	He's connected to some people that caused trouble for Steve Wynn, too.
	So they show up in interesting places, let's say.
	But basically, he's got control first of the security for Kyle, and then he got control of all the money for Kyle.
	And so, basically, he dictates media access.
	He dictates the legal defense.
	No better evidence of that than Mark Richards, lead defense attorney for someone who's on trial for his life, who had so little control.
	That he couldn't stop a news crew from live filming discussions during the trial.
	And Robert, let me stop you there.
	It's not to sing your praises.
	It's not to pat you on the back.
	You were ahead of the curve in seeing things as it relates to Q back in the day during the election that people ragged on you for calling out early at the time.
	You called this out early at the time in terms of Hancock.
	I don't know who Hancock is, but you called it out.
	And Richards confirmed exactly what you had called out way ahead of the curve on CNN to come out and say, I was the spokesperson for the defense.
	I was in front of the judge.
	And even I did not have certain fundamental decisions, decision-making power over decisions that I vehemently disagreed with.
	And you called it.
	And people can say you're...
	They can call you what they want.
	You're right.
	He was helping coordinate making sure Kyle testified and was keeping Wendy in the dark about whether Kyle was going to testify.
	I mean, this is insanity.
	So luckily the kid is so innocent and the people of Kenosha is so good that the truth came through and he was acquitted.
	But unfortunately it did end up requiring a little bit of luck because there was some limits on the competencies of his counsel and there was even more limits on the people who were controlling his life.
	Moving into the second stay, that covers kind of the verdict.
	People ask, what did the motion to dismiss with prejudice at the end mean?
	When there's an acquittal, it gets reduced to a judgment.
	The judgment is dismissed with prejudice, meaning it's over.
	The government cannot appeal an acquittal.
	There's nothing to appeal.
	State criminal case over, done with, finito.
	Double jeopardy protects Kyle completely against any future state prosecution.
	Now, in terms of the media representations post...
	Go ahead.
	I was going to say, state prosecution is probably the better segue into the federal prosecution.
	I think it was...
	Someone said it was Nadler.
	I've seen them threatening...
	Yeah, Gerald Nadler, Judiciary Committee for the Democratic Party.
	Yeah, he talked about a federal review of the Kyle case.
	Am I wrong to think this is from Corbyn Bush?
	Bush, spelt German.
	Also her, yeah.
	Another congresswoman from St. Louis, I believe.
	Am I wrong if you could charge him, make another shit show in the news, and leave it at that because Double Jeopardy?
	So Double Jeopardy doesn't bar federal prosecutions.
	I believe it should, but we say there's dual sovereigns.
	What a bunch of garbage that is.
	The United States only exists as a confederation of the states, but whatever.
	So the Supreme Court has adopted that so that there can be multiple prosecutions of people they don't like.
	However, on the federal side, first of all, there are no federal crimes violated.
	So that's problem number one.
	When people hear about the feds prosecuting after a state failed prosecution almost every single time, that is because the person violated federal law specifically, usually because they're a state actor.
	In the Epstein case, it's because there were different interests and different crimes he violated, some that were state, some that were federal.
	That's how there could be successive prosecutions in his case, same with Ghislaine Maxwell, though it's a legal issue about whether the plea bargain was meant to prevent that.
	A double jeopardy would not bar a federal prosecution.
	What bars a federal prosecution is, number one, Kyle didn't violate any federal crimes.
	You can't find a single one.
	That's why even Nadler couldn't cite one.
	He was like, let's just pretend it somehow involves the First Amendment.
	Yeah, it's still not a violation.
	So you need to be a state actor.
	Chauvin could be prosecuted because he was a cop.
	And that's how they could do successive prosecutions.
	Same with the Rodney King case.
	They could do successive prosecutions because they were cops.
	They were state actors.
	Thus, they're covered by federal civil rights laws.
	Kyle is not.
	Second, the FBI already investigated this.
	As came out of trial, there was a whole bunch of people were talking to the FBI.
	And that great, was it Balch?
	Who testified and Little Binger made the mistake of saying, well, you're running around talking to the FBI.
	And he's like, they came and knocked on my door.
	I wasn't looking to knock on there.
	And so the FBI already investigated this and already cleared Kyle.
	They already determined there was no federal criminal violations they could even bring.
	And somewhere right around that time, they started losing evidence.
	They lost the HD video, etc.
	So they don't want that to be dug into, I guarantee you.
	And then third, the Eastern District of Wisconsin is notoriously apolitical.
	They're not like the Southern District of New York.
	They're not like the District of Columbia.
	They are not known for bringing politically motivated prosecutions.
	They have a lot of careerists who actually are committed to prosecutorial ethics more so than most.
	More like Emily Baker-style prosecutors on the federal side.
	I've had my disagreements and run-ins with them, but very few, to be honest with you.
	They usually are very reasonable in cases.
	And they usually...
	Very rare they even bring a case that has the taint of politics attached to it.
	So there's almost no risk of Kyle facing any federal criminal case.
	All the congressmen can yip all they want.
	That ain't going to happen.
	I brought up, you guys keep it up.
	We've heard the news of what's happened in Wisconsin.
	I don't comment on things that are 20 minutes old.
	I'm going to wait for some more information to come out.
	I'm reading it as we're free.
	Waukesha is a suburb of Milwaukee.
	It's about 20 minutes from Kenosha.
	I don't know if there's any tie or connection.
	I agree.
	We need to wait to see.
	Because we get so much bad intel on these matters, it's much better to wait.
	It's possible that it's some sort of Antifa retaliation, but I would not bet on that.
	I would probably bet on something random, somebody wacko, but you can't rule it out.
	I mean, the weekend...
	Let's go to the third aspect, the media reaction afterwards.
	Yes.
	So, I think in terms of...
	People got to see Mark Richards in the media.
	Mark is a liberal Democrat who doesn't like guns.
	So he made that clear.
	That's why he's on CNN.
	That's why he's on Good Morning America.
	That's why he's on the Today Show.
	That's why he's going to do those kind of interviews.
	His politics are very different from day one.
	Part of his disagreement with Lin Wood was political as much as anything.
	And so I think that that aspect of it, I wouldn't have handled the way he handled.
	In part because my politics are different, but also because his answers could have been a little better, frankly.
	When Chris Cuomo asks, is your client innocent?
	You say, hell yes, he was innocent.
	You don't say, legally, he was innocent.
	That sounds like...
	But, you know, I don't blame...
	I'm not...
	Casting aspersions on Richards for that.
	That's what a lifelong criminal defense lawyer as a liberal Democrat would say in this case.
	They don't want to be associated with the politics attached to Kyle, and they're used to saying legally no, right?
	Because eight times out of ten, you're defending somebody as a street criminal defense lawyer who's probably guilty of something.
	So you get accustomed to that lingo and language.
	But no, it's not the most effective representation of Kyle in the court of public opinion to be going around on liberal sources.
	Like he, Richards bashed a bunch of Congressman Gates and other congressmen who've come to Kyle's defense and said they've offered him internships, etc.
	There's no need for Mark to do it.
	I get his politics are different than people that are attached to Kyle.
	You don't have to go there, but c 'est la vie.
	And so that is what it is.
	But people got to see the limitations I've been trying to hint at.
	Got to see it on full display, not only at the trial, but the post-trial in the court of public opinion.
	Now, in terms of the press lying about him, also there's clearly Todd McMurdy, who was a local counsel for Nicholas Sandman, who I think was counsel, somehow weaseled his way into representing Candace Owens for a period of time, who ran against Thomas Massey, who's been a very good advocate for Kyle.
	McMurdy, a lot of these people only, I don't remember Nick Sandman showing up before trial.
	I'll put it that way.
	So people have asked me whether it's a good idea that Nick Salmon sort of somehow show up now that Kyle's in the court of public opinion at a prominent level after acquittals.
	I won't go into it in further detail.
	I'll just say I wouldn't necessarily take that tact.
	I don't think Todd McMurdy, he's running around talking about how Kyle could sue Joe Biden.
	Let's talk next about the realistic issues.
	About a falsely accused criminal defendant who's been acquitted, his complete inability to really bring defamations.
	Okay, hold on, hold on.
	Before we get there, question people ask, I don't think all of us understand the procedure of a jury trial acquittal.
	Is there any chance of an appeal?
	Like, what would be required for an appeal?
	Done.
	Zero.
	There can't be.
	Acquittals, that's it.
	Jury acquittals, case over, case done.
	Double jeopardy attaches to anything and everything that could relate to the case.
	There's no further state criminal exposure at all.
	We'll get to the bail money next.
	No acquittal, period.
	Done and done for.
	From a federal perspective, your opinion done and done for because they investigated.
	No federal crimes committed, which may seem odd to some people because how can he kill people and not be guilty of potential federal crimes?
	Okay.
	So that answers that.
	Now the next question is...
	Defamation.
	Well, defamation for him, then we get to defamation for Wendy for his mom afterwards.
	Defamation for him, Robert.
	So the problem is there's these people predicting big settlements and big suits.
	That is very, very hard for the falsely accused to bring once they've been accused.
	Once a case gets to the stage of a jury verdict in a criminal case, you are basically, even when you're fully acquitted, It is almost impossible to win a defamation suit against anybody having a different opinion than the jury did about the case.
	So, you know, murderer, all those kind of lengths, you can't sue on.
	The court's either going to dismiss it out of the gate or dismiss it at some stage.
	Now, what Kyle could sue on is people who made false statements that didn't relate to the criminal prosecution, people who said he carried a gun across state lines, people who you could arguably, people who are still saying the gun was illegally possessed, you could argue that, though that's probably protected because it didn't reach the jury stage, but it went far enough that it probably would be considered protected opinion.
	Statements that he killed black people.
	Those statements are patently false, never part of the accusations.
	That's patent defamation.
	You could sue for it.
	Problem will become in terms of non-politicians.
	We'll get to politicians in a second and why they're being so aggressive right now.
	I'm going to take a guess and say sovereign immunity.
	It's what I was trying to fight in the Covington kids' cases, but the Supreme Court didn't take it up.
	And so now, right now, if you're a member of Congress or elected official, you're completely immune from suit for libel.
	Can't sue them for libel no matter the circumstances.
	Until the law changes.
	To the credit of J.D. Vance and Thomas Massey, they're considering legislation that will change that.
	And I want to...
	My proposal to them is call it the Covington Kids bill and run on it, campaign on it.
	Every Republican should be campaigning on, will my opponent support the Covington Kids bill that says Congress members...
	Do not have a license to libel once they're elected to Congress.
	That's an 80-20 winner if they will go out there and do it.
	We'll be talking to Blake Masters, the Senate candidate from Arizona, on Wednesday on the sidebar, and I'm hoping he too joins in that effort.
	Eric Greitens, Senate candidate in Missouri, is talking about it.
	So Marjorie Taylor Greene is considering it.
	So I think we can get a big legal momentum using the combination of the Covington Kids case and the Kyle Rittenhouse case to say it's time that politicians be held to the same standards as everybody else.
	They still have a speech and immunities clause, so whatever they say in the halls of Congress is immune.
	But once they're outside the halls of Congress, they should not be immune.
	That's beyond what the Constitution provides for.
	You take an example like Bill de Blasio, where him commenting on...
	A jury verdict out of Wisconsin, even if it's not on the floors of wherever he is that he works, it has nothing to do with his function as mayor of New York.
	So why would it be protected just by virtue of the fact that he's a government official?
	It's not of his work-related interest to comment on a Wisconsin jury acquittal, to spout off factually incorrect statements that will effectively, you know, the kid was acquitted.
	And now it's going to effectively condemn him going forward just because some New York City mayor wants to pretend that the jury acquittal was rubbish and now go back to calling him a murderer.
	Exactly.
	But technically, and I also support another legislative reform proposed by Andrew Branca, Law of Self-Defense.
	You can get his book, go to his website, follow him on social media.
	One of the best self-defense commentators in the world.
	He got so many people going to his website to get the free book.
	They crashed the website.
	So check him out on Mercado.
	He was there all week.
	Amazing stuff.
	But yeah, he's got a free book on the law of self-defense.
	You just have to pay for shipping.
	But apparently so many people flocked to the website from Mercado that they crashed it.
	Sorry.
	Go ahead, Robert.
	And what he has proposed is what he calls Kyle's law.
	But that is the fact that Kyle cannot sue.
