Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 5, 2021 - Viva & Barnes

02:32:08

Ep. 90: Maxwell, Potter, Smollett Trials; Michigan Parents Charged; Baldwin; OSHA & More!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	On the nanosecond on time, late, which equals early.
	How's everyone doing, people?
	This is another big week of Lost Stuffs.
	All right, we've got the standard Fs in the chat.
	Thank you.
	Thank you, Scott.
	094 Renaissance, Hollis Wood.
	I love Ortsy.
	All right, audio should be good.
	And yeah, we're on time, people.
	And it's a big night.
	I mean, it's so big.
	People are hypothesizing as to why there might be so much lost stuff going on at one time, but it's impossible to keep up with, because as you try to keep up with something that's going on, new stuff happens.
	And I'm just going to say stuffs in the plural sense all the time.
	As you keep up with the old stuffs, new stuffs come out, such as, if I may just go get my Like a Boss mug here, Alec Baldwin cannot stop talking.
	And it's an amazing thing.
	We are all part of the aggregate knowledge of the internet.
	And when you piece, when you stitch this tapestry of lies together, eventually the truth comes out and the delicate interweaving of the lies becomes unstitched one stitch at a time.
	But I'm getting ahead of myself.
	Standard disclaimers, people.
	YouTube takes 30% to Super Chats.
	If that irks anybody, one can support us also on the Rumbles.
	That is where they have things called Rumble Rants.
	Rumble takes 20%, so it's better for the creator, and it's better for those who want to support a company that supports free speech.
	And I know a lot of people are questioning whether or not, and for how long, will this Rumble continue to respect free speech now that they've gone public, effectively, and they may have...
	obligations to shareholders who may not value free speech as much as they value the worth of their shares in the company.
	So I'm gonna make the announcement here because it is a first and it's it's gonna be known.
	Chris Pawlowski is coming on this Wednesday for a sidebar to discuss the merger, to discuss Rumble, to discuss all things It's very easy to play Monday morning quarterback on a great many issues, one of which is communications.
	And it's always easy to say how something could have been communicated better, how it should have been communicated better, what someone should have said, what someone should have written.
	It's always the people who don't do the drafting that find the typos.
	That's a good one.
	That's a variation of my father's expression.
	Those who don't do the work are the first to find flaws in the work that was done because they've done nothing except for sit around leisurely with the privilege of finding flaws and finding faults in the work that others have done.
	Nothing is ever perfect, and one should never let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
	So whatever rollout problems, PR problems, one might attribute to the Rumble locals merger, to the explanation of going public, fine.
	We will iron those out come Wednesday with a live stream with Chris Pawlowski.
	Chris Pawlowski, CEO of Rumble.
	It'll actually be the second time I'll have done a stream with him.
	We did one a while back.
	Before everything.
	I mean, just to discover Chris and to discover Rumble.
	Before I get into my intro rant, let me just see if I can get the Super Chats that I see there.
	Oh, here's one.
	Here's one.
	Let's just see what this says.
	Ask Barnes for a cigar recommendation.
	Okay, I'll have what he's smoking.
	Remind me.
	I will get to it.
	I see Law of Self-Defense in the house.
	Let me see what this is.
	Oh, my God.
	There's so many.
	even at 15 second slow mode, it's virtually impossible to keep up with the chat here.
	30 seconds late, you are a monster.
	We've got, hey, I'm still catching up on your videos.
	Can you pause this for another couple of hours?
	Thanks.
	I did get a video out today.
	It's not often that I get out a video that I...
	I was so excited to get the video out today about my analysis of the Alec Baldwin situation.
	I couldn't sleep last night, and when I did sleep, I dreamt about It.
	Which is weird.
	Surprise guest.
	Law of self-defense.
	Andrew Bronco was on the stream last Wednesday.
	Amazing guest and amazing stream.
	And amazing seeing what happens when you actually have two respected individuals who diverge on a question of law.
	And where that divergence of opinions on law border with differences of opinions on fact.
	Andrew Bronco was on Wednesday.
	We discussed the Lubbock, Texas shooting.
	And, you know, respected lawyers with big brains can still disagree and everyone can still get along and still continue to respect each other.
	Please discuss Toronto District School Board trustee Alexandra Lalka, who is being targeted for censure for expressing concerns about anti-Semitism.
	I haven't seen it yet, but on that subject, I'm going to bring it into the rant.
	You know what?
	Hold on a second.
	I just want to bring this one up first.
	I think it's great he's coming on, but remember Pool Jack on Rogan.
	Corpos frequently talk the talk.
	Corpos, sorry, but walk the walk is another story.
	Well, I have questions.
	I mean, you can ask someone who you like a hard question, and I remember Dorsey on Rogan.
	And I remember Poole and Dorsey.
	I remember that whole thing.
	I remember exactly where I was in the car listening to it.
	I was driving, for some reason, back from Sherbrooke.
	I think it was during a road trip, which leads me to believe it was in the end of the summer.
	And yeah, I had my problems with that interview because it did seem that no one was really getting in the very, very tough questions and challenging an individual on their statements.
	And I'm not going to be shy.
	Dave Rubin once upon a time said, we're not selling out.
	Of Locals.
	Locals is not selling out to Google.
	And then you have what was described as a buyout, when it was actually more of a merger.
	Then you have Rumble saying, we're not changing, we are a free speech platform.
	Then they go public.
	And then you have the actual real questions of shareholder value and freedom of speech do not necessarily cohabitate, so to speak.
	They're not mutually exclusive, but they're oftentimes not mutually compatible.
	We're going to get there on Wednesday for sure.
	My rant.
	Seth Rogen and Sarah Silverman make me angry that I ever publicly liked any of their movies in the past.
	I just watched 40-Year-Old Virgin last week, and I still find it funny.
	And I found Seth Rogen funny in that movie.
	I don't know.
	I have found.
	I have found.
	That along with what people refer to as wokeism, or I don't like the word, I don't like pigeonholing people, but I have found that along with a certain type of political evolution comes a correlative reduction in one's sense of humor.
	And it comes a correlated increase in one's sense of value in their own ego.
	And watching what has happened to Sarah Silverman and Joe Rogan, it is the exact...
	Inverse as to what is happening to Russell Brand in his political evolution.
	Some take themselves more seriously.
	Some start to think that they are holier than thou, literally.
	And others start to open their eyes and say, holy crap, you know, I am a little bit humbled in the face of the world, that being Russell Brand.
	And he hasn't lost his sense of humor, although I doubt it's ever going to be quite as edgy as it was in Get Him to the Greek.
	But that thing, Santa Inc.
	That promo video.
	I saw the promo video and I thought it was a dub-over.
	I thought it was an otherwise funny, intended to be funny cartoon.
	And I thought someone dubbed over it.
	You know the way they dub over the under-the-sea cartoon for kids with horrendously inappropriate things?
	SpongeBob?
	I think it's SpongeBob.
	And there's dub-overs where it's the cartoon.
	But all they do is swear and say the most offensive things and you find this out the hard way when you're looking for it with your kids and you try to go to what you think is a legit Spongebob and it turns out to be one of these things.
	I swear to you, I thought that's what this was.
	I thought it was dubbed over with outright stupidity and outright offensive humor.
	Not offensive in the humor sense, but deliberately done to make them look stupid as though this is how you would do it if you wanted to make someone look stupid.
	But no, lo and behold...
	That was the humor of the production itself.
	And I'm going to get into why I found it offensive, and I don't drop the bigoted word often, but leave it to the people who are accusing everyone else of being the supreme people.
	Leave it to them, accusing everyone of feeling that way, to be the ones doing it themselves.
	Have you seen Joe...
	Okay, I saw that.
	I saw that, Mandalore-wise.
	I just watched it earlier today.
	Leave it to them to accuse others of being racist, xenophobes, discriminatory, the supremacist word.
	Leave it to them to drop the words that are themselves only words which bigots and...
	What can I use as a euphemism?
	The Supremes.
	Bigots and the Supremes use those words.
	The word is G-O-Y.
	I loathe this word.
	It's not my...
	Number one most loathed word.
	It's top five, possibly top three.
	I loathe that word.
	I loathe it.
	It irritates me to hear it for two reasons.
	Because regardless of who is using it, they are using it for bad reasons.
	G-O-Y, for those of you who don't know, technically by the origins of language means it's as simple as non-Jew.
	In modern day dialect, it is used for one of two reasons, and that just depends on who's using it.
	It is used by non-Jews in a way to suggest that Jewish people who use that word feel that way or are bigoted.
	And it is used by Jewish people as a denigrating way to refer to non-Jews.
	So I hate it when any group uses that word because one way or the other, it is not being used for good purposes.
	It is being used to demonize somebody, to denigrate somebody.
	And so in their Santa Inc.
	promo video...
	They use the word Shabbos, G-O-Y, which is an insulting term that people use for the people who do things that people who respect the Sabbath can't do on the Sabbath.
	Anybody who uses that word, it's a bad word.
	And in promoting their Santa cartoon, they use the bad word, and they use the bad word while at the same time claiming that other people Oh, but it was humor.
	There was no humor in the manner in which that term was used in that it was purely judgmental and it was, they use it in a way that they think other people use it because that's the way they use it.
	It's like confession through, it is discrimination through projection.
	It is bigotry through projection.