	All these people who engaged in misconduct, the corrupt press, corrupt politicians, corrupt prosecutors, it should be used as motivation to change the law to make it clear that if you have a political motivation for a prosecution that results in acquittals, you should be held personally liable for doing that.
	And he better explains the whole aspects of the law that he's talking about.
	But it's, I think, a very good idea because we need legal reform before anybody with political power will be held accountable.
	Now, in terms of those places that people that have made a specifically factually false...
	Other people are claimed, by the way, calling them racist, Nazi, white supremacist.
	Unfortunately, none of that you can sue on.
	Now, you can sue on whether this gesture is a white power gesture, because it's not.
	I won that for Cassandra Fairbanks in federal court, where the federal court said, calling this a racist gesture is in fact defamatory and you can sue on it.
	So he could sue on that.
	But just the general language, white supremacist, racist, Nazi, all the courts have said that's protected opinion.
	It's not a fact statement subject to a jury's determination.
	And they don't allow libel lawsuits based on that.
	And so I think that's...
	I don't agree with a lot of that case law, but that's all the case law.
	And that's why Ron Coleman and Jonathan Turley have both explained Kyle doesn't have robust defamation claims.
	The biggest hurdle is once you're criminally accused, you have an impossible job of proving damages because you suffered so much damages from the indictment itself that that is an intervening cause.
	That superseding cause that prevents you from being able to prove any monetary damages.
	So that's why the falsely accused right now in America, even like when people are declared innocent, they're just given a small amount of money for each day they're in prison.
	So, I mean, it's a problem.
	We need to reform the law to create an economic disincentive that politicians should be personally liable for this.
	Because right now, people who think Kyle's going to get rich off defamation suits are...
	There may be some lawyers who get some money off of it, like I'm sure Todd McMurdy is hustling for right now, using Nick Salmon to help do it.
	But there's not a strong claim.
	And Biden in particular, he was careful at how he did it.
	While he doesn't have immunity, Joel Pollack for Breitbart made the point that because he said these statements before he was president, he doesn't have immunity while president.
	That's where all the Trump cases actually established precedent because they allowed those cases to go forward even while Trump was president.
	So yes, he could sue Biden.
	But it will be dismissed at a very early stage because Biden avoided saying anything that was factually false that didn't concern the case.
	Yeah, and even the ad that everyone takes issue with, it only implied it.
	It was not Biden saying this kid's a white supremacist.
	It was vague.
	It was by implication.
	And the statements like white supremacist, you can't sue on.
	Statements like racist, you can't sue on.
	And language like terrorist, the problem is once the charges were brought...
	The prosecutor created immunity for all the press's lies by bringing the charges.
	That's the problem.
	That's why we have to solve it at that level.
	Make politicians responsible and liable, and they'll be a lot less likely to bring these kind of frivolous charges.
	Politically motivated charges.
	I'm bringing up this chat not to endorse the symbol.
	I just want to explain to everyone out there how it got started as a meme on 4chan.
	And the idea was, if you can see it...
	Putting your fingers together in that pattern, you could imagine...
	There's an actual white power gesture that's two hands.
	And so 4chan autists thought, I bet we can trick the press into saying that the OK sign that is universal, the OK sign, it's even an emoji, like that emoji just used by one of the chatters.
	He convinced them that that's a secret white power signal.
	At the same time that they were trying to convince the media that milk, anybody who likes milk is secretly a racist.
	And the idea is that the three fingers forms a W, and the circle with your hands forms a P, and that is shorthand for WP, white power.
	I'm going to do this.
	I'm going to go out on a limb.
	I'm going to say, everyone, that symbol now officially refers to the Washington Post.
	So if anyone does the OK symbol, the WP stands for Washington Post, and it's a way to show support for the worst news outlet on Earth.
	That's my joke for the evening.
	I was thinking about that for a long time.
	But Robert, so, OK, I mean, I don't think...
	I think a lot of people want to fluff up the defamation side of it.
	Even if he could get nominal damages, they would only be nominal.
	You know, saying he crossed state lines.
	Okay, factually incorrect, what are the damages?
	And what is his reputation to be damaged having been criminally prosecuted?
	Making the statements before or during the trial versus afterwards, there's still going to be the commentary aspect where a lot of people walk around saying O.J. Simpson is a murderer, even if he got acquitted, which could be a legally factually incorrect statement.
	But nonetheless, their opinion on the outcome to say, I don't agree with it, I still believe he's a murderer, even though he was acquitted, not defamatory.
	And once a case reaches jury verdict stage, you basically have a legal finding that a reasonable juror could conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
	So that's your hurdle.
	If you're falsely accused, an acquittal doesn't do a lot for you in defamation claims, unfortunately.
	And that's why the prosecutors wield immense and enormous power.
	And the moment they prosecute you, the moment they indict you, your reputation is gone.
	And you can't get...
	That's why that famously, a defendant who was fully acquitted came out of court and said, now where do I go to get my reputation back?
	Because realistically, the courts don't provide any remedy for that.
	Because they immunize the politicians and they effectively immunize the press because of what the politicians have done.
	It becomes this circle of...
	Immunity of watching each other's backs and washing each other's backs.
	A circle jerk of immunity.
	And I'm just going to bring this up.
	Andrew Bianca, Andrew Branca, sorry, is now on Locals, lawofselfdefense.locals.com.
	So you know where to find him.
	And he provided great informative commentary all the way through.
	If you want to know self-defense, we have disagreements from now and then, but we disagree on the shooting that took place by the police on January 6th.
	But the...
	But he's still the best lawyer on self-defense.
	You don't always have to agree with him, but you're going to get one of the most informed opinions out there.
	And I'm going to read this.
	Funny, the media completely glossed over Andrew Coffey IV being found not guilty of first-degree murder of a black man using justifiable self-defense against police silence.
	Now, I don't know the details of this.
	I just know that people who were trying to counter the narrative of had Rittenhouse been black...
	Although he was half Latino from what I understand, he would have been found guilty, no question about it.
	I don't know anything about Andrew Kofi IV.
	I was under the impression that he was accused of having done something that he claimed to not have done.
	I don't know if it was outright self-defense like Rittenhouse.
	Do you know anything about the...
	Yeah.
	So it was on the same day.
	So Kyle has family that's multiracial.
	He himself is not.
	But there is a long history.
	Of African-American Black defendants successfully using self-defense as a defense.
	Indeed, I would suggest that disproportionately Black defendants use self-defense as an argument compared if you did a percentage of Black, a percentage of defendants who are Black who use self-defense successfully, it's probably higher than their portion of the population.
	There are many high-profile cases of that occurring.
	So everybody's saying, oh, if he was black.
	No, he wasn't.
	If he was black, he never would have been charged by a liberal Democratic prosecutor, probably.
	That's number one.
	Number two, now, there are people who, I think the Independent, but the way that most of the media lied about Kyle in this context is they kept saying the people, the attackers that night, the assailants that night.
	That they wanted to call victims were Black Lives Matter protesters, implying in people's minds that they were black.
	That's why a lot of liberals were like, hold on a second.
	These are all white people.
	And indeed, Kyle was the guy defending a minority, immigrant, woman-owned business.
	Against white guys using racist terminology all night long.
	I mean, you couldn't have a weirder contortion by the media of the facts of this case.
	But unfortunately, libel law doesn't present an easy remedy.
	There's people he could sue to make the point and establish liability, and he might take a look at that.
	But if you sue somebody like Biden and then you lose, it makes it worse.
	Because then people think, oh, look, they said it's okay to make these statements about it.
	So I would only recommend bringing suit where you can win on the suit even if damages are going to be very, very limited.
	The idea of this kid is in a good financial position is just not true.
	He's not going to have a bunch of money.
	The Sandman case didn't settle for a quarter of a billion like the popular meme is.
	If that was the case, he wouldn't be still living where he's living, to be frank about it.
	So the idea that you can make a bunch of money from these cases is just not true.
	And you don't settle for the amount of the suit.
	That's a condemnation.
	You settle for, you know, a fraction of what is the claim.
	That's what a settlement is.
	Now, bail, I think, is our next issue.
	Say that again?
	Bail.
	Well, before we get to bail, is Dominic Black not the thing we have to discuss before moving on?
	I was going to do bail and then move to Dominic Black.
	Okay, all right.
	So, wait, before we even get to bail.
	I had a question.
	You sue the Independent first because they made a factually incorrect statement about him having shot three black individuals.
	Although they retracted, revised, still left it ambiguous.
	Nominal damages, but no.
	You're going to run around suing.
	You'll have no shortage of lawyers willing to take the suits, get a retainer, crowdsource the lawsuit, but you're going to get nothing out of it.
	He just moves on.
	We'll get to his mother, I guess, in a second.
	But the bail.
	It was bail or bond?
	It was not bond.
	It was bail, correct?
	Well, it's the same terms.
	It was $2 million, correct?
	Correct.
	I mean, not a bond in the sense that in Wisconsin, it's cash bail.
	So in Wisconsin, every dollar bail, you got to post.
	So it's not 10 cents on the dollar.
	So in this context, $2 million was posted.
	Now, there's been some confusion out there.
	To his credit, Lin Wood did raise that $2 million, and Lin Wood did post it all through the Fightback Foundation.
	So I was critical of Wood because of...
	Pierce being involved in the case.
	It wasn't otherwise critical of Wood.
	The Wood did actually raise a lot of money for the kid and did, in fact, post a $2 million bail.
	It wasn't Mike Lindell.
	Mike Lindell gave $50,000 that was part of that $2 million.
	And Lindell...
	At the time, didn't quite take credit for it, by the way.
	I'm glad he's taking credit for it now.
	But at the time, he was like, I was just giving money for election fortification cases.
	So, you know, God bless him.
	But a lot of these people that are now hopping on the Kyle train have been invisible for the last year and a half.
	Dana Loesch is suddenly a big Kyle Rittenhouse supporter.
	Where was she when she was defending Black Rifle Coffee, throwing him under the bus?
	So I'm not going to forget where some of these people were.
	They needed to be there when Kyle needed him, not when they didn't need him.
	As Earl Long famously told a politician, he came up to him and said, Earl, I only vote with you when you're right.
	And Earl said, son, I don't need you when I'm right.
	So there's wisdom there.
	So a lot of these sudden people, Nicholas Sandman, a lot of people suddenly discovered that Kyle was innocent and now can publicly talk about it.
	Yeah, he should have been there a little earlier, brother.
	But putting that aside, some of us were there from the get-go.
	Some of us predicted this outcome.
	Back two days after the incident, that Kyle would be acquitted of all charges because he was innocent and always innocent.
	But in this context, the bail was posted $2 million by Fightback Foundation.
	It was done through John Pierce's law firm.
	John Pierce has now publicly, there was a period of time when unfortunately Johnny Boy was not being nice and was hinting that maybe he could get a piece of that money because he was the one who was the courier, if you will, who delivered it.
	And I was critical of him for that and kept being critical of him for that.
	And finally he came to Jesus and discovered that he has no interest whatsoever in those funds and has publicly said it never was.
	He had no interest.
	But at least now publicly has admitted, I'm not entitled to a penny of that.
	So what that leaves is a fight.
	Now, when your bail funds, while your trial is pending, in Wisconsin there's this sort of tricky thing that happens legally.
	The bail funds belong to the defendant.
	So, for example, if there's a criminal sentencing and there's fines issued, they can use the bail money to pay those fines and so forth.
	However, once the criminal case is terminated, the legal custody and ownership of those bail funds return to the people who raised the funds, who deposited the funds.
	So, the $2 million is now shifted to the Fight Back Foundation.
	During the period of time I was representing Kyle, I had very good settlement terms with the Fightback Foundation to make sure a large portion of those funds, most of those funds, would go to Kyle and to all the things he needs, legal and security and otherwise.
	David Hancock turned down that offer because he wanted all the $2 million under his custody and control.
	And now that's where it stands.
	So legally...
	The Fightback Foundation, if there's a legal fight, they'll win that.
	They'll have all that money come back to them.
	Lin Wood may take the position that he doesn't trust those funds to actually be used for Kyle's benefit as long as David Hancock is attached to or associated with those funds.
	So it wouldn't surprise me to see Lin come out and say, I'm happy to have every penny of that if the donors want it.
	Some of that money the people who donated did donate it only for bail with the expectation it would be returned.
	That's why.
	Some of that money would need to be returned.
	But the foundation believed that they could get their donor, a lot of their donors, to say, we want to supply this for the other defense of Kyle moving forward.
	He has security needs and legal needs on an ongoing basis.
	And just to be able to stay alive, given, I mean, again, people were making death threats against him the day after the verdict, the day of the verdict.
	That he would do that if it's someone other than David Hancock that controls the funds.
	And so that wouldn't surprise me.
	But legally, Fightback Foundation would be entitled to those funds, and they would get to determine where they go from there with some consultation with their donors.
	And I don't think it will ever go to David.
	Kyle won't see those funds as long as David Hancock would be the one in control or custody of it.
	But the question is this then.
	If they get those funds back...
	The legal fees have been paid from the second round of fundraising or crowdsourcing and not from the initial?
	Yeah.
	I helped raise over $600,000 that paid for all of that.
	So overall, close to $3 million has been crowdsourced, crowd raised.
	Over $3 million.
	Because on top of the $2 million, Lin Wood paid about $400,000 to John Pierce.
	I think it was $350,000, $360,000 and change.
	Wow.
	John Pierce hosed the kid for his...
	I'm getting emails every other day from people that he purports to represent that are January 6th defendants.
	They're like, we've never seen the guy.
	We don't know if he's doing anything.
	So I still got my issues with John Pierce.
	That ain't gone away.
	But at least he's no longer a hurdle at all in Kyle's case.
	And at this point, the real hurdle to those funds going to Kyle's benefit is actually David Hancock.
	As long as Kyle is...
	Mark Richards goes on CNN and says to the world that he told Kyle, you need to start saying no to some of these advisors.
	Well, there's only one.
	It's David Hancock.
	So, unfortunately...
	I don't know if I would have appeared on Tucker right away after the verdict.
	I have no confidence that David Hancock is looking after the best interest of Kyle Rittenhouse.
	I have no doubt he's looking out for the best interest of David Hancock.
	And he's using his control over the kid and the family for his own self-aggrandizement and self-enrichment.
	And so I can understand.
	I mean, I've obviously been very critical of Linwood.
	In this context, I can understand his position, that, you know, he has no confidence in David Hancock.
	There's people that have taken out criminal warrants against him in South Carolina for purportedly stealing documents and information and other crimes.
	He's connected to other people that are a part of a massive criminal investigation in Puerto Rico that appears to be involving, you know.
	Fraudulent payments for COVID tests.
	He shows up in a lot of weird places.
	So I can understand someone like Wood being, I'm not going to tell my donors to give the money to that guy who doesn't appear to have Kyle's best interest at all.
	Influences by Ariadna, Jacob.
	Ariadna, I have not forgotten.
	I say this every time I bring up a chat from you.
	I have not forgotten.
	We had to cancel last week's sidebar because it would have been unfair to the guest to have a sidebar during the week of Rittenhouse trial.
	But how the F did Hancock get such a foothold on Kyle?
	Is he some sort of talent agent publicist?
	How did Hancock get his foot in the door and then get this, some will call it a foothold, others will call it a stranglehold?
	How did that happen?
	So a former Navy SEAL who ends up connected to a security team and some of these security folks show up in interesting places and some of the companies he's connected to have almost no footprint aside from doing highly classified work.
	For federal government agencies.
	And then shows up in Puerto Rico right after the hurricane, trying to grift and hustle there.
	Gets caught up in a bunch of criminal cases, apparently.
	At least his business partners were.
	Then he becomes security for Lin Wood.
	Helps drive Lin Wood completely crazy.
	And Wood has his own suspicions about him.
	But while he's working for Wood, he recommends Wood raise money for Kyle.
	Uses that.
	To get the fundraising list for Kyle and uses that to become the security guy for Kyle and the family.
	And very quickly, he ends up taking over all the security and all the money for a poor family.
	And that's how you get complete control.
	And that's what he's effectively done.
	Okay.
	And if people look out there and say, why is Kyle doing that?
	Why is he showing up here?
	Why is he doing...
	It's because David Hancock's running the show.
	Mark Richards said it on CNN, so it's not like I'm letting any cat out of the bag now.
	Mark Richards basically said the kid's under the control of this advisor.
	And it's extraordinary.
	And he divulges that insider info to the arguably public enemy number one who is not out for any justice for Kyle, not out for truth, is out to demonize.
	Fox News, and they got their goods on Fox News now.
	So good for them.
	They got their headline story.
	Richards gave them the info, inside info, so they can go after Fox News now.
	So the $2 million they raised for the bail bond, whatever, no cash bond, so they had to raise the full 100%, in theory goes back to the donors.
	The donors could say, we raised it for Kyle, give it to Kyle, but we want to make sure it goes to Kyle, not to Richards and whomever.
	And especially not to Hancock.
	I meant Hancock.
	I didn't mean Richards.
	I meant Hancock.
	And Richards will have no control now because the case is no longer a criminal case.
	So Hancock will be in complete 100% control.
	He even took over the spokesperson role.
	I had people emailing me saying, why is this little guy out there the spokesperson for Kyle?
	This guy looks like an idiot.
	He is on the slower side of slow in certain public communications, but it's because he wants complete control.
	He doesn't want anybody else around but him, and he's going to monopolize that kid as much as he can, and he's going to monetize that kid for his own purposes as much as he can.
	It's unfortunate, but if you see Kyle making decisions you think are bad decisions, they're David Hancock's decisions, and so that's who to judge accordingly.
	And I do hope the kid gets some distance and separation from him, but that's up to him.
	Well, it may or may not be up to me.
	But he's 18 years old.
	You're asking a kid to do a lot.
	You're asking him to reject the guy that provides security and then make sure his healthcare bills get paid.
	So that's the hard part for him.
	And that's what I'm going to say.
	Like, I'm an adult.
	I'm 42. I have, you know, my mortgage is with a bank.
	I can go up and leave and find a new bank and go through the headache of finding a new bank to mortgage, bank, etc.
	Some point it's like you'll deal with the current inconvenience because to find a new potentially riskier inconvenience is a headache and better the devil you know than the devil you don't.
	The other problem is if it's not done right, they create all kinds of tax problems.
	And that would not be good.
	You don't want the feds coming in on that.
	And saying, oh, Kyle got the benefit of $2 million or $3 million, and that's actually technically income attributable to him.
	He now owes $1 million, and all of a sudden he faces IRS charges because there's no more politicized agency than that, especially while the Biden administration wants to double the number of IRS agents out there.
	So I have no confidence in Hancock to manage that either.
	And it'd be like him to do something that is to Kyle's risk and his benefit.
	That's just the nature of the guy.
	This is a joke one, but now I'm going to ask the question, what does a glowy mean?
	Why do people refer to spooks in the agent sense as glowies?
	That I don't know.
	Glowies would be new to me as well.
	Because people think glowies, the agents glow.
	Well, now you've made me very nervous because the idea of trying to find additional charges to go after Rittenhouse, a la Chauvin, totally different circumstances, but create tax problems so that therefore there are other issues to go after.
	All right.
	And by the way, it's Rittenhouse's decision, but the message has to reach Rittenhouse.
	So that's what the social media is and the aggregate knowledge and power of the Internet are for.
	Yeah.
	What he should know is there's somebody asked, would I take a call?
	Of course, I would take a call.
	That there's tons of people out there willing and ready and eager to help Kyle.
	And there's millions of Americans that have his back.
	And he doesn't have to depend on anyone else as the access point to the people that have his back.
	I just hope he knows that consistently and continuously and makes the best decisions.
	My own personal advice would have been to take a break from all this.
	I mean, the kid's been under massive, massive pressure.
	Ridiculous pressure.
	And the family just to escape it all for a little while.
	Take a little vacation.
	Kid deserves it.
	And then decide what you want to do with your life moving forward.
	But anybody who thinks he's suddenly going to get rich is living in La La Land.
	And I don't think Nick Salmon, frankly, has his best interest at heart either.
	So, you know, people are thinking that.
	I understand the kid's an icon, so I'm breaching more heresy by suggesting maybe not the best person to give advice under these circumstances.
	All right.
	Before we do cut Dominic Black, do we do Wendy Rittenhouse?
	Any chance that she has for defamation in all of this?
	She does.
	She does because she doesn't have the same damages limitations.
	So the people said that she drove Kyle across state lines with the gun for these vigilante purposes.
	All false.
	There wasn't a single part of that that was true.
	And so she clearly has defamation claims, libel claims herself.
	There's people who've made up wild statements about her all over the place.
	And she would have an easier claim for damages.
	So if you were to look at libel claims, she would be the one that would be best suited to bring it.
	Now, the question is, how many suits do you want to be involved in?
	How much discovery do you want to be stuck in?
	That's not always a fun ride.
	But, you know, again, not only is Kyle a sweetheart, she was a very sweet, sweet person.
	So if I was a defendant and I was sued by Kyle Rittenhouse, by Wendy Rittenhouse, I would be worried about a jury because they're going to see her against Joe Scarborough.
	It ain't Joe Scarborough that's going to look good.
	So I think she would have robust claims.
	And then it's just what's in her own best interest.
	What does she want to do?
	What matters most to her?
	I think a lot of people are circling these folks, where I agree with Richards.
	I disagreed with that was what Matt Gaetz was doing.
	Matt Gaetz was making it clear, I'm going to publicly protect your reputation and give you an internship if you want.
	He was not trying to capital.
	That provides no money to Matt Gaetz or Thomas Massey.
	Amanda Milius said, hey, if Kyle wants to join and figure out a film crew, I got a job for you.
	They're all good-hearted people who want to protect the kid and give him a financial future and a public future and a reputational future.
	On the other hand, some of these other people, like the David Hancocks and some others, do want to just monetize them for their own gain, and some other people want to politicize them for their own gain, and they should be making decisions that are in their own best interest, not everybody else making decisions for them.
	They're almost like...
	You know, 14-year-old Britney Spears, where everybody's looking at all the money that could be coming or all the power that could come in through that person and focused on themselves rather than focused on what's good for them.
	So I hope they get better advisors, in my view, that care mostly about them, not about self-aggrandizement or self-empowerment or self-enrichment.
	And actually, some people in the chat were saying, you know, Rittenhouse with Hancock sounds like a Britney Spears.
	There's some definite analogies to be drawn there.
	And then, before I bring this one up, the question I had just for Wendy is, you know, defamation, she might have an easier claim, but then what are going to be her damages quantifiably?
	That's going to be limited, but if you bring it to the right place...
	And they see what she went through emotionally.
	And, you know, this is somebody who used to work 80 hours a week.
	I mean, this is a working class person who works for a living, who had to live in hiding with her two daughters and her son for the last year and a half, in part because of those lies.
	That could be a very big, big verdict.
	So she might have robust claims if she wants to go that path.
	And I also imagine she would have more by way of emotional damages than by...
	Because there's no criminal charge against her.
	That was always false.
	Totally false.
	They can't even pretend that it has an aspect of truth to it.
	Nothing about it was true.
	The lies about her.
	And I still say, encouraging anyone to sue, you're buying into years of stress.
	But now this is, Glowies is an old 4chan meme that spread after Trump was elected.
	The original meme was, quote, glow-in-the-dark CIA.
	I don't know, how does that even fit in?
	But since people have become more aware of the deep state, it's expanded to Glowies.
	So I don't know anything about this, so don't hold it against me, people.
	Water jabbers, but thank you for the info.
	Yeah, I don't read 4chan.
	God bless the autist on 4chan, but there's a lot of crap on 4chan.
	I see screenshots.
	I don't have an account on 4chan.
	Okay, fine.
	Wendy, Kyle, we've done federal charges, we've done defamation, we've done the bail.
	Dominic Black, Robert.
	So I think his lawyer has brought a motion to dismiss before, but he should obviously renew it now.
	Too fast, too fast.
	Who is Dominic Black in all of this for anybody who has not been following as closely as we have?
	Dominic Black, correct me if I'm wrong, Robert, is the individual accused of having purchased, procured, and supplied the allegedly unlawful firearm to Kyle, which resulted in death.
	So he has now been charged with...
	What's he been charged with?
	Two felonies of just doing that.
	So of loaning a gun, loaning a dangerous weapon...
	To someone, and that weapon was used, resulting in death.
	And the hardest part, the biggest risk for Black was it didn't require proving intentional homicide or criminal death.
	Just that it resulted in death or injury subjected him to 12 years in Wisconsin State Prison.
	So, okay, I mean, this is the mind-blowing thing.
	These are state charges, again, so not federal.
	And it's state law says unlawfully providing a firearm to...
	An underage?
	Or does it matter how old the individual is?
	Selling, giving, or loaning a dangerous weapon under the same statute that Kyle was charged with.