	They only view everybody else on earth by their political, religious, ethnic identities and therefore they presume everyone around them sees the world the same way.
	Plus, it's not funny.
	There was not one...
	I saw Sausage Party.
	Didn't find it particularly funny.
	I mean, there were some scenes.
	The last scene in particular.
	There were some scenes.
	I didn't find it particularly funny.
	This was just...
	This was what you would do if you wanted to make someone like Seth Rogen and Sarah Simmons look bad.
	You would make this as a parody.
	But they made the parody themselves to parody themselves.
	Okay.
	I see Robert's in the house.
	Let me just get to a few more super chats.
	Rant over.
	I don't know why people stop being funny when they get politically involved, but it happens every time.
	Who is eligible to invest in Rumble's Société par Action?
	SPAC?
	SPAC.
	I don't know what SPAC means exactly, but they're public now, so you can actually buy the merged company.
	And I think the shares were like at 15 bucks and they dipped down to 11, unless I'm mistaken.
	Justice for All says, Would like to hear what Barnes says about them.
	Okay, I see Barnes smiling in the back.
	I'll get to that.
	Let me just...
	Maybe we even start on that before I forget.
	And I just saw a text here on my phone.
	Hold on one second.
	Who's that?
	Let me see something.
	Okay, hold on.
	Okay.
	There was one other chat that I wanted to get to before bringing in...
	I dig Viva Rants.
	Okay, I think I got to that one before.
	And...
	One more, one more.
	Okay, here, hold on.
	Juan, thank you very much.
	Okay, let's bring in the Barnes, by the way.
	Robert, how goes the battle?
	No, no, no, no, no.
	Which in Alec Baldwin's terms means yes, yes, yes.
	Oh my goodness.
	Well, that is the first time ever, Robert.
	I think we have started a stream with anything but good, good.
	Everyone in the chat, let me know if the audio is decent or if there's any inconsistencies.
	Robert, let me start with that first question before I forget to do it, and then I'm going to just respond to it.
	I don't know enough about that group, Patriot Front, to say, so I don't know.
	Okay, good.
	And let me see here.
	Kids, been naughty this year, and you and Barnes are on the nice list.
	Thank you very much, David.
	Okay, Robert, I mean, look, I didn't even get into what was on the menu tonight, but, I mean, what do we start with?
	Do we start with...
	Get the Alec Baldwin out of the way just because we've started on it.
	Did you see my assessment today?
	Yes, I did.
	Tell me how right I am.
	Maybe I'm not as smart as I think I am because other people were onto this earlier, but I don't think they had the receipts.
	My bottom line of all of this is the more Alec Baldwin talks, the more I'm convinced he did something not thinking that gun was loaded, but that involved pulling the trigger at...
	At worst, maybe the hammer went down, but what's your take on everything now that he's opened his big mouth thoroughly for the entire world to hear?
	Yeah, I mean, I don't know who his legal advisors are that advised him to talk, but, you know, obviously it was a favorable audience with George Stephanopoulos, and he went into more detail than he did in that, you know, by the road interview, you know, Suis Ponte interview.
	Good breakdown by the behavior panel.
	The people that are covering this the best otherwise is Eric Hundley and Mark Grobert in their America's Untold Story series.
	I think they've done actually seven episodes now on the Alec Baldwin case.
	A lot of weird, weird connections in the backstory there.
	But the thing I took away from the behavior panel's analysis, the body language panel, was that the...
	He was clearly omitting information, and especially omitting information about whatever happened after the gun went off.
	He went to great lengths to obscure what took place right after that.
	His explanation is almost like within a minute or so, he was being ordered out.
	But then he says it was by the police.
	But the police don't arrive for...
	A good time period afterwards.
	So he gave contradictory answers.
	And then he gave the other answer that caused the most evidentiary problems for people in the gun community.
	And I don't know guns that...
	I'm not a gun expert by any stretch.
	I know a lot about the Second Amendment, but the guns not so much.
	I like to shoot them.
	But luckily, I think what may become eternal truth number three is guns don't kill people.
	Alec Baldwin does.
	Robert, it wasn't just that his memory was inconsistent.
	It's that some of his purported observations were, I don't want to say laughably implausible because there's nothing funny about it.
	They were implausible where you have to think people are idiots to believe them that he thought she fainted.
	Like, he says, and the behavior panel did a, they did a premiere yesterday, and I watched the whole thing, I just didn't comment.
	He said, I thought she fainted, and I heard D'Souza screaming behind her, and like, how can anyone think that that's a reasonable thing to say, you thought?
	Setting aside from what I've been told and from what I understand, the fact that, you know, the damage that that bullet causes is tremendous.
	It's not the type of thing you would have any doubt as to what happened for any more than a half a second.
	How does he expect anyone to believe that?
	He should have vetted that story with a gun expert before he went up and said what he said.
	Even if he's trying to tell the truth, people's memories of traumatic events tend to...
	The most unreliable form of testimony is confessions, historically.
	People make false confessions all the time, sometimes deliberately, sometimes not deliberately.
	That's my favorite movie.
	I think it's Under Suspicion with Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman, filmed in Puerto Rico, which would really help you explain how easy it is, even for sophisticated people, to make false confessions.
	The second most unreliable form of testimony is eyewitness testimony.
	Particularly to traumatic events because people's memories shade because of the emotional impact of the event, particularly a participant, which obviously he was.
	And so if I were his lawyer, I would want, well, one, I wouldn't have him talk to anybody.
	But if he was going to talk, if he insisted on it, said he had to for public opinion purposes or whatever reputational impact it might have, then I would have had to make sure to run his testimony by a gun expert.
	And the gun expert would have...
	So he claims he never pulled the trigger.
	He claims that the sound of the gun and the nature of the shot was such that he thought maybe she fainted first.
	And then he thought maybe she was hit with just some sort of wadding.
	The problem is the nature of that gunshot, the nature of that gun, the gun makes a very...
	That gun in particular makes a very loud noise when a live round is shot.
	Secondly, the nature of that round, as you note, leaves...
	Big wounds and blood everywhere.
	I don't know what a slug is.
	I'm sorry.
	I'm not that ignorant.
	So a.45 slug, apparently, especially one that went through with enough force to strike another person, assuming only one shot went through.
	Yeah, it leaves visible, unmistakable damage, I presume.
	And he said he stood over her for at least a minute, which was kind of weird.
	I mean, the whole thing is weird.
	So you combine the, the, what the body language panel, the behavior panel deduced from what he was omitting.
	You look at what the gun evidence is, you know, the gun experts I've heard have said that that can't happen.
	That unless that gun was, you know, really was...
	Mark Robert explained it had to be manipulated in a certain way.
	It had to be a certain kind of gun.
	I mean, not a certain kind of gun, but a gun changed in some meaningful material way.
	And he didn't say it was.
	And by now he would know if it was, if that was part of his defense.
	That can't happen.
	What he explains as him never pulling the trigger is inconsistent with the nature of that gun and what we know about that gun.
	And then his explanation of his reaction is inconsistent with what we know about how the sound would come from the gun, the injuries that it did cause, the injuries that it would cause, the reactions of other people in there.
	So the question becomes, what is he hiding about his reaction to the sequence of events?
	And is he hiding the fact that he pulled the trigger?
	And that maybe that...
	Because maybe his whole story starts with, I didn't pull the trigger.
	Hence, I didn't react to...
	I couldn't believe that it was actually a gunshot.
	I couldn't believe she was actually shot.
	I couldn't believe the director was actually shot.
	And what he's obscuring is something that happened afterwards that, in fact, he knows he pulled the trigger.
	That something happened in his reaction to the whole setting that he thinks is damning and damaging.
	And that he needs to obscure and hide.
	That's a darn good point.
	That's a darn good point.
	And reading it in conjunction with this, this is the aggregate knowledge of the internet.
	I hadn't thought about this.
	He said he was trained to fake the recoil because when it was filled with a blank or not enough charge, it wouldn't recoil so it wouldn't look real.
	So the armorer told him how to...
	Well, if he fires it and it actually projects something which was what it was...
	He would feel a recoil and he would know damn well what just happened.
	Yes.
	And then you add to that, you know, your explanation, because he attacks her a lot during the interview.
	He contradicts what he said originally, that she was a friend and went to dinner with all the rest.
	And he says, actually, I just met her.
	And he really attributes to her.
	I mean, what you point out is he's attributing a lot of things that would trigger him.
	And he's almost describing something that would sound triggered.
	And at various points.
	Scott Rouse of the behavior panel pointed out that there was something that was triggering pure rage in him.
	That there's times if you freeze his posture, you can see his face is just filled with rage concerning something unknown.
	But it could make sense that your explanation that he lost his cool, which he's...
	Of course, infamous for losing his cool.
	And that he knows he lost his cool and that it was exposed at the time and he's trying to suppress all of that because it makes him even more criminally culpable than he already is.
	And as Andrew Branca broke down in the law of self-defense, even if he didn't pull the trigger, under Arizona law, a gun is considered so inherently dangerous that mere negligence in its handling...
	It constitutes evidence of a crime, of felony manslaughter.
	It's particularly ironic, given the comparison that we'll get to later, the Michigan case.
	There's people who didn't pull the trigger at all, yet they're being charged with involuntary manslaughter.
	Baldwin clearly is the person that's the direct cause of her death.
	And they're much more compelling grounds, even if he didn't pull the trigger.
	Because he admitted so many things about preparations with guns, being familiar with him, things of that nature, he removed a lot of his possible defenses.
	Now, maybe they were already removed because he apparently talked to the cops for a couple of hours, for a while.
	So maybe he already spilled the beans and there's not much he can do.
	He can't change his story that well now.
	And so maybe he's locked in to whatever story he told them.
	But, you know, all he did by going public was get a lot of people to take a look.
	You know, you have the body language people, behavior panel.
	You have all the gun experts.
	You have your analysis.
	And all it did is expose all the weaknesses in his defense.
	And at this point, if he's not prosecuted, it will purely be for political reasons because there's more than enough evidence to indict him at this point for involuntary manslaughter, felony.
	I just call it reckless homicide.
	There's all these different old legal common law terms that some states still use, some states don't.
	It's reckless because you have an inherently dangerous weapon.
	So then mere negligence constitutes criminality because a higher level of duty of care is imposed from an intent perspective.
	Can you imagine all of the inconsistencies?
	He says, I can't even imagine how a live round would have gotten on set.
	How many bullets have been fired on set?
	A billion?
	How would it have got there?
	I was firing the pistol for an hour and a half with the armor.
	They probably forgot to take out the live rounds from when he was firing it.
	Oh, but she was showing me just how to make it look real because it had nothing real in it.
	The other giveaway was he said he would never point any gun and ever pull a trigger at anyone.
	And so then people just started doing his movies with him pointing a gun at people.
	So, I mean...
	Laughably stupid, because he has to do that.
	That's what you have the gun on set for, is to do that, just do it safely.
	I consider these to be trollish comments in my video said, you took one video of him losing his temper with his kid 14 years ago, and then one with him losing it on the paparazzi.
	I only took those three clips because of time.
	He has a history of blowing his lid in a very violent manner.
	There was someone punching someone over a parking spot.
	Continuous, massive explosions.
	Violent outbursts.
	So, yeah, I didn't get to all of them.
	And whichever ones I picked, you would fault me for whatever the reason.
	Trollish comments out there.
	But he's got...
	Other people know better than me.
	But he's got a proven track record that has been unchanged over two decades of violent outbursts.
	I mean, it's just so easy to see here, but what was the other issue?
	There is some disagreement still out there as to whether or not this is a four-click, two-click hammer, whether or not once it's cocked back all the way, it can't be released without pulling the trigger, or whether or not it could be feathered so that it could, in theory, if you pull it back and then release it without pulling the trigger, it could discharge.
	There's alternate explanations.
	By and large, it looks like, even by the way he was holding it in his recreation during the Stephanopoulos interview, That he had his finger on the trigger.
	So either he pulled it by accident and didn't know, or he pulled it on purpose because he thought there was nothing in it and he was just frustrated, or he thought there was a blank in it and he was going to prove a point.
	But the more I think about it and the more I see it and the more he talks, I don't think he liked Helena Hutchins.
	I think he was frustrated.
	People are walking out on set.
	He's away from his house for four weeks, his home for four weeks, for a movie that was not The Edge, a movie that was not Meryl Streep.
	Another one of my, maybe it's projection.
	When he was crying in that interview, sobbing over The Edge, his getting to work with Hopkins, his getting to work with Meryl Streep, I got the feeling he was crying because he's saying, that's how far I have fallen.
	I used to do The Edge with Anthony Hopkins.
	Now I'm on the set in Albuquerque with a set that's walking off, a low-budget indie film.
	I'm not getting paid for this.
	It's not worth my while.
	And I'm angry.
	And here I've got some director of photography bossing me around like I'm a nobody.
	That's how I feel.
	It's probably all because his fake Spanish wife wanted some extra cash and he didn't make an extra meal.
	Listen to Robert De Niro's complaints about all the crap films he's had to do because of Dominatrix Wife No. 3 or whatever that he has.
	He's got very particular taste, Robert De Niro.
	But that would not be an uncommon phenomenon.
	The actors that are past their prime doing a movie they don't want to do for the quick cash payday.
	It was a low-rent budget.
	Low-budget film where a lot of the budget was going to him.
	Everybody's mad at him because of how the set is being handled.
	And he just wants the money and wants to get it in there and out of there.
	But it's a long shoot, a long day.
	And he's got a woman he doesn't know telling him what to do.
	And Baldwin gives off certain vibes in that respect that he wouldn't be the person to do that.
	And really, there were four or five times where he was throwing her under the bus.
	Or was shifting accountability.
	And here's what's consistent.
	A lot of his story seems to be shaped around the idea, not just that no one could know a bullet was in there, but that he couldn't have pulled the trigger.
	It's like all the stories he's telling that don't make a lot of sense are about...
	I didn't pull the trigger.
	And so it tells me, yeah, he pulled the trigger.
	That's what happened.
	If I may, Craig, I'm not making fun of you.
	Thank you for the super chat.
	And I take this as legit disagreement.
	I want you, Craig Baker, to appreciate your projection in this very super chat.
	You are attributing a motive to the accident.
	By you calling it an accident, you're attributing a motive to it.
	And you're attributing lack of intent or lack of culpability.
	So I'm specifically prefacing it.
	This is my theory.
	This is what I believe now, because at the very beginning, I said this could be a total accident.
	I didn't even know at the beginning you used real guns on sets.
	But you are accusing me, Craig Baker, of doing exactly what you're doing in this chat.
	You presuppose it's an accident which attributes intent or lack of intent.
	And I'm specifically saying it's my view.
	And the reality is you have an enhanced duty when you have a gun.
	So it can be an accident, and you're still responsible if you fail to exercise due care, because it's so inherently dangerous.
	The best description I ever heard of this was in a civil context by the great Jerry Spence, the legend, in the Silkwood case involving how the company, the nuclear company, could be responsible for the injuries caused, even though he couldn't prove precisely how they made a mistake that led to the injury.
	And he explained that, you know, dealing with nuclear power is so inherently dangerous that that's why, and he explained the history of it.
	He goes, it came from, if you had a lion back in the old days, and if that lion gets out and hurts somebody, you're on the hook because you decided to get a lion.
	And so, you know, if the lion got away, they had to pay.
	And so he came up with a tagline that said, if the lion got away, Kerr McGee must pay.
	Brilliant, beautiful closing argument.
	He got a nice fat check out of that.
	But it's similar here.
	You're handling something that's inherently dangerous, a gun.
	And so you have special duties of care.
	And here he admits he didn't exercise that duty of care.
	He didn't check the gun to see if it was loaded.
	So, I mean, that by itself is criminal accountability.
	Definitely by the same standards that they're applying to the Michigan parents, who have nothing to do with direct causation, which is, we'll get to that issue.
	But nobody who supports that prosecution can turn around and say Alec Baldwin shouldn't be prosecuted.
	That's pure politics at this point.
	And we're going to get into the Michigan one actually right after this because it's the perfect segue or the appropriate segue.
	And for everyone out there, I would even give Alec Baldwin some benefit of the doubt for his explanation as to why it's not up to the actor to check it because they'll say, yeah, okay, the experts are going to be the ones to be the final say, not the actor.
	I don't think I believe that, or I don't think I would want to accept that as the explanation, but it's not implausible.
	Like, George Clooney says, I check it every single time.
	Well, George Clooney, you should not necessarily be the final person to ensure safety.
	That should be up to someone else who's the expert and not the actor.
	Robert, what do you respond to that explanation?
	Anybody that's given a gun, before you use it in any way, shape, or form, you check to see if it's loaded.
	That's just...
	Common sense, in my view.
	If you're going to be handling a gun, you have to at least...
	And he admitted he had training and safety training that day on top of it.
	So it's like they're just saying, well, everybody else checked it, so I assumed it was safe.
	That's just not the duty of care.
	You took a very dangerous weapon and decided not to check it before using it.
	I mean, that's on him.
	And so to me, that does meet the standard of...
	I agree with Andrew Bronco.
	It meets the standard of criminal liability under New Mexico law.
	Now, I don't think he'll get prosecuted because the DA there is a very liberal DA, Soros money-backed DA.
	And I don't think, because of Alec Baldwin's high political profile, I don't think there's any chance that they'll do it.
	But he increased the risk he got prosecuted by him going out and making the state.
	Because he's clearly, in my view, he's lying about something.
	And I think he's hiding something.
	And the most plausible explanation is that he pulled the trigger.
	And that he reacted in some way afterwards that's even more damning and damaging.
	Like he probably said, I didn't know it was loaded.
	I was just...
	No question.
	And you can see him being the kind of guy to go, see, you need to back off.
	Because he's that...
	That fits his personality and his profile and his background.
	Just does.
	And again, even if it was an accident...
	There was criminal negligence at a minimum, in my view.
	I don't know how you get around that.
	I think he will get charged.
	I said it even before this, and it's not a question of bias, because at the very beginning, I said, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
	I've learned enough now.
	I think he's going to get charged, and I think he, as Shakespeare once put it, I think he doth protesteth way, way too much.
	Okay, people think, who cares about Baldwin?
	Robert, let's move on to the other one that I think, I don't think there's anything more with the Baldwin.
	We'll see what happens.
	My prediction charges, my assessment out today.
	It's just my opinion.
	Michigan.
	This is one where I know that I have my initial thoughts.
	I have my revised initial thoughts.