	And so the problem for the state is they made a choice not to cut a plea deal with Black because they thought it would make him look bad in front of the jury.
	Now they're at risk.
	How does a judge not dismiss those charges?
	Because the same exception that applies to Kyle.
	Which says it's not a dangerous weapon under the law if it's a rifle or shotgun owned by a 16- or 17-year-old.
	And that is unless it's a short-barreled rifle.
	That's the case.
	That's why it was dismissed against Kyle.
	That means it's also not a crime to loan it, give it, or sell it to such an individual under state law.
	There's different federal laws that apply, but they don't apply here to Black because it wasn't a straw man purchase.
	Under federal law.
	So his only risk was this state law that now the court has found as a matter of law is not a crime.
	And so what should happen, unless the court wants to make a contradictory ruling, Dominic Black, all of the charges against Dominic Black should be dismissed with prejudice because Dominic Black didn't commit a crime either.
	Because all he did was, according to the state, because he disputes this, Was loan a gun to someone who lawfully could possess that precise gun under Wisconsin law.
	It's not considered a crime to possess a rifle or shotgun in Wisconsin.
	Thus, it is also not a crime to loan it, give it, or sell it to someone in Wisconsin.
	Someone says, it looks like a smiling skull over my shoulder.
	I guess they mean this.
	Okay, I hope.
	Okay, so to make sure I understand them.
	Well, the charges against Rittenhouse were dismissed.
	Sorry, the judge dismissed them.
	Basically, the Crown, the state, the prosecutor, effectively withdrew the unlawful possession charges against Rittenhouse, which would then, in theory, make Black not guilty of having done anything for which he was charged in the first place.
	If I oversimplify it for me.
	No, that's it.
	I mean, they charged him with something that wasn't a crime, didn't cut a plea deal with him to put maximum pressure on him to testify in a certain way at trial, and it turned out he never should have been prosecuted with a crime, and the charges against him should be dismissed with prejudice under the law.
	And you said it was not a straw man, but you said a, what type of sale, which is like sort of a...
	Well, federal law prohibits certain straw man purchases, but they didn't transfer the gun to him from legal possession purposes under federal law.
	So he's not at risk under federal law, as I understand it.
	And in terms of the Wisconsin law, it's not considered criminal for a 17-year-old to have a rifle or shotgun.
	And he was facing, I mean, in theory, the charges should get dismissed ASAP, and then Dominic will be free to go as well.
	Charge against Dominic was lending a gun to a miner to kill someone.
	Kyle lawfully killed someone, so he didn't commit a crime.
	But actually, it's only, but there's a specific, the same exception applies to the crime charged against Dominic Black that applies to Kyle, which is it's not considered a crime for a 17-year-old or a 16-year-old to have a shotgun or a rifle that's not a short-barreled rifle in Wisconsin, period.
	So, end of story.
	All right, by the way, and I noticed someone earlier said La Chaufferie, which is, this is not an ad.
	There is nothing purchased.
	It's family.
	My brother-in-law is a shareholder in La Chaufferie, which is a Quebec gin made out of Granby.
	They actually have a nice in-bar terrace.
	And Chaufferie means the boiler room because the gin is made out of the old boiler room of Imperial Tobacco.
	Quite a beautiful history.
	Delicious gin, but not an ad.
	So just in case anyone's wondering, I wore the black shirt because when the mic is not visible...
	My camera does not focus on the mic, so my face stays in focus better.
	It was a strategic decision.
	Okay, good.
	So Dominic Black, if you're betting Dominic Black is walking free within the next two weeks?
	It should happen.
	So we'll see.
	I mean, unless a court tries to contradict that ruling and let the issue drag on, but it should be fully dismissed with prejudice.
	End of story.
	Good.
	What else are we missing?
	Robert, is Binger going to face any prosecutorial misconduct?
	People want Binger to face sanctions or Krauss.
	Are they?
	Will they?
	What are the chances?
	Can it happen?
	Yeah, I mean, I'm looking at different ways to crowdsource an effort to have a sophisticated petition supported by and signed by many people to go to the Office of Law or Regulation for an investigation into suspending or...
	Disbarring Binger, which I think would be an appropriate remedy under these circumstances.
	So that's still in progress.
	Normally, a corrupt prosecutor faces no consequences.
	We will try to make that a different outcome here.
	Now, I said I don't like the idea of petitioning to get someone disbarred.
	I don't know what it requires to get the attention of the Bar Association.
	Well, here's the Office of Lawyer Regulation, Director Keith Saline.
	I've known him for a long time, done battle with him for a long time.
	He's been more than eager to go after controversial defendants, defense lawyers, family lawyers, small-time lawyers.
	It's time he proved that the laws in Wisconsin and the ethical rules in Wisconsin apply to the prosecutors just as much as they apply to everyone else.
	And we'll find out.
	I'm going to go through in detail all the different ethical rules he breached and then show that there's substantial public support by crowdsourcing support for the petition so he knows that there's a lot of people paying attention to it.
	And we'll see.
	He gets to either prove me right that the Office of Lawyer Regulation continues to fail to hold the powerful accountable, or he can prove me wrong by showing that he does, in fact, value what he has always said he values, which is equal application of the rules to all in the legal profession.
	We will find out.
	Now, before we get into whether or not Gage Grosskraut can be prosecuted, I don't know if we've talked about it here or where, Robert.
	Can Binger be prosecuted for pointing the firearm at the jury?
	I mean, technically it's a crime.
	But it's his own office that would determine the prosecution.
	It's his own DA who determines whether or not to prosecute, the ADA.
	We're going to get into Alec Baldwin.
	I was listening to Tim Pool talk about the Alec Baldwin.
	It was a few days old, the video.
	I don't think Tim Pool is as off the deep end as some people might think.
	I think he's got legit points.
	But I'm telling you, I don't know where I said it.
	I think I said it here.
	I had an individual who thought it was funny to put...
	A gun to me.
	And I did not find it funny in the slightest.
	I don't care if they knew the gun was empty.
	I am so neurotic that I will continually check and then even after I've checked, still not do something stupid like that.
	I would have flipped my shit, actually.
	If I were in the jury and he did that, I would have flipped it.
	Like, outright.
	Not to prove Kyle guilty of having provoked the attack.
	But you don't do that ever, period.
	I don't care if someone told you it's empty.
	I don't care.
	Never.
	I would personally be prosecuting.
	Can the jury members file a complaint?
	I guess that's the question.
	Can they file a complaint against Binger?
	I mean, it would just be with the DA's office.
	The DA is the only one who can bring a prosecution.
	Okay.
	Well, I found it shocking, offensive, outrageous, but symbolic of Binger's judgment throughout all of this.
	Now the next question is, Grosskreutz, getting to this, Grosskreutz effectively admitted to certain criminal wrongdoing in his prosecution.
	When they asked him, so you only got shot after you pointed a loaded Glock at Rittenhouse, I think they already cut him a deal because he had a DUI and some other stuff.
	I think they cut him a deal on before he testified.
	So I don't think they formally made that part of the deal.
	Can he be?
	Yes.
	Will he be?
	Not by the Kenosha DA.
	They're too busy chasing down another woman who engaged, in my view, in self-defense, not always seen as such under the law.
	You have to argue duress or coercion, but a woman who killed her abuser and trafficker and a rapist.
	That's what requires your resources in Kenosha?
	Going after Kyle Rittenhouse?
	Going after women who...
	Defend themselves effectively against their trafficker and their rapist and their abuser.
	It shows you their priorities are really askew.
	What needs to happen in Kenosha is the DA's office needs to lose the next election, and pretty much everybody there needs to be fired.
	The court of public opinion will be the only place for any remedy for what took place there, other than the Office of Lawyer Regulation doing something about Binger's unethical conduct.
	And I'm going to bring it up.
	I know that I'm following it.
	That's why you see me looking down at my phone here.
	I'm following it.
	I'm not commenting on it, Robert.
	I think it was a Thanksgiving parade.
	It was a Thanksgiving parade in Waukesha.
	But we don't know the full details until it all comes out.
	But someone appeared to have been driving a car and injured a wide number of people.
	Apparently now it's up to deaths now.
	And the only reason...
	Not the only reason.
	Just wait.
	Get info.
	When it happened in Florida at a gay pride parade, and then people were immediately screaming, you know, X, and it turned out to be someone who got their foot stuck on the gas.
	I don't know.
	And I'm not saying anything.
	I'm just saying, not commenting on it, so thank you.
	We've seen it.
	But tonight, we're going to talk about that, which we've had weeks to review, and the information is out on.
	People, what are we forgetting for Rittenhouse?
	I think that we covered all the bases, I believe.
	Robert, I think we've done...
	I think we've done...
	If anyone thinks we've missed something, I've missed a ton of Super Chats, and I apologize.
	But...
	Okay, Rittenhouse is on.
	We're going to put it to the side.
	Now, let's get to the man who...
	Similar situation, who now appears to have...
	I don't know what these double action revolvers look like.
	He appears to have cocked the thingy thing and then pulled the pew-pew.
	Without having any lawful reason to do so, this is Alec Baldwin.
	This is the Rust shooting.
	There's a second lawsuit that has been filed by, I think, one of the engineers on set.
	I don't know exactly who.
	The facts are by and large the same, save and except for some critical facts.
	In this second lawsuit, it is alleged that Alec Baldwin had no reason within the filming of the movie to pull the trigger on that firearm.
	And it's becoming clear now that double action, Robert, I mean, I don't have any experience with small arms.
	That means pulling the trigger back and then pulling the trigger.
	Cocking it, then pulling the trigger.
	So you have to do two different actions in order to discharge a bullet, a squib, a blank, whatever, as opposed to one action for both.
	Robert, what are you thinking?
	I mean, is this getting worse and worse for Alec Baldwin?
	Well, I mean, I'll defer mostly to Eric Hundley and Mark Robert, who are really doing a deep dive into the story.
	Mark Robert got a copy of the script, so he can either confirm or refute the claim as to whether or not the script called for Alec Baldwin to ever shoot that gun during that scene.
	I think there's some conflicting information on that.
	But I don't know for sure or certain.
	They've done a much better job for those people.
	Who are new to it.
	It's America's Untold Stories.
	You can look it up on YouTube.
	Eric Hunley, Unstructured, and Mark Grobert, spelled G-R-O-U-B-E-R-T, that they've done a deep dive because they've been spending a lot of time on it, and Mark Grobert has the connections.
	He's within six degrees of separation of a wide range of interesting people.
	He's lived a very interesting life.
	He's within two degrees of separation of everyone.
	He's two degrees of separation from Sirhan Sirhan himself.
	Yes, he was part of that.
	He's part of doing that documentary on that project.
	It's a single-action revolver which requires that you have to cock it first.
	A double-action does both on the trigger.
	Okay, so I know nothing about that.
	By the way, they've got the inside scoop, Eric and Robert, and I like to say Grobert because...
	He doesn't know that he has French origins, but I do know that he does, but I think he does.
	French from Europe, not from Quebec.
	So the second lawsuit has been filed, which is now alleging that there was no reason to pull the trigger.
	And when I say that Tim Pool, a lot of people are saying that Tim Pool went off the deep end when he was suggesting it was deliberate, not an accident.
	And I know what Tim Pool meant when he said it.
	He meant that maybe the act itself was not an accident, but the outcome was.
	And there's a lot of...
	There's a lot of circumstances in which you can imagine someone gagging around with a gun.
	We talked about it.
	Like, hey, pew-pew.
	It's a toy because it's a prop.
	And maybe I want to make a gag.
	Hey, you didn't give me my coffee with the cream in it.
	Pew-pew.
	And then a pew-pew goes off.
	So when Tim Pool was saying it might not have been an accident, it was not in the first-degree homicide I intended to cause harm, but rather I intended to do what I did, but it caused harm because of negligence.
	If you want to go down the alternative, but if you do want to go down that alternative path, Hunley and Grobert are providing a lot of fascinating connections to the case that you could fill up a couple of conspiracy boards with the information they've been able to unearth.
	So I recommend that for digging into that.
	But what Tim was mostly pointing out is anybody that's familiar with guns, and if you're also familiar with how Hollywood handles guns, you almost have to have done something intentional along the way.
	for that to have happened.
	You just don't have accidental shootings that take place really in Hollywood without somebody doing something intentionally reckless.
	And it was clear Baldwin was at least one of the people who did something intentionally reckless.
	And the question is, will a liberal Democratic DA bring charges against him?