	Nate Brody put out a video yesterday.
	It wasn't much of an analysis.
	It was just the DA explaining the evidence to charge the parents.
	With involuntary manslaughter.
	Without getting into the details, everybody knows what happened in Michigan.
	It's another school incident.
	A kid showing up with a firearm that his parents procured four days earlier.
	I have no preconceived notions.
	I did not presume the parents got the firearm for the kid.
	It seems from the evidence that the parents, if they didn't get it for the kid, they got it very likely for him to use.
	Because the mother, according to the DA, assuming the evidence is accurate, had put out a tweet saying we're taking this to test it out, his Christmas present, with our 15-year-old kid.
	It's a Sig Sauer small firearm.
	I don't know if there's any special rules about underage kids even possessing them or buying them for them or using them.
	Kid does what he does at school.
	It's horrendous.
	It's just stomach-turning, nauseating.
	Even the stories of the heroism, I forget his name now.
	Of the football player who tried to tackle him.
	That type of heroism, it's beautiful, but it's nauseating because it ends the way it ends.
	And all the heroism in the world will never quell the loss of anybody in this situation.
	The kid, you know, all sorts of charges, including terrorism.
	I think the most shocking charges, or the most surprising to anybody, charging the parents with four counts of involuntary manslaughter.
	Robert, I mean, explain it away.
	How does it happen?
	And what do you think of the charges?
	I think they're ludicrous charges.
	So I think it's a political prosecutor who made a, in my view, unethical public statement about the case.
	As a prosecutor, it's not your job to get up there at the time of indictment and not only prejudge guilt publicly, but give your personal emotional opinions about things.
	Say, as a mother, that's not your job.
	That's unethical, unprofessional conduct of another political hack who wants to use the prosecutor's office and prosecuting people to get elected to higher office.
	It's disgraceful.
	And, you know, it's a sign of a disturbing trend.
	I think they're being prosecuted for political reasons by the politics of this particular prosecutor.
	You're not seeing people, a lot of other people who could be prosecuted.
	I mean, the school shooting guy in Texas who got a soft bail, who got less bail than the parents got, you didn't see a call for his parents to get prosecuted.
	You wouldn't either.
	By the same people all cheering this prosecution.
	So that's what I think about the motivations of the actors involved and the unethical conduct of the prosecutor just in her public statements.
	But legally, how in the world did they cause the death?
	That's required under Michigan law for involuntary manslaughter.
	You have to have caused the death.
	And you have to have engaged in reckless conduct that you knew was likely to cause death.
	How in the world do they meet that at all?
	That's not even probable cause.
	And then they had a ridiculous bail put on top of them on top of that.
	No one has been able to cite to me a single other case of a similar charge ever being brought in American history, period.
	So this is, I just don't, unless you're going to accuse them of conspiracy, of knowing in advance he was going to do a school shooting, and they don't allege that.
	All they allege is, well, maybe they could have done some additional warnings.
	Maybe they could have never bought the gun.
	I mean, stuff like that.
	And it's like, that's not criminal culpability for involuntary manslaughter.
	They didn't cause the death.
	They didn't do anything that they knew was likely to cause death.
	So it's a ridiculous charge.
	That's brought for political reasons, and you've got a biased jury pool, so who knows what can happen to these people?
	I'm going to parse out two parts of this.
	I agree with you in the sense that I don't like sentences as a blank.
	Unless it's as something where my professional experience Is what supports my opinion.
	As a parent, as a human, we all have the same types of emotions.
	That part of it I didn't like.
	I mean, I didn't like any of it, but that part I could disregard.
	She shouldn't have said it.
	She is appealing to emotion where she is a DA who should be appealing to evidence.
	But appealing to the evidence that they invoked.
	If you have a situation, and perhaps involuntary manslaughter are the wrong charges, maybe those are the overcharges so they can get down to lesser charges, Although I don't know what's lesser and included in involuntary manslaughter.
	But let's assume that the evidence that she cited for the charges is in fact correct.
	They purchased it for the kid with the kid present.
	The mother put out a social media post that they were testing it with their kid, testing his Christmas gift, so an admission that it was a gift for a 15-year-old, that they knew the kid had serious behavioral disorders, behavioral issues.
	They were called to school the day of...
	They then messaged the kid as the incident was occurring saying, don't do it.
	I mean, so you get all that evidence together.
	It looks exquisitely damning.
	Whether or not it's involuntary manslaughter, I would say surely it has to be something.
	And I'm not...
	There's no criminal law that punishes that.
	So if there was a scenario like in Wisconsin where if you've given a person a gun unlawfully, you can be responsible in certain criminal contexts.
	For the use of that gun later on, because that was correlated to the Rittenhouse case.
	There isn't such a law in Michigan.
	You know, there is for explosions, explosives, and things like that, but not for guns.
	So, you know, there is no law that criminalizes it, part one.
	Part two, it's like, all of that, it's like, what exactly were they supposed to do?
	Because, like, the fact they're saying don't do it, in other words, how is that bad?
	I mean, were they supposed to pull him out of the school?
	The school didn't send him home.
	So the school came to the same conclusion.
	So, I mean, what were they supposed to do precisely?
	To the level that they're being blamed for murder now.
	I mean, that's what doesn't make sense to me at all.
	It seems to me that what it really is, the prosecutor doesn't like the fact that these parents light guns and introduce the kid to guns and is playing on that fear in the culture.
	But, you know, that's not...
	I mean, the reality is the kid ended up losing it and the school had as much notice...
	In fact, maybe more notice, as the evidence may be, than the parents did.
	But there was no history of him doing anything like this prior to this time.
	So, I mean, the idea that we're going to start blaming parents for the actions of their kids on the criminal context.
	Civilly, that can be the case in a range of circumstances, and justifiably so.
	But not in the criminal context.
	And definitely not in voluntary manslaughter.
	They didn't cause the death.
	They didn't know they were going to cause the death.
	The only evidence is they were saying don't do it, and they were quick to notify the school when they heard about the shooting that they were afraid that he had done something.
	So it's like they were overly protective or hiding him or something like that.
	So basically they're saying if you like guns and you have a kid that's disturbed, you're going to get blamed for whatever the kid does.
	That's not what the law is in America, criminally, nor should it be.
	Well, I want to read this one because Mark Maggard says, this is what happens when the process gets tainted.
	I really do not believe a single word any prosecutor says after watching what happened with Rittenhouse.
	And I mean, I tend to agree.
	I will just say, if the evidence to which they're referring is in fact represented as warranted, I have some questions.
	So, I mean, Robert, take it, not a hypothetical, but a gang member who can't procure a firearm for whatever the reason, convicted felon, says to someone else, I need a gun for a bank robbery.
	Someone else gets them that gun, they go commit a bank robbery, and it ends in murder.
	It's not this case.
	I'm just trying to see where that line occurs.
	It depends on the state, depends on the law at issue.
	Now, if you know that the intention is bank robbery, then there can be certain aiding and abetting conspiracy-type charges, but they didn't bring that.
	So that means that they don't have evidence.
	In fact, apparently the only evidence is contrary.
	That they told him, don't do it.
	Don't do anything dumb, dangerous, etc.
	So they weren't complicit in that.
	Didn't have any desire for him to do anything like that.
	Didn't have any intent for him to do anything like that.
	Or very quickly to, frankly, rat out their own kid as soon as they heard something happen.
	They feared that he might have been the one because of what had happened earlier that day.
	But the idea that they had any notice or knowledge of this or wanted this or tried to create it.
	Doesn't seem true to me at all.
	They have a disturbed kid.
	And exactly what parents are supposed to do in that situation, I'm not as quick to rush to judge.
	If you have a disturbed kid, what are you supposed to do?
	Are you supposed to lock him up?
	The school didn't even send him home.
	So you're supposed to override the school?
	What are you supposed to do exactly?
	This is a discussion I've had with someone whose opinion...
	Another person, Robert, not just you, because we haven't had this discussion yet, but I've had this discussion with someone else.
	Okay, the kid's disturbed.
	Maybe target practice.
	Maybe that would be some sort of cathartic relief.
	Maybe it would be therapeutic.
	I don't agree with it.
	I think it's still, if you know that you have a kid with behavioral disorders, getting them a very lethal, potentially lethal weapon, firearm, is probably not the right thing to do.
	If it's for therapeutic reasons, maybe go with...
	A firearm that is less concealable, less potentially lethal, you know, a shotgun with five shot max, something that you can't transport and conceal quite as easily.
	And so maybe in having, you know, effectively given what was used as a weapon to someone who is a known issue, maybe it's something.
	I did get the impression on the one hand, as much as my visceral reaction to what I thought occurred occurred, I don't know how you get to involuntary manslaughter.
	Involuntary manslaughter, I imagine, has to be an active contribution to the event itself.
	You have to have caused it.
	Caused it.
	You have to be proximate cause under Michigan law.
	So the question is going to be, is approximate cause getting a firearm for a troubled youth who you know has issues, behavioral problems?
	It never has been before.
	I mean, that's not the definition of cause by any traditional definition of cause.
	And if we start using that cause definition...
	That's a dangerous expansion of criminal liability in this country.
	Because then all of a sudden anything could contribute, any event could contribute to the ultimate outcome.
	That's not the definition of cause under the criminal law.
	The cause is you caused it.