	Well, you know what?
	I'm going to say that I think the political pressure and the social pressure and the public pressure is mounting to the point where...
	I predicted it early, and I think it was the less likely of the outcomes.
	I think he's going to face charges.
	And I think he knew it from the beginning, and his facade of garbage excuses, she was my friend.
	She was my friend.
	Yeah, we know that she was your friend.
	We know that you had dinner with her.
	It doesn't mean that you didn't pull the trigger on purpose, either for a gag, either to do something you weren't supposed to do.
	We'll see.
	Don, we answered this question earlier, so that was early on, which is good, but I wanted to bring...
	Oh, hold on one second.
	Where was it?
	It led me to understand that someone is new here.
	Ah, crap.
	It does matter.
	Sounds like Baldwin was drinking.
	Defamatory?
	63 Rambler?
	We don't know that.
	It does sound like he did something not good.
	He did something bad, and I think he knew it from the beginning, which is why there was such an immediate, proactive, the best defense is a good offense, and that's what I think happened.
	Kevin Cook, thank you very much.
	Reckless or negligent?
	Yeah, we'll get there.
	He's Canadian.
	Pew Pew.
	Now, Robert.
	Okay, so Alec Baldwin.
	We're going to see what happens.
	The facts are coming out.
	Everybody.
	Eric Conley.
	Mark Robert.
	Untold American Stories.
	Fantastic.
	Worth.
	Get it there because you'll get it before it gets anywhere else.
	Guaranteed.
	Let me just see what this one says.
	Oh, Viva.
	Single action only releases the hammer from a cocked position.
	Double action.
	Trigger.
	Both cocks and releases.
	The hammer.
	It refers to the trigger pull, not what the user has to do with the fire.
	I'm going to go and, like, in my head I'm playing the meme from Napoleon Dynamite when the old man says, I don't understand a word you just said.
	But I'm going to look into it because I appreciate it.
	I don't know things.
	But now move on to something, Robert.
	What's the next subject?
	Which is not Rittenhouse, people.
	We're going to cover the other things of the interwebs.
	Let's do Ahmaud Arbery because that's another one where a lot of people have a lot of questions, even myself.
	I touched on it with Nate Friday night.
	What's going on in the McMichaels case?
	So my understanding is closing arguments are Monday.
	So people can watch that.
	I'll probably tune into part of that.
	My understanding is that during the substance of the case, for the most part, the defense did a much better job.
	However, the court made a ruling that apparently surprised them.
	So the court apparently determined...
	That you cannot arrest someone under the Georgia statute as a citizen's arrest unless you witness that crime.
	So it doesn't matter if somebody, you believe someone committed a crime a day or two days or ten days or ever long before, you're not allowed to arrest them for that according to the judge's interpretation of the law.
	That there has to be contemporaneous recognition of the person at the time, and if not, you can't arrest them.
	And because the defendants have both admitted they did not see him commit a crime that day, that would effectively negate their defense.
	And so that would mean that unless they picked a really, really crazy favorable jury, that both McMichaels will be convicted of the felony murder counts.
	So based on that judge's instruction.
	What I would say is this judge, there was clear hostility from the defense lawyers to the judge.
	And now we're kind of seeing why.
	It's clear they didn't trust this judge, and it turns out they're right not to trust this judge, because I think that kind of ruling, when you basically change the whole defense, but only after the end of trial, should have been made before trial, so that they knew their situation or position.
	They should probably honestly look at plea dispositions at this point, but the prosecutor seems very excited about big convictions in the case.
	But it looks like, based on that interpretation of Georgia law by the judge, Which may be correct.
	I don't think this precise issue had arisen before in Georgia, to my knowledge, illegally.
	It looks like they will be convicted this week.
	I meant to bring this up for Kevin Cook.
	Kevin, I think that's the second time.
	If you meant to super chat a question, do not super chat another one.
	Just put your question in and I'm going to get to it.
	Because sometimes YouTube is not clear and you put in a super chat and you think you're going to comment and then you hit the super chat and I don't want people...
	Spending more than they intend to spend in order to get a question out.
	Yeah, no, this was my issue also from the beginning, is that, okay, we suspected him of burglary in general.
	The day of, they said he was hauling ass, and does that then give you the grounds for a citizen's arrest, even if the suspected crime were felonious and not misdemeanorous?
	And now the judge is basically saying, even if what you thought was the case, because you have enough evidence in evidence right now to say, okay, you thought he had committed a burglary days earlier.
	You had no grounds to suspect that he committed a burglary that day.
	Therefore, your even attempt at a citizen's arrest was unlawful under law because given the facts and evidence as of now, as a pure matter of law, you were not entitled to it.
	So your defense fails as a matter of law.
	We don't need to submit it to a jury.
	Okay, cut a plea deal.
	I mean, they're looking at...
	Well, I mean, their only defense at this point will be to argue that he wasn't arrested at the time in which he attacked them, and that self-defense would start all over again.
	So that's all they would be, the defense.
	If that's what happens, that's all the defense has, and that's tough.
	And then you add in allegations of racist motivation.
	And I think they're in tough...
	I think they are likely to be convicted at this point.
	Unless something changes between now and...
	I'm curious to watch the closing arguments to see what rabbit they try to pull out of a hat now, if that is the instruction given to the jury.
	And to get...
	Look, Reketa had the monopoly on the Rittenhouse trial.
	He didn't have the monopoly.
	It was a concerted group effort to...
	Reketa started it, he ran with it, and he did a great job covering it nine hours a day.
	Joe Nierman.
	And Nate, the lawyer, Nate Brody, are covering the Rittenhouse.
	Robert, you and I are going to be popping in on his...
	We're covering Arbery.
	What did I say?
	Rittenhouse.
	I meant Arbery.
	We are going to be popping in on Nate's live stream tomorrow.
	He's starting live, covering it all day.
	And tomorrow's going to be the D-Day of the Ahmaud Arbery trial.
	And I want to say...
	I want to define it by the accused and not by the alleged victim until the court says he is an actual victim.
	The McMichaels were the accused as was Rittenhouse.
	So that's why I call it the McMichaels trial.
	So we're going to be popping in and out on Nate Brody's stream tomorrow.
	So, Robert, I'll see you there.
	We'll see what happens.
	But it is fascinating because that was my issue from the beginning is even if you had suspected he was the guy burglarizing the neighborhood at large.
	I had no legal basis for my...
	That was my instinct.
	Even if you suspected him of being the burglar at large, the day of, he quite clearly might have conceivably been burglarizing because you don't actually have to steal to burglarize, but you had all the time in the world, video, photographs, chase him down the street with a camera, not a gun, take your pictures, give it to the cops, everyone lives to fight another day.
	As opposed to somebody dying then and two people going to jail for a very long time.
	Because it's going to be felony murder, if it is the case, both for Trevor and his father, arguably not the camera guy, but it's going to be felony murder.
	That is what felony murder means, right?
	Yeah, yeah.
	Now, on the why they had a gun, there was testimony induced at trial that the police had advised them that they thought Arbery was armed.
	And so the fact they carried the gun with him, the question will be, did they actually arrest him?
	Because I think they left that kind of vague in their opening statements.
	I'm assuming they're going to argue in closing, if they're stuck with this instruction, that they didn't actually arrest him.
	That they wanted to talk to him, but they didn't physically detain him.
	And then he just attacked them.
	And I think that's going to be the story now.
	But they're going to have to have picked a very favorable jury to get acquittals out of that fact pattern.
	I didn't like anything about that case from the beginning, and I recognized that I had opinions that it would take some radical facts to change my opinion.
	In Rittenhouse, I had my initial opinion, but I didn't know how bad it actually was.
	But this, you know, no.
	They chased a guy down the street.
	They suspected him of burglary.
	Three individuals, two pickup trucks, two firearms, and because they cornered this guy after Arguably nudging him with a vehicle.
	He grabs the gun and then everyone's going to say, well, that's exactly like Huber grabbing Rittenhouse's gun.
	I didn't see it that way.
	I knew I would never see it that way.
	And there was no good for me to try to pretend otherwise until radically outrageous facts came and changed my opinion, which didn't happen.
	So I know when I'm stubborn and I know when I'm not.
	Okay, so that's fine.
	What else, Robert?
	Do you know what's going on with Jelaine Maxwell?
	Because everyone's asking.
	I don't know.
	I haven't been following it.
	The jury selection has started, and trials should fully start this week.
	But it will not be videotaped because federal courts do not allow any video broadcasting of trials.
	But her case starts this week.
	Long litany of alleged co-conspirators, potentially.
	My understanding has been filed in the court proceedings.
	Notably, you're not seeing the media want to cover that case at all.
	Well, we're going to get there.
	I am a Georgia police officer, and the judge's ruling is correct.
	I have received training on citizen arrest from prosecuting attorney counsel, citizen arrest for felony at time of crime.
	Kenneth Waits...
	And by the way, I know names...
	I can see why that would be the case.
	It's interesting.
	I mean, I can see the argument on the other side, too.
	The argument is change the nature of the crime to something you really dislike.
	And the person keeps getting away.
	Let's say pedophiles in the neighborhood and they've been accused of it credibly before.
	And they're running through the neighborhood.
	They get caught.
	Do you sit there and do nothing knowing they're going to get away again?
	I mean, it's a...
	But as I like to tell people, I remind people that, you know, if any harm ever came to my daughter, I was like, you know, people think you should be afraid of prison.
	There's some crimes worth paying for.
	No comment from my side, but all I'm saying is even that extreme example, Robert, hypothetically, the biggest P word of the day, and you see him running from a playground, but no actual...
	Evidence of a crime that he's fleeing from that day, it would change me morally, but not legally.
	And I think maybe I'm being stubborn, and I'm just not changing my initial perspective of this Michael case.
	I know what I felt from the beginning.
	LeBron James is a bad man and makes lies.
	Fine.
	Even if he were burglarizing the neighborhood in the past, casing a joint in the present, and then hauling ass...
	Everyone could be better off today if they just had called the cops, tailed them, gotten every information they needed from him, and then let the authorities do or not do their job.
	That will probably be the defense.
	They're going to say that they got out of the car just to try to talk to him, not to detain him.
	That will probably be the defense's argument if this is what they're stuck with on instructions.
	I would predict in that case convictions outside of a very rare jury.
	No, I know.
	If that's their best defense and I'm like, okay, I just want to talk.
	It's like the scene from Harold and Kumar escape from Guantanamo Bay.
	The cops are chasing them with batons like, we just want to talk.
	Dudes get out of a pickup truck with shotguns and say, we just want to talk.
	Hey, it's Georgia.
	I'll tell you one thing.
	I'm not grabbing the shotguns, but I'm running like hell.
	So maybe I'll get shot in the back in a real sense, not in a Rosenbaum sense.
	I'm not grabbing a shotgun.
	I'm running like a bat out of hell.
	Maybe.
	Call me a coward, but whatever.
	Okay, fine.
	That's the McMichaels.
	Jelaine Maxwell.
	So here's the deal.
	A lot of people are saying Rittenhouse broadcast far and wide, mainstream media, yada, yada, yada.
	Jelaine Maxwell not being broadcast.
	They're trying to hide it.
	There are procedural reasons.
	Accept them or disregard them, but there are procedural jurisdictional reasons.
	State courts will broadcast trials in real time.
	Federal courts will not.
	This is federal charges.
	So if you think there's political reasons for why it's not being publicized or broadcast, maybe not.
	But political reasons for why it's not being broadcast, as in reported on, arguably.
	So what has been the coverage on the Jelaine Maxwell case?
	It has not been serious.
	Hasn't been much at all.
	I'm sure the media will shift to the Arbery trial.
	Probably part of them would love to have not guilty verdicts, but it looks like guilty verdicts are coming.
	And so they'll celebrate that and still not cover the Maxwell trial.
	So we'll see if they ever get around to covering it in detail.
	So even if it's not broadcast, though, and I bring up the discussion in the chat, by the way, I don't believe Waits is a cop and he's giving a link and I don't know.
	What that link is.
	Even if it's not being broadcast live like Rittenhouse.
	Reporters are allowed in the room so they can report in real time.
	This is where you get the drawings.
	You get the drawings of everybody.
	There's a courtroom artist that sends out drawings.
	There's drawings of me back from the Snipes trial.
	The drawer really liked me, so my drawings were some of the best drawings, which were great.
	You know what?
	That might be the next art of the day on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Oh, I don't have access to it.
	Another lawyer bought them all because he wanted them all for himself so that I never saw them.
	I've seen copies of them somewhere, but that's it.
	Here we go.
	And I didn't even...
	That's me.
	That's me.
	That's funny.
	Jesus.
	I was like, dude, Mark, you look just like me.
	That is me.
	Those are my picks.
	Mark, beautiful avatar, sir.
	I did, oh my goodness, one day there will be 15,000 Viva avatars in the chat.
	I didn't even know her trial was happening and I consume hours of news each day.
	But I knew it was happening.
	I didn't, I mean, I knew it was sort of like non-eventful, I say non-eventful jury selection.
	The trial itself on the merits and the evidence hasn't started.
	When does it start, Robert?
	Does it start Monday or does it start after?
	Whenever they're done with jury selection.
	How long do they have?
	They don't have two hours like Rittenhouse?
	I think this judge recognized issues and so is allowing more time for jury selection, which is proper, obviously.
	In federal or state court, federal courts hate to give jury selection, but if there's pretrial publicity, they have to do detailed void ear about that.
	They also have to do detailed void ear if racial prejudice is an issue.
	That's why, you know, in the cases I've had, they accused me of creating pretrial publicity about racial prejudice so I could get jury selection about both.
	But that just happened to come about.
	But, Robert, I mean, we've discussed Jelaine Maxwell in the past.
	We've discussed her father history.
	If you want to talk about various suspicious connections, I mean, I remember I was at my mother-in-law's place when it happened.
	I was in her veranda or sunroom, whatever.
	And we talked about it.
	It was mind-blowing.
	What is Jelaine Maxwell being charged with, and what might this trial risk exposing from a political connection perspective for the layperson?
	Oh, a lot.
	It'll also be very interesting if the prosecutors manage to hide a lot.
	See if they just stick to some limited set of facts and keep the broader story out.
	That's my prediction.
	There would be media coverage if the Southern District of New York wanted media coverage.
	I think the Southern District of New York doesn't want media coverage.
	They want to bury this story by prosecuting her and nobody else and by keeping a narrow focus on the evidence.
	So if I'm right, watch for that to be the case.
	Are you going to be following this in any in-depth person on the inside perspective?
	Only if it gets interesting.
	Okay, interesting.
	And now I would presume Jack Posobiec has his people on the inside who are also going to be following this closely.
	So we'll get, if there's meaningful developments, we'll get it.
	I'm going to follow it.
	And Mike Cernovich was the guy that had a lot of connections on this, so he may be covering it in detail.
	Fantastic.
	99% of the people don't even know the judge warned the DOJ about G. Maxwell having a black eye in April.
	The media blackout is complete.
	Not anymore, because we've just mentioned it here.
	So cut, paste, clip, share, and let's see this.
	How many clones does Viva have?
	Well, let's just see if this becomes a meme.
	Okay, so Jelaine Maxwell, don't expect the same type of coverage because it's just not going to happen.
	So there will be coverage as it goes along, but not Rittenhouse live broadcast, not Ahmaud Arbery or Trevor McMichael's live broadcast.
	And this is the Southern District of New York.
	So as to why I say I don't expect them to do a real deep dive into everything that happened with Maxwell, this is the same district that's busy.
	Trying to spy and steal the attorney-client privilege records of Project Veritas and the journalistic sourced information about that and disclose it to the New York Times, so much so that Project Veritas is having to fight back in both the court of law and court of public opinion in multiple levels, federal court and state court.
	Having to go after the New York Times again for illicit, unlawful access and illicit, unlawful publishing of illicitly seized materials and have to go after the Justice Department to make sure a special master is appointed so they don't get to spy on all of the journalistic, protected, and attorney-client privilege records that they stole in their illicit searches and seizures.
	So now we talked about it.
	I don't even think it was briefly.
	I think it was relatively thoroughly last week.
	For anybody who doesn't know...
	Project Veritas, two former journalists were raided by the FBI DOJ.
	I don't exactly know how that distinction works, but they were raided by the FBI for information relating to, allegedly, the allegedly stolen Ashley Biden diary.
	For anybody who doesn't know, because...
	Oh, go ahead.
	Go ahead.
	Yeah, which purportedly was a journal she was taking at a drug rehab detailing her traumatic incidents of which purportedly included in there was her father's interest in taking showers with her at an inappropriate age.
	It was published somewhere that I forget what it was called, but it was not published.
	Again, it's just alleged, you know.
	But this is Joe Biden.
	A little girl was giving him a karate chop when he kept...
	You know, doing creepy Uncle Joe around her at a White House event.
	And the little kid had to keep blocking him from doing his unusual behavior.
	But the Southern District of New York is too busy trying to prosecute the people who learned about it and being the personal secret police of the corrupt President of the United States than actually doing their job.
	And fully investigating and prosecuting the Ghislaine Maxwell connections.
	Probably not a coincidence.
	Both things are happening simultaneously.
	Well, that's where you can get into connecting dots, which some people might not connect.
	But regardless of that, they seize or they raid two former journalists of Project Veritas because Project Veritas had been approached by anonymous sources who said they found this diary purported to be Ashley Biden's.
	Most people, by the way, at the time did not know that Joe Biden had a daughter named Ashley Biden.
	And if you want to get suspicious, if you want to get, I'll say, black-pilled or red-pilled, you want to get red-pilled, go to Ashley Biden's Wikipedia page and see what is mentioned and what is not mentioned, and you're going to see how the weaponizing of public information web sources have been hijacked by political interests.
	Because what they mention and what they don't mention is outrageous.
	I didn't even know that Joe Biden had a daughter who is in rehab.
	Who has issues, much like another one of his children who has issues, who's been in rehab.
	So you can draw your conclusions as to how that happens, the likelihood of two of three children.
	I don't know about Beau Biden, but two of three children at the very least having serious life issues from their upbringing.
	And I'm not saying this to point a finger whatsoever.
	It's just these are the facts.
	I mean, you knew more about Hunter Biden's sister-in-law than his sister, because Hunter's way of helping a grieving widow of his brother was, hey, let's go.
	Well, I'll tell you, Robert, in some religious law, it is a brother's moral obligation to marry his widowed in-law.
	I'm sure that's why he did it.
	I'm sure he was deeply concerned about that.
	So Ashley Biden has a diary.
	Allegedly, you know, potentially a diary kept while she's in rehab.
	Allegedly, accidentally leaves it somewhere.
	Could have been deliberate.
	Could have been stolen.
	Who knows?
	Project Veritas does not publish it.
	They cannot verify it.
	They then return it to the lawyer for the anonymous tipsters.
	Well, they ask to, but the lawyer refuses to take it.
	Lawyer refuses.
	Then they return it to the Department of Justice or whomever authorities.
	The legal authorities, which lands them in more trouble, they then say, this diary was purported to have been stolen.
	We're going to come after you.
	We're going to...
	Raid your two journalists places.
	About a week later, they raid James O 'Keefe.
	And James O 'Keefe then petitions the court to halt the extraction of the data from the cell phones and whatever other sources that they seized from James O 'Keefe pre-dawn raid from his place, a la Roger Stone.
	And I don't know that there's been developments in terms of the state's response, but it was halted.
	The extraction of data.
	Some people hypothesize this has nothing to do with Ashley Biden's diary, but only to do with current sources that are helping Project Veritas deal with current issues relating to the My Sharona Cyrus and the Fauci juice compulsion stuff.
	So that's where it goes.
	But did anything happen last week in terms of the state response that we know of?
	So two things.
	So in federal court...
	They came in, asked for a special master, and a federal judge stopped them from looking at anything without a special master.
	And what that is, is when they seize materials that frankly never should have been seized in the first place, but the way federal courts resolve this is rather than returning all of it, demanding it all be returned and they not look at it, which in my view is the appropriate remedy, instead they appoint a special master, another lawyer, to intervene, review everything, and see what they should be allowed to look at and whatnot.
	Because there may be journalistic privileges and attorney-client privilege information that governs it.
	My view is they shouldn't have been allowed to seize it in the first place.
	But the way federal courts resolve it is to stick an intermediary in the process and filter through the materials and return back to Project Veritas what should not have been seized.
	If I may stop you there, special master is a lawyer, not a judge, who comes from another firm, independently appointed or court appointed only?
	Appointed by the court, typically.
	But sometimes you can argue about that as a litigant.
	Now, what's amazing is the Justice Department came in and said they didn't even like that.
	They don't want any special master.
	They want to seize everything and be able to look at everything.
	Patently illicit search that they want to get away with, get rewarded for.
	So far, they have lost those arguments, but they're ongoing.
	Now, in state court, very intelligently, credit to Harmeet Dillon and Ron Coleman and others that are associated with Project Veritas as legal counsel, they sued in state court to stop the New York Times.
	From illicitly publishing information that had clearly been illicitly leaked, that had originally been illicitly seized and searched by the Department of Justice and the FBI in the Southern District of New York.
	So that was smart to sue in state court to say the New York Times should be stopped from publishing information they unlawfully obtained that's constitutionally protected and statutorily protected and common law privileged.
	And the New York state court agreed.
	And apparently went up on the New York appeals already and that court agreed.
	So they stopped the New York Times from continually getting access to this unlawfully seized information that they unlawfully have and continuing to publish it to the detriment of the constitutional and common law privileges of Project Veritas.
	So that was a great win and smart to sue in state court rather than go to the same federal court that might not be as attentive in this concern to get that remedy.
	And they could do so because the New York Times was doing it on their own accord.
	And that's the state court and independent authority and jurisdiction to limit them.
	Smart tactical strategy, smart legal strategy, and worked ultimately to the success of James O 'Keefe and Project Veritas.
	This is one of the stories that's going to require the big, bright, shining light of alternative media to talk about because CNN is never going to talk about this.
	And neither will Fox News.
	I'll be fair in my critique of both.
	I just want to bring this up here, by the way.
	Just Because says...
	Hold on.
	There's a Viva Army.
	If we have an army, Robert, or if there is a Viva army, it's going to be the most polite army on earth.
	And I think I just saw, I think I see a shirt right there, but if there is in fact a Viva army, it's new to me, I would like them to be polite, respectful, and above all else, remorselessly honest, even with themselves.
	So, Viva army, be polite, eh?
	Yeah, we're a nice army, eh?
	We don't like to get people in trouble for nothing.
	But if they deserve it, pay attention to you.
	Dude, Robert, now you're in here, Robert.
	Okay, this is great.
	I think we've established a meme.
	By the way, don't get in trouble with YouTube.
	Impersonating accounts can get you banned.
	But I'm not going to report it because that's funny.
	Ninkum poops beware.
	Where was this?
	So, um...
	That's not what I meant to bring up, but I'm glad I saw it.
	So...
	PV, the response to the government, has there been a determination on whether or not a special master is going to be appointed, or is that still floating?
	So far, yes, but it isn't finally determined.
	But so far, Project Veritas' fighting back in the federal court has been successful.
	So far, their fighting back in state court against the New York Times has been successful.
	Fighting back in the court of public opinion has been successful.
	It's pretty rare you get that kind of trifecta where you beat the Southern District of New York.
	The New York Times and Biased Media all in one week.
	But they did, and that's credit to James O 'Keefe and Project Veritas for fighting back.
	And we're going to keep covering it, and I would love to have James O 'Keefe back on sooner than later to discuss this, but Robert...
	Now I see what's going on here, Robert.
	We have started a new meme.
	It's called Impersonation Galore.
	James Collier.
	Well, that picture is now behind...
	Okay, I think we started something bad here, actually, but let's move on to...
	Canadian.
	You want the Viva Army to be Canadian.
	We can do that.
	Maybe not, but whatever.
	Okay, so I think we've...
	Where's my phone?
	I don't know where my phone is.
	It's right here.
	What have we not talked about yet this week that we need?
	Only other big one is vaccine mandates.
	Please go on, because I'm out of it, Robert, and so let people know what's going on.
	So yeah, I mean, there's still a bunch of suits pending.
	There's some courts that denied injunctive relief on the grounds that...
	You can recover financially.
	There's some other courts that are turning a blind eye to it, so those are just going up to the appeals process.
	The OSHA mandate case, because there are multiple mandate challenges in multiple appeals courts, and it's unique, you can go directly to an appeals court in that context, they do a lottery assignment.
	They assign it to the Sixth Circuit.
	Which is one of the better circuits for those of us critical of the mandate.
	So the Fifth Circuit stay stays in place while the Sixth Circuit evaluates it.
	I think the Sixth Circuit will affirm it.