	And not only that, that you knew your conduct was likely to cause it.
	I mean, how did they know they're likely?
	They thought when there was a gun around that he was going to go to a school and shoot it up?
	I mean, that doesn't make sense at all.
	Well, Delta Tango says, the law here in Washington is similar.
	If my guns are left unlocked, not in the safe, and my kid uses it, I am liable.
	Civilly.
	Civilly.
	Not criminally.
	You can't be criminally prosecuted.
	You can be criminally prosecuted for negligent handling of a gun under certain state laws, things like that.
	But you cannot be prosecuted for the kid going and shooting someone.
	I know of no case like that.
	I know of none.
	And even in Canada, I am thinking, based on our extremely excessively punitive gun laws, if you don't keep it locked safely, and it does lead to a death, there's specific charges for that.
	I don't think in Canada, even, it would be involuntary manslaughter.
	I mean, there would be specific provisions as relates to...
	Yeah, this prosecutor doesn't like the fact that Michigan doesn't have a law that deals with it.
	But, you know, you pass a law if you want to.
	But even then, I'd be careful of that because that starts to become just a backdoor way to encroach on Second Amendment rights.
	To say any misuse or abuse of a gun, now all of a sudden anybody that had anything to do with that gun ever, manufacturing, distribution, transfer, purchase, sale, suddenly is on the hook for it.
	And that's where the left wants to go.
	They want to weaponize the legal system, civil and criminal, to basically gut the Second Amendment so it's effectively...
	Negated in America.
	And this case has that overtone attached to it as well.
	Even though prominent gun control people came out and said they were not comfortable with this prosecution.
	And nor did many prominent gun, even gun control people call for this.
	So it's even split the gun control crowd.
	Because they realize people are going to...
	Your ability to control a mentally disturbed kid, and how you handle that, people are assuming some things that I think...
	Our assumption is usually based on a lack of information.
	There are people that have never dealt with that.
	There are people that have never been counseled to anyone that's done that.
	Never been a counselor to anyone that's done that.
	This was not that predictable of an event.
	The kid had no track record of this.
	This all accelerated fast in a 24-hour time frame.
	In the sense of it taking this direction.
	But they're not responsible for what the kid did, and I think prosecuting them is a very dangerous, perilous precedent in America.
	And, you know, Tim Poole, for all of the fence-sitting that he does, he did make an analogy at one point.
	I forget the exact context, but it was analogizing a firearm to a vehicle.
	And, I mean, I'm just thinking in my own mind, if you know you have a kid, even the diagnosed, you know, schizophrenia, bipolar, whatever.
	And you lend and you give or you buy a car for the kid and the kid uses it to do what the guy did in Waka Shop.
	And would anyone think that that would be a reasonable...
	Some people might think it.
	Especially if the kid said, I want to get a car and do terrible things.
	If you got the kid a car and the kid did it, would anyone think that this would be an appropriate charge on the parents?
	I suspect you might still get a lot of people who would say yes.
	But I would suspect you get a lot of people saying...
	Okay, maybe not now.
	I appreciate that firearms have potentially, you know, more direct lethal purposes than vehicles.
	Vehicles are practical, although people's, you know, firearms are tools.
	But that is necessarily very analogous to this prosecution, and would people feel comfortable with that?
	Exactly.
	And also, the left better really think this through.
	Most violence takes place by gang members.
	Disproportionately of certain ethnic groups.
	You want everybody's mama and grandma start to get locked up?
	And to be frank about it, they often provide more support in the sense of home, sanctuary, a lot of things.
	So it's very dangerous to start holding parents responsible for the criminal actions of their...
	Teenage kids.
	I'm not in favor of that.
	We already have civil liability because that makes sense in terms of restoring balance of who has access to wealth to restore it.
	And I don't have a problem with civil liability.
	I have a major problem with criminal liability.
	That's a very dangerous, dangerous path to go under our criminal laws, to start locking people up.
	Because down deep, they're being prosecuted because they're on the wrong side of politics in Detroit.
	That's the real reality.
	It's not because they're so uniquely offended by this incident, especially Detroit.
	Detroit?
	There's no other parents that have really facilitated criminal behavior by teenage gang members in Detroit?
	Really?
	Just these people that are now held responsible for the mental illness of their son?
	I'm not comfortable with this at all.
	By the way, I'm not sure I gave the disclaimer this particular stream.
	There are too many super chats for me to bring up.
	So if I don't bring up your super chat and you're going to be angry, don't give a super chat.
	It's to show support.
	And to the extent I can bring it up, I do.
	But if you're going to be angry, don't do it.
	I don't like people feeling angry.
	Same as my last super chat.
	If a criminal breaks into my house and I have a gun outside, a gun safe, and the gun is used in a crime, I'm liable.
	Yes, but not under manslaughter.
	That, I think, is the issue.
	Not under involuntary manslaughter.
	There are other provisions.
	And what Robert's point is...
	And it's one I may have to internalize and digest because I know my immediate reaction is you don't get potentially lethal weapons for troubled kids, especially if you know.
	Now, this being said, it's an interesting dynamic in this case is the kid's descent.
	He had no priors that I know of, and this seems to have occurred almost like a psychotic break, and I've had life experience with people who...
	Normal one day, psychotic break.
	The next day, it might be drug-induced.
	It might be whatever.
	Things like that happen.
	Here, there might have been more...
	It's really the school, right?
	The parents are not experts in psychology.
	The school is supposed to have people that know when somebody hits a certain red flag to immediately withdraw him from the school.
	They chose not to because he had no prior history.
	But given when he was drawing, that they should have.
	I mean, that was on them.
	I mean, it's instinctive for parents.
	Parents are not going to necessarily know what's best in that situation.
	They're not going to know, is that going to worsen things?
	You expect the professionals, which is school after Columbine, they all have the training on this.
	And I think that's the other factor that's happening here.
	They want the blame shifted away from the school because the school has a lot of liberal democratic allies, so the prosecutor doesn't want anybody...
	This is the Sandy Hook story.
	The secret of the Sandy Hook story is that the reason why they focused on the gun so much, in part, is because they didn't keep the school doors safe.
	Most of those kids wouldn't have died if the politicians in Sandy Hook would have done their job.
	But that story the media doesn't want to tell, doesn't want anybody to know about.
	They want everybody focused on Alex Jones and focused on the gun, like the gun magically did it.
	And I think here they're shifting it to the parents so that the school doesn't get the responsibility that it deserves.
	The school is the most culpable here at not dealing with this red flag because they are in the position to have the training to know what that means.
	Much better than a couple of parents dealing with a difficult kid do.
	This is a very interesting point that I would have never otherwise thought of, Robert, in terms of the deflection of responsibility.
	The idea that it's an old trope, but you use armed guards to protect money going into a bank, to protect celebrities going into a venue.
	You use locked doors for vaults, for Oscar events, but none of this to protect schools.
	And when you have a massive red flag like this, because it's true, the school did call the kid in, It was the day of the event because of a very disturbing drawing.
	And then sends the kid back to class.
	I mean, it's interesting.
	Apparently they did not even search.
	You can lawfully search.
	There's a whole bunch of grounds you can search a kid's stuff at school.
	The Fourth Amendment has limited application effectively.
	It's considered reasonable.
	You can debate those reasons.
	But particularly under these circumstances, they apparently didn't even search his backpackers or his locker.
	I mean, this was patent irresponsibility by the school.
	And they're just trying to shift all the accountability to the parents.
	Blame the parents, blame the parents, and blame parents' love of guns.
	That's the subtext.
	See, love of guns is dangerous, everybody.
	If you love guns, it'll probably mean somebody will do a school shooting.
	They've been trying to do that now for a decade.
	Actually, three decades, really, since Columbine.
	Sandy Hook was the ultimate peak of blaming the gun.
	Robert, was Columbine in the late 90s already?
	Yeah.
	Wow.
	I mean, I remember that.
	Time flies and it's a drop in the cosmic bucket of time.
	What bothers me most about all of this is that there are going to be people who...
	It lends to the idea that some people are going to put out there that it's almost politically convenient to allow these things to happen because the way they get weaponized after the fact for political and policy reasons, Yeah, it's almost like you need the tragedies in order to have the impetus for the policy that was not gaining enough traction beforehand.
	And you will have people who will say, who will legit question as to whether or not, you know, whether or not the tragedy is being weaponized or whether or not the tragedy could have even been facilitated in the first place.
	And it's one or the other, but one of them is happening right now.
	I'm not saying you've changed my mind, Robert.
	I still think, I do think if parents know they have a troubled kid.
	That's not a proper Christmas gift.
	The only question is, you know, is it a separate infraction under existing laws?
	And if those laws don't exist, then that can be the result of the tragedy or the progress, so to speak, of the tragedies.
	Enact a law that makes this punishable, but to then try to just jam this circle peg into a square peg of inexistent laws to hold the parents accountable because people need it may not be the right course of action.
	Yeah, I can tell you that, you know, I'm a skeptic.
	Those kind of laws tend to easily get into red flag territory, undermine Second Amendment areas, and often can have unintended consequences.
	I knew a kid at my prep school who, his parents prevented him from getting a gun.
	He went out and got a more dangerous gun and did more dangerous things with it.
	So the idea that you can just, and they tried to blame the kid that he got the gun from for a lot of it.
	But the, and it's just, I'm not.