	Then next week, I will be filing suit to challenge the emergency use authorization.
	And the grounds will be on behalf of Children's Health Defense with Bobby Kennedy.
	And what's happening is the FDA and the CDC, which, by the way, in a FOIA case this week.
	Said that they could not release the information they have about the COVID-19 vaccine and the information that Pfizer and others gave to them for 55 years.
	Explain to anybody who has a reasonably open mind how that makes sense.
	Their only pretext is that there's some trade secrets and some other stuff in there, which is nonsense.
	99% of what's being sought has nothing to do with that.
	They're just trying to hide incriminating information.
	I believe what would be included in that is the fact that my client, the whistleblower who disclosed that Pfizer's clinical trials were utterly unreliable and utterly untrustworthy, including fraudulent data submissions and the cover-up of unscientific clinical testing data.
	And the way they went about it and the way they approached it, that what happened internally at the FDA is probably in those FOIA files they don't want disclosed to.
	And Lord knows what else.
	Maybe there are a lot more whistleblowers they don't want the world to know about.
	Whatever it is, there's apparently a lot of damaging, damning information in the FDA's own files concerning the COVID-19 vaccine that they are trying to hide from the world for more than half a century, which must be particularly damaging and especially damning.
	In that context, the FDA approved an emergency use authorization for COVID-19 vaccinations of children as young as five years old.
	What's happening is they are misusing and abusing the emergency use authorization statute.
	So the emergency use authorization statute was meant to be used in a national security instance of a biological weapon being released for a short period of time that had informed consent written into the statute.
	They've completely gutted the meaning of informed consent.
	Why is the FDA using that statute?
	Because their interpretation of the emergency use authorization statute that they disclosed in my other suit in the Eastern District of Tennessee against the biologic license and bait-and-switch they did on Cominati is that the emergency use authorized statute allows them to authorize drugs for distribution and marketing in the United States without finding the drug is either safe or effective.
	Without any citizen petition process being allowed to take place, without any notice and comment being afforded for people who may have dissident information or different information, without there being any legislative involvement in the process, without any elected official having any involvement in the process, and without any judicial review or the right for any citizen to sue.
	So they basically are using that statute to say they can do whatever they want, whenever they want, as long as they call it emergency.
	If they stick the emergency language on it, all of a sudden, all the rules for safety and efficacy and civil liberties are gone.
	So we're going to sue in the Western District of Texas next week on the grounds that that itself...
	That their misuse and misappropriation of the emergency use powers is itself illegal under the APA and the Constitution and other applicable and analogous federal statutes because there is no emergency for five-year-olds from what's taking place.
	And so we're going to challenge it at multiple levels.
	Also looking at filing suit on behalf of the Unity Project, a new project to challenge mandates that's going to look at suing Sanjay Gupta and CNN.
	For their illicit marketing using Sesame Street and Big Bird to illicitly market this to young children in violation of the law and medical ethics.
	And last but not least, looking at bringing a defamation libel suit for my whistleblower client because Pfizer's affiliates and associates, the company doing the clinical testing out of Texas, went out and completely lied.
	So the British Medical Journal independently investigated, independently validated.
	Independently verified all of my client whistleblower's evidence about the inappropriate nature and unscientific nature and fraudulent nature of Pfizer's clinical studies about the vaccine.
	So what does their clinical subcontractor, clinical testing subcontractor do?
	They go out and lie to the world.
	And the British Medical Journal, by the way, is one of the most well-respected medical publications in the entire globe.
	They go out and tell the world that my client's making it up and has never worked for them.
	We have the pay stuff.
	We have the documents.
	We have the contracts.
	We have the emails.
	We have the statements, these nitwits.
	So I sent them a letter last week, because in Texas you give them 10 days notice before you sue, that we're going to, unless they retract and correct immediately, that we will be suing them.
	And I'll be suing the publicist individual.
	Any individual who repeats these lies is going to get sued, not just whoever they work for.
	So we're going to be filing a libel suit in the Western District of Texas to put an end to that nonsense, because it's...
	Obvious that the lie they told.
	And they should just start getting ready to issue apologies and write checks.
	So that's what's coming next.
	So the battles keep going.
	Filed an amended complaint against Tyson Foods because they admitted they're a federal officer.
	Federal court said, yeah, they are for the purpose of a vaccine mandate.
	So I sued him under the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the United States Constitution, the right to bodily autonomy, the right to privacy, the right to religious expression, the right to political expression, and sued under the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, in addition to the new Tennessee law that bans vaccine mandates.
	So and we'll be replicating that suit in multiple states and federal courts across the country.
	So that's the latest update.
	Lawrence is on fire.
	You are on fire.
	The it's very, very upsetting.
	So there's no else.
	I'm just going to bring this up to change up the language.
	La viva armée.
	Nous sommes polis et agréables.
	Viva army.
	We are polite and agreeable.
	Hey, Robert.
	Okay, fine.
	We're going to follow up on that.
	Robert Kennedy will be on one of these days.
	We had to...
	When you do these things, things come up and so you have to...
	Postpone, cancel.
	Yeah, Bobby Kennedy's been.
	His book is now out.
	I highly recommend it.
	Very great detail that will tell you.
	Very well cited.
	Very well researched from Robert Kennedy.
	He will be on probably the show in December.
	He's been part of these global protests.
	There were protests all around the world this past week and past weekend.
	He was in Italy and elsewhere and is still leading the effort.
	The Unity Project, people can look up.
	Some of the best scientists, some of the best doctors, some of the best lawyers, some of the best public advocates are creating a coalition of organizations to put everybody together to fight the vaccine mandates, and I will be working with them as well.
	So it's good to see a lot of people fighting in the court of public opinion, fighting ultimately in the court of law.
	And a bunch of new laws passed.
	I think it passed in Florida.
	Some other states are looking at it.
	A bunch of states are passing laws.
	So that these mandates can never happen again and to try to put an end to these mandates right now.
	So it's great.
	So a lot of white pill moments this week on top of the acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse.
	But we've won some white pill moments, but it's got to be a black pill moment.
	We cannot forget it because it's...
	I don't even like the guy.
	I don't know what I know of him.
	I just know what I think I don't know from the media.
	Jake Chansley, the QAnon shaman, Jake Angeli.
	Robert, sentenced to 41 months in prison.
	This was the guy...
	I don't have my...
	I had a rubber spear, literally, because my kid had one for Halloween.
	I was like, oh, this is a weapon, according to law enforcement.
	Jake and Jelly, QAnon shaman, Jake Chansley, the guy who was dressed up like a wolf, howling at the ceiling, came into the Capitol Hill, was the face of the January 6th riot.
	I'm not calling it an insurrection.
	Sorry, I moved my mic away.
	Was sentenced.
	Sentenced after a plea deal in which he groveled and threw himself like Winston from 1984, threw himself at the mercy of the court, said, everything I did was wrong.
	I'm so ashamed.
	How could I have done it?
	This is all my fault.
	I only wish I knew now what I knew then.
	I only wish I knew then what I knew now.
	Have mercy.
	And the judge who says, this is the greatest thing I've ever heard in my 34 years on the bench.
	It's something Martin Luther King himself would have said, but I can't show you any mercy, 41 months in prison, including time served, so whatever that's worth.
	First question, time served, is it time and a half, is it two times, or is it just not even?
	Is it just time served?
	In federal court, you get, you usually, in federal bureau prisons, you usually serve 85% of your sentence.
	So that means he'll serve about three years in a federal prison.
	So that means multiple...
	So whatever he's served...
	Now he'll get a credit, a day-for-day credit.
	So let's say he's served six months.
	That means he's got another two and a half years.
	A day-for-day credit.
	It's not like he gets time and a half.
	If he served six months, he gets credit for nine months.
	Not on the federal side.
	It's unlike the state side.
	He will do more time than many rapists in America do.
	And I want people to appreciate that.
	I mean, I did a video.
	The funny thing is, like, in the heat of the Rittenhouse injustice, this one is not so cool.
	It's not so clear-cut because the dude broke into the Capitol, was dressed like a wolf, howling, had a spear, sat in the dais of the Capitol Hill, and did nothing violent even by the indictment by the Department of Justice.
	Even by their own...
	We will be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt this is what he did.
	There was not one act of violence alleged against him.
	It alleged that other people confronted officers, broke windows.
	He just came in through a window.
	Some officer, KC, who was unnamed, said stop it.
	He continued moving, went to another staircase.
	No violence, no nothing, no overt threats.
	He called Mike Pence a piece of SHIT.
	Traitors, comments, New World Order, yada, yada, yada.
	No acts of violence.
	And he's going to go to jail for four years.
	Sorry, I meant to take this one down a while ago.
	Tell me why it's not shocking, because I don't want to think I'm biased.
	Why is it not shocking like I think it's shocking?
	Or is it just fucking shocking?
	I mean, it's political.
	And so everything about this case and these related cases have been an extreme punitive overreaction to what is traditionally and historically Been treated as not even criminal in the District of Columbia.
	So it's to support a political narrative.
	And this judge wanted to support that political narrative more than she cared about doing justice.
	And that's the outcome we got.
	And I'm going to pull this one up.
	Not because I want to condone Mike Pence being a POS.
	Let me just see where it is.
	If you ever get an avatar from me and it's an actual avatar and it says invest in crypto.
	It's not me, so don't buy into it.
	I can't find the chat that I just brought up.
	Well, here it is.
	Here it is.
	Mike Pence is a POS.
	This is not me, people.
	And if you ever get a message asking for investment or saying to invest, if you ever get a direct message unsolicited from me, it's probably not me because I don't go out and solicit messages from subs.
	But yeah.
	It's just a shocking outrage.
	This is where you try not to get blackpilled on the institutions of law enforcement.
	When that judge said, oh, so can we talk about Jake Chancey's lawyer?
	I don't know who that lawyer is.
	Robert, we'll get to that in a second.
	But when the judge says, so beautiful.
	Thank you for your moment of honesty.
	And now I'm going to hold your honesty against you.
	That is when you realize the judge did not want the admission for the purposes of clemency.
	He wanted it for the purposes of vengeance.
	And it's exactly like Stewie in Family Guy.
	Here, I'll trade you that ball for the baseball bat.
	Bash you on the head.
	Give me the ball.
	What did you learn?
	That's exactly what this was.
	This is, what did you learn, Jacob Chansley?
	And the question is, what did he learn?
	And what are other people going to learn?
	Are they going to be now more amenable to negotiated settlements?
	Or are they going to take their chances on trial?
	I couldn't get over it.
	I couldn't get over it.
	The dude has no criminal history, by the way.
	Unless I'm mistaken, correct me in the chat, I'm fairly certain.
	He has no criminal record.
	He might be...
	The QAnon shaman.
	You might disagree with his politics.
	You might think he's a nutcase.
	Conspiracy theorist.
	Internet grifter.
	Okay, fine.
	The dude's lived a life without running into problems with the law, and now he's going to jail for two and a half to three years for not even breaking a window, but being on the premises and saying Mike Pence is a traitor.
	So, sorry.
	Robert, have you heard anything about his lawyer?
	I don't know who his lawyer is.
	No.
	Okay.
	Oh, so hold on.
	Sorry.
	Let me get some super chats that I took pictures of.
	Oh, so hold on.
	I wanted to get one from Rumble Rants.
	It's not a Rumble Rant.
	It's just quite a creative thing.
	It's a guy named Salty Nacho.
	I presume a guy.
	I don't know.
	Salty Nacho.
	And it says, everything woke turns to whatever.
	It was just a creative way of doing this.
	So we have no Rumble Rants to read.
	I'm just going to go read some super chats.
	They were legit questions, and I want to make sure we get to them.
	David Woodmouse says it would be smart for BLM to see the light about the misconduct by the prosecutors in this case and use it as a red pill.
	And I agree with this.
	If this is what happens to the most highly publicized case of an ostensibly white kid, although arguably mixed race, but maybe not.
	If this is what goes on with prosecutors of a white kid with white privilege, BLM should be turning to say this happens every day of the week.
	At low-level courts, you never hear about it, and people are in jail for years because of it.
	I agree with that.
	Will there be any bar issues for them?
	We already got to that.
	Tanner Bartkowitz says, is Kyle at risk of a civil lawsuit?
	For example, Huber family bringing in a case against him.
	I hope they don't.
	I think it would be ill-advised.
	But, you know, that doesn't stop them.
	There is risk that he is sued by somebody.
	All right.