	Real comfortable.
	The idea we can control mental illness, just realistically, we can't.
	That should be the focus.
	The places that have the means of training should be the ones that are responsible and accountable for limiting.
	They're in the best position to prevent bad events.
	Not in a perfect position, can't have perfection, but they are in a much better position than parents are.
	Under these circumstances.
	But at a minimum, it's just not involuntary manslaughter.
	And maybe you could pass a law, and if Michigan supports it, they can pass the law.
	I'm not a big fan of those laws, because I think they ultimately encroach in dangerous areas and empower the state too much.
	But putting that aside, those laws just don't exist right now in Michigan.
	So that's why there was no basis, as far as I could tell, for any criminal prosecution of the parents.
	This is a political prosecution of what appear to be blue-collar parents who the system's trying to railroad.
	Half a million dollar bail for each?
	I mean, really?
	On charges that an honest judge would have recognized don't even meet probable cause?
	Real problem with that.
	Well, what was that?
	What was it?
	50 grand?
	What was the bail for that school shooter in Texas?
	75 as far as I recall.
	75 grand.
	But, you know, as long as your skin color is the right now these days, that's what matters.
	And that's a problem.
	We can't be judging people like that.
	No, but they'll say he didn't kill anybody.
	So it's a different circumstance.
	No, I mean, school shooting, school shooting, the severity of the devastation, I mean, arguably, but when you compare this to other incidents of 5 million bail for the Waukesha, which is 10 times more for the individual who perpetrated the offense.
	I mean, I don't know how you measure these things, but yeah, there seems to be inconsistencies.
	Let me see here.
	This is an interesting point.
	Edward Cullen, I'm not sure I'm convinced by it, but I appreciate the argument.
	Most offensive thing to me is that they want to prosecute, as an adult, someone wholly responsible for their actions and the parents for being bad.
	It is a good argument, but there's an easy way to say, okay, fine, the kid gets charged as an adult and the parents get charged for other crimes.
	And I'm just not overly comfortable with the idea of, you know, here we have a minor and apparent situation, so that creates some distinctions, but let's take it outside of that.
	If we know someone's mentally off, what are we supposed to do?
	Are we supposed to demand they get locked up?
	Supposed to make sure they never get a gun?
	Where does this line end?
	Because that's what strikes me, and especially if it's the state that gets to define who's nuts and who's not, that tends to be a misused and abused power, inevitably.
	You know, what can they do?
	What I used to do in the early days of my practice, motions for confinement.
	They're such an immediate threat to themselves or others.
	You petition the court, oftentimes ex parte, without them being there, and say the person's so crazy, so dangerous, lock them up now for their own good and for the protection of society.
	I mean, that was a credible threat that the kid made.
	The school should have immediately searched his materials and expelled him and maybe put him in temporary custody.
	Asking the parents to be the ones to make that determination was just a mistake from the get-go.
	And the amount of times, I'll get to this in a second, the amount of times in the practice, the minimal practice that I had of motions for confinement, where it was clear that they were seeking to confine someone who did not need or did not deserve to be confined, it made the 1 in 10 that needed to be confined, it caused you to question that.
	Because if you were locking up anybody, At any point, that did not need to be confined.
	Unnecessarily, you couldn't lock up anybody.
	But it's a fair point, and I genuinely think I appreciate the arguments more now.
	The issue of the law is going to be the real question.
	Involuntary manslaughter.
	I can see that for someone clipping the brake line on the vehicle of another person, and that person drives the car and hits somebody.
	There, you are the active contributor, or you are the meaningful contributor.
	Here, You're lending, you've purchased something potentially fatal, and I brought up the analogy to a knife, if they had bought a knife for the kid, a hunting knife.
	I mean, a knife has two purposes and two purposes only, very analogous to a firearm.
	Would we all then feel comfortable with charging the parents with involuntary manslaughter for the deaths committed by the kid with that knife?
	Yeah, it's also a sign of the inadequate mental health care for mentally ill young people in America.
	And because we've become a big pharma-addicted society, and often all they do is try to drug them up, and whatever it is, it doesn't work.
	And then the media is also culpable here.
	The media knows every time they make a big story out of a school shooting, it increases the probability of another school shooting.
	And yet they keep doing it deliberately.
	Why don't they get charged with involuntary manslaughter?
	Because there's more of a causative role with them in certain aspects than the parents.
	Because the media knows we promote this school shooting, there's going to be another school shooting because we promote and publicize school shootings.
	And yet they keep doing it.
	Well, it's going to promote more school shootings, but in the meantime it's going to promote their ratings.
	Oh, of course.
	It's great ratings.
	People are addicted to it.
	The mental illness...
	This argument is a double-edged sword, in my humble opinion, because people are going to say, yeah, we have mental health problems, so the easiest way to make sure that who we are failing to treat for mental health, that they don't get access to potentially lethal firearms.
	Flip side, you don't deny people the right to drive a vehicle because they have mental health issues.
	That I know of.
	I don't think I'm wrong on that.
	The focus should be treatment, not different ways of confinement, ideally.
	Confine, shut down services, don't let people with drug addictions go to the therapy sessions.
	Cripple society, and then when violence explodes, blame only the weapons and not the social policies themselves.
	Sparty Matt says, as a teacher, and here is where Azze is legit, because this is calling on the experience which is relevant to the situation, not identity politics.
	I don't know what the solution is.
	There are parents who are legitimately terrible and F up their kids.
	They should not be parents.
	Too late, and there's no license for parenting.
	But I don't want the state deciding mental health or doing the parenting.
	True, the issue would be when the school gets not just a suspected red flag, when they get an overt red flag, and they then say, so serious, we're calling on the parents, but then they say, back to school, get your kid in therapy within 48 hours.
	That's how serious it is, but back to class for the kid.
	I mean, Robert raises a good point.
	The school knew from its training he was showing signs of a psychotic break, and so they should have taken a lot more actions.
	You don't call up the parents who are not psychological professionals, who do not have this training that schools are given.
	I mean, since Columbine, there's been a massive amount of this training that went play.
	Like the Sandy Hook story, people still don't know that the politicians...
	Decided to not allow the schools to change the doors so they could lock the inside of the doors.
	And had they had that simple ability, most of those kids would have lived, would have never been shot.
	Why don't they know that?
	Because the media wants to cover it up for the local politicians.
	Instead, scream about Alex Jones or something else.
	And so the Connecticut courts are eager to blame Alex Jones somehow for it.
	We had nothing to do with it.
	Well, those same Connecticut courts said the schools couldn't be sued for what they did.
	And the media covered it up.
	Obama covered it up in mass.
	And so that's where, where should the accountability be?
	Should be the people that have the most capacity to take the most corrective action.
	And that's not going to be criminally punishing parents for the crimes of their kids.
	That's going to be schools being held accountable when they were on notice, had the training to do something, and didn't.
	They didn't even search his materials.
	Didn't even send him home.
	I mean, it was a crock what the school did that day.
	And clumsy cleverness, I think there's a meaningful typo.
	Parents are being held liable.
	Why not the teachers?
	I presume that meant, and that's on point.
	We need Winston to break the chat.
	Hold on.
	Oh, God, I almost ran over the door of the chair.
	Here's Winston.
	He is eating my backpack.
	Yes, you are.
	You took a dump in a kid's room this morning, didn't you?
	Yeah.
	A little bastard.
	He knows what he did.
	He knows what he did.
	Here's Winston.
	All right, Robert.
	So, I mean, it's very interesting, very insightful.
	We'll see where it goes.
	And now I notice we're at 14...
	Say it again?
	I would say, speaking of guns, we had two major federal appellate decisions this past week as well.
	Before we get there, let me just invite everyone.
	We're at 14,000 live viewers on YouTube.
	Go hit that like button and let's just see.
	I'm not doing the drinking game like Nate and Reketa because we'll be unconscious.
	But go ahead and I would love one day for there to be as many thumbs up.
	Okay, so I'm not up to date with the SCOTUS decisions or the Second Amendment decisions in the States.
	What's the dealio?
	So the Ninth Circuit and the Sixth Circuit, both their en banc panels overturned prior good case law, in my view.
	So the Ninth Circuit came in and said that the judge's decision about large-capacity magazines in California being illegal...
	Remember, the district court did a long, really good exegesis.
	Compared to a Swiss Army knife?
	Yes, exactly.
	And then it was affirmed initially on appeal, went en banc, and the Ninth Circuit reversed it.
	Now, I'll be putting it up on our locals board, the decision, because it has a lot of concurrences and dissents.
	Why it's really useful is it highlights...
	And increases the chance of a good SCOTUS ruling.
	I'll be putting that up at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Put up the PDF and I highlight what I think are the most pertinent sections.
	So if you don't want to read a hundred and some pages, however long it is, you can just get the gist of it.
	But you get a preview of the debate that your Supreme Court is having, which is within the Second Amendment community, they have wanted the Supreme Court to clarify Heller.
	And make clear that the analysis under the Second Amendment really, in my view, it should always, for all constitutional rights, should always be strict scrutiny.
	I don't agree with any lesser standard, intermediate scrutiny and all this other crap.
	It should be strict scrutiny, period.
	But putting that aside, there's an argument that the Second Amendment community likes, which is articulated but not hammered home in Heller, which is what they call text, history, and tradition.