	We got TheRealBambuga says, question for Robert.
	TheRealBambuga, who always has inappropriate super chats, 174,000 of them, says, question for Robert.
	What about defamation case against the YouTuber who keeps saying that Kyle was guilty of assaulting a girl in some situation involving his sister?
	I don't even want to talk about that video.
	I'm glad they didn't have a debate over its admissibility during the trial.
	Other people alleging wrongful conduct of Kyle prior to this.
	Any chance for defamation or no?
	I mean, if it's factually false, yes, but the damages limitation would still be present because of the intervening effect of the criminal indictment.
	Very tough for falsely accused people to ever get their reputation back or remedies for their damaged reputation, even when acquitted.
	It's a flaw in our system.
	My thought is, do you even want to have a defamation argument over evidence that was not admitted during this criminal trial?
	It might sway public opinion if there were any doubt to begin with.
	Double-edged sword.
	What are your thoughts on the Democratic senator?
	Congressman saying he's going to have DOJ investigate Kyle acquittal.
	Double jeopardy.
	This is from Rebecca Ann.
	I think we fielded that one.
	Okay, so Ebrin Anakova, I think, is the Russian rubles.
	2,000 rubles.
	Can prosecution be stupid enough to try the appeal, the verdict based on a jury taking instructions home?
	Question one.
	Two, what was dismissed with prejudice?
	I think we got that at the end of the trial.
	So we got to that.
	Okay, so no appeal and no nothing.
	How can we support Kyle now?
	Good question.
	The problem is, my understanding is David Hancock controls everything.
	So the reality is, until David Hancock is out, there's no place I could recommend to support him, other than supporting him in the court of public opinion.
	All right, and now someone says, when Trump takes back office, not if, but when, optimistic and realistic, how quickly can he gut the DOJ and the FBI of these criminals?
	Hires the right people, you could really reform things pretty well, but it would require hiring the right people committed to doing so.
	And I don't want to draw any analogies to JFK, but was that not one of the things JFK said he was going to do?
	Dismantle the FBI, the CIA, fragment them into shards of wood to blow away with the wind?
	The CIA in particular, yeah.
	And the Dulles brothers, he wanted to move out of power.
	Okay, so when you fight corruption...
	Corruption fights back.
	I forget who said that.
	It's a great line.
	Even on a panel of great lawyers, as we saw this past week, Robert Shines, thank you both for all the recent hard work.
	Thank you very much for the support.
	I want people to appreciate that.
	Robert, I know you.
	You're not salty.
	You have no ego in this, despite what people think is ego.
	People mistake ego for confidence.
	And you know what you know, and you know what you don't know.
	And by and large, when you know what you know, God damn, you're right.
	Yeah, you've been right on things that people didn't even know that you were going to be right about until you became right about them.
	Andrew McCarthy in the National Review guys stated that the stated to the effect that the judge was fair for giving a minimum sentence and that some on the right are hyperventilating about this.
	What say you, Robert?
	Which trial is this?
	I mean, I assume they're referencing QAnon shaman, but that shaman, but the...
	It was ridiculous that he was looking at that to begin with.
	And the court was not obligated to any of that.
	So there is no mandatory guidelines anymore.
	So calling it the low end is misrepresenting the situation, which Andrew McCarthy has repeatedly done in these contexts.
	And the judge said, your admissions, QAnon Shaman, highlight the awfulness of what you did.
	You would think that he...
	He did something violent to an individual and then defaced their body based on what the judge...
	You took responsibility, but your taking responsibility highlights the awfulness of what you did.
	Look, I will not say it out loud, but as a child, I may have done things that might be objectively worse than what QAnon shaman got in trouble for, but for the grace of God, I might have been on a different path of life.
	Dude broke into the Capitol Hill, committed no violence, assaulted nobody.
	I don't even think he stole anything.
	But three years in jail.
	It's an outrage.
	There's nothing about it.
	I don't like the guy.
	I don't like his politics, from what I understand about them.
	Doesn't mean I'm going to tolerate injustice against someone just because I don't like their politics.
	But that seems to be what the DOJ and the Washington, D.C. courts are about.
	Okay, let me see.
	I mean, no, I just hate injustice.
	I mean, I agree.
	I think we got to everything.
	If I didn't get to it, people.
	I didn't get to it.
	Robert, do you have a few minutes?
	Do you want to stick around?
	Can I go through some more Super Chat?
	Oh, sure.
	Okay, let me see what I can get on my phone.
	People, put them in.
	You don't need to put Super Chats in.
	Put some questions in if I didn't get to them.
	CKHawk00 says, the second says the right to have and bear arms, not have and bear arms in the state you live in.
	So how does the state justify denying a federal protected right?
	By denying you to take arms over state lines, can we challenge this?
	What was the strategic, other than propagandist purposes, to say he traveled straight lines as if to suggest he was guilty of what the majority of the protesters were actually doing?
	What was the crossing state lines argument from a legal perspective from day one?
	It had no legal consequence.
	It was purely PR.
	Okay.
	The crossing state lines...
	There was one person mentioned some law in particular, which I didn't understand in terms of crossing state lines, but the way they were framing it, they were framing it as in he crossed state lines to go wreak havoc, havoc in another state, when that is exactly what, by and large, a lot of the protesters were doing, is that they were busting from other states.
	So it's just another question of the MSM accusing Rittenhouse of doing that exactly of what they were doing themselves by busting in protesters into Kenosha, who have no business being there.
	To wreak havoc.
	And that's it.
	Squid Monkey says, I don't know if we got to this, but this was from a while back.
	Retry.
	Angry folks.
	They did not follow the trial.
	Therefore, plausible deniability.
	They don't need to be factual.
	They need to be fractional.
	I love that.
	I might steal that, Squid Monkey.
	And for them, that's the win.
	This was about self-defense and gun rights.
	For U.S., that support, that is a win.
	Okay, good.
	Thank you very much.
	Oh, this is from Johnny G2.
	Mr. Viva and Mr. Barnes, can I get a book recommendation from both of you?
	So yeah, the book behind me here is called Reptile.
	It's after the reptile brain and how that reptile part of our brain and how that influences judgments written by some very good plaintiffs, lawyers, and advocates on the plaintiff's side.
	But it's universally valuable information to understand what persuades people.
	And behind me here, you can't quite see it.
	It's ladies and gentlemen.
	Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, some of the great closing arguments in American legal history.
	And it's really, really quite good.
	And it's a good resource material to have.
	So I would recommend both of those.
	Okay.
	And now with that said, Robert, let me just take this one down.
	So I don't know.
	Obama.
	Okay.
	Obama army bus people.
	Okay.
	No comment.
	I don't know for that for sure.
	Robert, everybody watching us who's new to the YouTube channel.
	So we're here.
	I'm on Rumble, Viva Fry, exact same content.
	There's nothing exclusive on Rumble.
	I just post things here that are here.
	vivabarneslaw.locals.com Robert, explain to the world what they get, what the schedule is, because I get confused on the schedule of what you have for Bourbon with Barnes.
	Explain to people what is available on vivabarneslaw.locals.com Sure.
	So that's where we put up.
	If anybody wants examples of information in terms of objecting to vaccine mandates, there are exemplars of what letters have worked for other people that are pinned at the top of the board.
	In addition to that, there is a great community of people who provide great information and great conversation.
	And we provide certain exclusive content, which includes some videos, includes certain posts, includes if there's useful legal briefs or complaints or court decisions, put that PDF.
	available.
	I highlight it that I think is pertinent.
	You get access to that.
	That's all provided as part of it.
	If you need that information, you need that intel, or you just want it for the purpose of influencing the court of public opinion.
	I'll have a hush-hush this week.
	On some fun topics, and that's just looking at alternative narratives to the institutional narrative.
	And there's a long library there.
	You can go to the content list and look up all the ones that I've already shown.
	You could see the very first one, which was about whether January 6th was what it was cracked up to be and how predictive that turned out.
	Ahead of the curve, Robert.
	And I want to just say to everybody out there, we have the Locals community.
	You don't have to be a paying member to get a lot of the access to some stuff.
	There is stuff that's exclusive to paying members, and it's not a question of being grifters or money-hungry.
	It's just a question of giving perks to the people who actually support the channel.
	Nothing wrong with either of those things, but you have to offer perks.
	Otherwise, people are going to say, well, we support you and we don't get anything unique.
	YouTube members, I give sneak peeks to the vlogs, occasional sneak peek posts.
	But Abdi said he had a question that I did not see.
	So if Abdi can get that question in before we wind up.
	And then...
	And then during the week, depending, Tuesdays, Thursdays, Fridays, Saturdays, depending on what's going on, I do what's called Live Bourbon with Barnes, where we do live chats, live streams, answer questions live, mostly it's all answering questions of people, and try to provide as much insight and information as we can as a kind of a public education channel, because self-education is the first step to self-empowerment.
	And thanks to everybody out there, because everybody participating in the court of public opinion, I believe, made a very big difference in the outcome in Kyle Rittenhouse's case and made sure an innocent kid was acquitted like he deserved to be.
	And that's what I was going to say.
	Any takeaways both of you have from Kyle's trial?
	My takeaway, actually, the evidence of self-defense was over the top from what I even thought was the self-defense from the beginning.
	I had no idea.
	Kyle Rittenhouse is lucky to be alive.
	Period.
	He's lucky to be acquitted, but he's lucky to be alive.
	Because I did not know exactly how egregious, over-the-top, malicious, intending death it all was.
	And it was black and white, unequivocal.
	And I did not appreciate the criminal histories, the violent criminal histories of the three perpetrators of the attack on Kyle Rittenhouse.
	One was a potato file of the highest order.
	The other one was a domestic abuser, repeat domestic abuser.
	And the other one didn't have felony charges.
	Just had his Glock concealed carry permit revoked, not expired, because of his criminal history.
	I had no idea.
	That was my big takeaway.
	It was over the top.
	Prosecutorial misconduct, over the top.
	Viva, will y 'all have on actual justice warrior Sean Fitzgerald?
	Robert, do you know who that is?
	Yeah, he's been on Tim Pool.
	Yeah, it provides interesting insights.
	And I know I didn't mean to be rude.
	I don't know.
	Blake Masters will be this week.
	Senate candidate in Arizona that I think is really good, good populace, has been a good advocate on Kyle's cases, in Kyle's case as an example, amongst other good arguments that he's made, both on election issues, vaccine mandates, and others.
	We'll have, on top of that, we'll have a range of other guests coming up, including George Gammon, Michael Malice, a range of people just scheduling them as we go forward.
	It'll be a fun holiday time period and then a fun new year when it comes around.
	All right, people.
	Now, with that said, I'm never going to get to all of them.
	Viva Frye is very defensive of internet grifting.
	No, because people mistake him grifting for hard work.
	Raketa is not a grifter.
	He is a damn hard worker, and he works 12 hours a day, and I don't know how he does it.
	He works more than 12 hours a day.
	So people mistake grifting with hard work.
	Grifting is fomenting strife to exploit it and not explaining it.
	So with that said, Robert...
	Yeah, I'm going to miss him.
	I apologize, everybody.
	Wednesday, George Gammon.
	Sorry, not Wednesday, George Gammon.
	Blake Masters.
	We're going to reschedule George Gammon and hopefully we'll be able to do him justice when he comes on as a sidebar.
	We will be on Nate the Lawyer.
	Nate Brody tomorrow at some point throughout the day when Nate is live streaming the Ahmaud Arbery McMichaels trial.
	Shout out to everybody else.
	Nate the Lawyer, Uncivil Law, Legal Bites Alita, Andrew Legal Mindset, Joe Nierman, Good Logic.
	We have a community, and it's a beautiful community.
	And Legal Legal posted something today.
	He said, his next video is going to piss everybody off.
	And I said, only the intellectually dishonest are pissed off by the truth.
	So if your video is the truth, we will welcome it.
	I'm going to watch it with open mind and open arms.
	Even legal, legal.
	One day, Robert, it might happen.
	It'll be the white pill of all white pills.
	But with that said, everybody, thank you for tuning in.
	Robert, stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.
	And we will have Wednesday.
	And if something comes up during the week, we'll do a spontaneous live.
	Robert, you know what?
	Leave us off with something for the week, Robert.
	Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted.
	That's a great day.
	And my book, November 19, 2021, goes down as acquittal day.
	We should celebrate it every year henceforth.
	Beautiful.
	All right, everyone, enjoy the rest of the weekend.
	Enjoy the week.
	We will see each other soon.

▲