	That you look at the text and the history of the tradition, of the particular issue in play within the Second Amendment context.
	And if it applies in a certain way, strict scrutiny is usually going to be the applicable standard.
	The way the Ninth Circuit got around that...
	It was to ignore the text history and tradition analysis, say that that analysis should not be applied.
	In fact, there's a long concurrence by Judge Berzon, who's a smart judge, but a liberal judge.
	That's just reality.
	She didn't deliver on a case I had that she should have.
	Sorry, it's a funny distinction.
	Smart, but liberal.
	You knew her.
	They're pretending throughout this case that...
	Politics doesn't motivate them.
	One of the points the dissent makes is like the Ninth Circuit has never found a gun restriction law it doesn't like.
	Ultimately, it's always affirmed again and again and again and again and again.
	And they're like, that's just coincidence.
	We did an individual analysis of every one of those laws and we still respect the Second Amendment.
	It just happened to be that way.
	I mean, that's a crock.
	That's not credible.
	But they know they're being exposed for their politics.
	They get agitated about it.
	So there's a lot of personal back and forth, more so than normal.
	Between the justices on the Ninth Circuit.
	But basically, they came in and said, yeah, California can ban it because this has been used in mass shootings and that there's no evidence this is necessary for self-defense.
	They're trying to restrict the Second Amendment to if you have any other means of self-defense, the state can take this away from you, which is not a good standard.
	What was split en banc?
	It was a multiple-level split.
	There's multiple dissents, multiple concurrences, and multiple majorities.
	So I think ultimately 9-4, something like that, was the ultimate total votes, which basically broke down almost exactly political.
	There might have been a W appointee who was on the wrong side, no shock.
	But it highlights the long debate about whether text history and tradition, and if you're on the liberal side of it...
	If you want the best articulate version of criticizing the text, history, and tradition argument for Second Amendment scrutiny, read Judge Berzon's concurrence because she does the best of it.
	I mean, she's a very smart judge.
	Like I said, our politics don't agree, but I respect her intellect tremendously.
	I disagree with her because the reality is the Second Amendment has not been respected under the current analysis, what they call tiered scrutiny, that they do.
	Because they always find an excuse why strict scrutiny doesn't apply.
	At this point, we have too much sociological evidence, you could call it.
	There used to be a Mark Gallant, a great professor at Wisconsin Law School, introduced in part the field of sociology and the law, where you look at the real practical interpretation of the law to figure out what's really happening policy-wise.
	It's an unfortunate decision at one level, but it's probably a clarifying decision for the Supreme Court.
	So I think the Supreme Court will take it up, but they'll take it up after they make their other decisions and will probably remand, requiring their new stance.
	I think the Supreme Court now is even more likely to say text, history, and tradition has to be the analysis, which increases the probability of strict scrutiny being applied, which makes most of these gun laws, almost none of them, ever meet strict scrutiny.
	And so that would be the ideal.
	The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals split even, 8-8.
	And what happens is when an en banc court splits even, the lower district court decision is affirmed, even if the original panel decision overturned the local district court decision.
	So the district court decision said the attorney general could come in and just redefine machine guns to include a bump stock under certain circumstances.
	Again, I'm not a gun expert, so I won't purport to understand all the details.
	What I understood from a legal perspective, Second Amendment perspective, constitutional...
	A Chevron delegation perspective is that Congress has chosen not to call bump stocks machine guns, and consequently the regulatory branch couldn't make it up on its own.
	They don't get to pass laws.
	That's what the original panel of the Sixth Circuit said.
	But they split 8-8 with, again, a bunch of concurrences and dissents.
	So they reaffirmed now that rule that Trump put in in response.
	It was Trump's administration that did it in response to the Vegas shooting.
	Which will go to our third gun case, actually.
	And I didn't think it was a good idea then.
	It was just symbolic and counterproductive.
	But that, too, would be reviewed differently under Chevron deference standards.
	So if you want to, this is how often can our regulatory branch write its own rules?
	Make its own laws.
	We'll be talking about that later in the vaccine mandate context.
	So this case will present that issue as well as Second Amendment issues, though it's mostly a Chevron deference case to the Supreme Court potentially as well because they need to re-examine that.
	And then the third gun case was the Supreme Court of Nevada.
	Supreme Court of Nevada, the state of Nevada has its own immunity law for gun manufacturers and gun distributors, which says you're not liable for...
	Somebody's criminal misuse of the gun that you made or sold.
	And this is the Vegas shooting case.
	Some plaintiffs are suing the gun manufacturer despite that law.
	Now, the federal court...
	Because all the judges in Nevada, on the federal side, have been appointed by Harry Reid directly or indirectly.
	Even if they're Republican, they're Harry Reid-approved appointees almost exclusively.
	And so they're terrible.
	I tell people, don't sue in federal court in Nevada.
	You'll never get relief unless you're on the left side of the political equation.
	And on the traditional institutional Democratic Harry Reid side, effectively.
	Because he picked the judges.
	But the federal court said that under the federal law...
	Somehow AR-15s are inherently dangerous in such a way that they're outside of federal immunity, which did not make sense to me.
	But there was a separate Nevada immunity.
	So the federal court, what happens when they have an issue like that?
	They designate the question to the Supreme Court of the state when it's a matter of state law to respect their ability to interpret it because they're the final authority on state law determinations.
	And the Supreme Court of Nevada unanimously said, That there's complete immunity and the gun manufacturer and gun distributor cannot be sued even if the AR-15 has become an illegal machine gun somehow under the federal court's interpretation.
	So that was a good Second Amendment type ruling.
	That was a Nevada statutory ruling.
	People still think AR stands for automatic rifle.
	I mean, not an Armalite rifle.
	Assault rifle, not Armalite.
	Robert, so hold on.
	Actually, there was just one chat I wanted to bring up because it's a legitimate point.
	The parent's culpability going back to the Michigan case comes from their failure when at the school that morning to mention to the principal he had access to a gun at home or at least ask him to search his backpack.
	Very legitimate point.
	How do you respond?
	So you're supposed to write out your kid right there?
	You're supposed to say, hey, he's got a gun illegally, I think?
	Yeah.
	Some people say, yeah.
	Now, that's not involuntary manslaughter, period, number one.
	Number two, there's no law that criminalizes that in Michigan.
	Number three, people should think through what they're asking parents to do and whether that's a realistic thing, whether that's something that if by prosecuting people you're going to change in the future.
	I don't think so.
	You have parents of a disturbed kid who've already made the choices they've made.
	If by prosecuting these parents, are you going to get the next set of parents to rat out their kid right away?
	In fact, are they more likely to not say anything?
	Because look, these parents said or did anything, it's used against them.
	So I don't think, it doesn't equal murder, number one.
	Number two, there is no criminal law that punishes that that I'm aware of in Michigan.
	And number three, I'm not sure it's the soundest policy to have, even if it were to be made a crime.
	Because it's like, you must rat out your kid right away, no matter what.
	Is that going to be a practical standard we're going to have?
	Is that going to work?
	I mean, we can punish more people and pat ourselves on the back for it, if that's the goal.
	But if our goal is to actually change and improve society to deter bad things from happening, criminalizing that kind of behavior is not likely to get you there.
	Okay, and Ganonthal says, before I can sleep, if social media can use algorithms, they can concentrate on easily influenced emotional individuals.
	Teens are more likely to be impacted by this mind and manipulation enough to cause bad things.
	And you're 100% right, Ganonthal.
	Let me just see how I'm going to read this one.
	Okay, I'm not going to read it, but Nufron, thank you very much.
	Okay, so Robert...
	If we expand the definition of involuntary manslaughter like they want to do...
	Every big tech company could be prosecuted.
	We could put Zuckerberg, a whole bunch of other people.
	I'm sure there's a lot of people that would be all in favor of that.
	But everybody that's jumping on the bandwagon should think about, as a lawyer, the concerns are, what are the limits?
	Where else could this be applied?
	What are the analogies or analogous circumstances or situations?
	Once you start saying, if there was anything you could have done that might have prevented this bad event from happening...
	Thereby makes you criminally responsible for every bad thing that happened.
	That's a real wide open door.
	And then you give prosecutors, politicized prosecutors, that degree of discretion, and you know it's going to be misused and abused.
	And so once you criminalize everything, then you're at such a point that all you're really doing is giving prosecutors in the state the power to lock anybody up they want for any reason they want.
	Okay, and Zach Card, I'm going to read this because I think it's a criticism of me, and I enjoy critique.
	Can we have a fall of Seth Rogen and Santa Inc.
	plus victim-blaming L.A. Carberry rant, please?
	Or would you prefer talking about colonoscopies, torsions, and ligations?
	Well, sir, until you've had all three, I would say you have not lived life.
	Zach, I'm not sure if that's a joke or an insult, but either way, it's kind of funny.
	I was never going to rag on Seth Rogen for his car burglary take, because every time we leave our car unlocked for whatever the reason, it gets rummaged through.
	I just don't think anybody rummaging through our car understands the nasty mess that they're getting into when they open our car door.
	But yeah, so anyways, thank you for the super chat.
	Okay, so bottom line, in the case of the Swiss Army AR judgment that we covered, it was over the summer.
	I remember also fishing while reporting on that or analyzing that.
	Bottom line, they undid that judge's decision, and now it's going to – it's back on the naughty list, and it's going to have to be up for SCOTUS to say these are not prohibited firearms or these are not prohibited features on firearms.
	Okay.
	How does it work?
	It's a dangerous doctrine where they're going.
	Where they're going is if you have any means of self-defense, they can take away all your other rights of self-defense.
	And I get some people see the Second Amendment as being a defense against government.
	But self-defense is broad.
	That's defense against whomever is threatening it, whether it's a citizen or anyone else.
	But another person, the state, doesn't matter.
	Self-defense is self-defense.
	It applies also against the government.
	It's been repeatedly applied against a person who was acquitted.
	And self-defense and shooting back at a SWAT team.
	That happens often.
	Or often enough.
	But what they're really saying is if you have any means of self-defense available to you, the state can take away all your other means of self-defense.
	And that's a problem.
	And that's the most dangerous part of that ruling by the Ninth Circuit.
	So hopefully the Supreme Court clarifies in either the cases they currently have or in taking up these cases.
	But the Supreme Court will be busy.
	This term, because it looks like they're going to overturn Roe v.
	Wade.
	Okay, Robert, explain this to me, because I'm the Canadian.
	I'm seeing it from far away.
	I remember once upon a time, everyone was saying, Roe v.
	Wade is not on the table, will never be on the table, and now we're in a world where Roe v.
	Wade is on the table.
	How did we get here?
	I know that I don't understand it enough to know how it got here.
	How did we get here?
	So the Roe itself was always a problematic decision.
	Not many people vouch for its internal logic, its historical accuracy, or its legal precepts.
	Because really what Roe was is we want doctors to have the right to recommend and do abortions.
	It was not about protecting women's right to privacy.
	It just wasn't.
	If you dig into the history of it, and you know who Brennan was, used to be counsel to medical institutions, etc.
	If you know the whole history of it, you know where, maybe it's Blackman I'm thinking of, then you know that's what it was more of a eugenics type decision, frankly, than it was a bodily autonomy type decision.
	Then Casey Mott, but Rowe has basically created a trimester-based structure.
	The state could not do much in the first trimester, could do a little more in the second trimester, and could do a lot more in the third trimester.
	So the later in the pregnancy, the greater the state's rights to regulate abortion was.
	Yeah, in terms of prohibition is what you meant.
	Correct.
	And other restrictions.
	Then Casey came along, and that was where...
	Reagan and Poppy Bush's appointees, who were supposed to overturn Roe, who had decades of tens of millions of evangelical voters voting for them and pro-life Catholics voting for them solely on the basis that they were going to overturn Roe.
	Their appointees saved Roe, but they came up with another even more unmanageable standard, which basically made viability the standard, which is as soon as the...
	A fetus is viable outside of the womb, then the state can regulate it, even prohibit it.
	But before then, it would be presumed that it was invalid, the regulation or prohibition, unless it met certain unequal burden.
	A lot of these tests that became unmanageable tests.
	Since then, because those tests have been unmanageable and have created a lot of confusion and chaos in the lower courts.
	And more states have aggressively challenged it.
	The belief was that at some point they would likely back off of Casey's reinterpretation of Roe.
	But the state of Mississippi passed a law banning abortion after 15 weeks.
	Now they've passed another law that's, I think, six weeks.
	Heartbeat bill.
	Which, by the way, what's unknown out there is the heartbeat bill is very popular.
	When you tell people, do you think abortion should no longer be legal once the baby has a heartbeat, a detectable heartbeat, most Americans say it should be illegal from that stage forward.
	Now, many of those Americans don't know how early that occurs in the pregnancy, but the assumptions about unpopularity are media-based fictions on the issue.
	The complete ban on abortion for any reason has never had majority support, but nor has the current position we're in currently, which allows it even in the third trimester in some states.
	The Mississippi case goes up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
	They heard oral argument this week on the case.
	And the assumption was that while Barrett and Kavanaugh were shaky on other areas of Trump voters' concerns, that they, as coming from conservative religious traditions, Would be good on the issue of questioning whether Roe should be the law of the land.
	And in particular, saying that if it's pre-viability, you're basically not allowed to limit abortion for the most part.
	And that was the initial issue that went up on CERT.
	But in the merits briefing, everybody ended up focusing on should Roe be overturned or not.
	And this is partially the product of a mistake, in my view, tactical mistake, by the pro-choice crowd.
	They decided to say, you can't go along with the Mississippi case without overturning Roe, thinking that would get five justices on their side.
	Instead, they welcomed it and said, you know, you're right.
	Maybe it's time to revisit Roe.
	And the nature of the questions asked are that even liberal commentators believe that Roe will be overturned.
	The only question is, what does the new legal landscape look like?
	Roberts is trying to say, Let's say, you know, get rid of viability as a standard.
	It's no longer a manageable standard.
	It's no longer consistent.
	Roberts made the point.
	He goes, right now, our abortion laws, there's only two other nations in the world that have our kind of abortion laws, and they're North Korea and China.
	And maybe that's not who we want to be in conformity with.
	That's because most countries in the world ban abortion after the first trimester at some level.
	Make it very difficult.
	Except Canada, just as a side note.
	Canada's right there with North Korea and China?
	I don't know when it becomes illegal in Canada, but I think we have very, very few laws, and it's not as much of a political litmus test as it is in the States.
	I just know that we don't have much regulation whatsoever.
	Yes, because Canada doesn't have a real big Catholic or Evangelical Christian population, or as much as the United States and large parts of Europe and other parts and Latin America, etc.
	So Robert's position was, really, we can move this up to something probably close to the end of the first trimester.
	So that's why Roe would be overturned on its viability standard for when the state can intervene.
	He would move up the date, but protect it before then.
	The problem was he was the only one.
	I mean, the problem was for the people on the pro-choice side or the people who would be okay with that compromise, is he was the only one articulating that.
	The three liberal democratic justices were just whining and whining about how stare decisis is so important and precedent.
	These justices, who have no problem overturning any precedent they don't like, suddenly precedent is holy.
	President is sacrosanct.
	If you go against precedent, it means you're political.
	And Judge Sotomayor, Justice Sotomayor, talking about, we don't want to be perceived as political.
	What world do these justices live in?
	Everybody knows they're political hacks.
	Robert, they live in their own vacuum.
	They live in their own silo.
	Either they don't understand that they are already perceived as political, or they think it's righteous political.
	That's the only explanation.
	It's clear Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas are ready to toss it.
	And Alito and Thomas always have been.
	Thomas asked more questions than he normally does.
	He was making a point that was, I think, part substantive, part rhetorical.
	He wanted them to tell him which part of the Constitution gives the right to abortion.
	Which one is it?
	Is it right to liberty?
	Is it right to personal autonomy?
	Right to bodily integrity?
	And where is that right?
	Is that the liberty interest under the 14th Amendment?
	Is it a certain degree of private sphere under the Fourth Amendment?
	Is it something else?
	What is it?
	And of course, different people have different answers, which was his point, which is that nobody can even articulate exactly where abortion rights come in.
	Now, I think privacy and bodily autonomy have always been there.
	They're core to the con.
	If you don't own your own body, what do you own?
	So I've never agreed with Thomas and others that this doesn't come within that.
	The question is whether or not there's another life that you can protect.
	And that's a medical question.
	And that leads to the second argument.
	That Kavanaugh made.
	Kavanaugh has made clear he wants to return this to the States.
	So that his new post-Roe landscape would be...
	Robert's post-Roe landscape would be abortion okay up until 15 weeks.
	Maybe even move it back to 12 weeks.
	But somewhere in that neighborhood is where he would have it.
	But that only gets four.
	So that puts...
	Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas want to say no more period.
	Stop actually right there.
	No more period means...
	Leave it to the states to decide?
	No.
	I mean, I think they would be okay with that, but they mean that there's no constitutional right to an abortion.
	To a certain degree, it would mean leave it to the states.
	But at some point, if you believe life begins at conception, you could ban abortion, period.
	In fact, you'd say it's constitutionally required to protect innocent life.
	But I don't think there's not five votes for that.
	So, in the end, what appears to be five votes for is to send it back to the states.
	Gorsuch and Alito and Thomas would be fine with that.
	Kavanaugh kept making that point repeatedly.
	He was like, this is such a political issue.
	And I think he asked the right question, or a right question in this debate, which has always been, one question is, when does life begin in terms of protection of life constitutionally?
	But the other question is, who should decide that?
	Should the Supreme Court of the United States decide that?
	Should Congress decide that?
	Should the state legislators decide that?
	Who should decide that?
	And Kavanaugh's point was, this should not be a Supreme Court decision.
	This should be up to each state legislature to determine when life begins.
	And if they decide it begins at conception, they can ban abortion from period.
	If they think it starts at six weeks or 10 weeks or 15, they can do whatever they want.
	And so the bottom line to that, to simplify it for a dummy like me, is...
	Leave it to the states.
	They say abortion is not constitutionally protected.
	Every state can enact their own laws.
	If you don't like the law of your state, move.
	It would be the bottom line.
	And if you go to another state for those purposes.
	And if it gets ratified as law in a state, that reflects the will of the people.
	Abortion laws are no different than gun laws.
	It's just what the people will by way of law.
	And if you don't like it, leave, is effectively the argument.
	Yes.
	And so the key vote is likely going to be Barrett.
	Barrett's focus was a lot of the concern about abortion originally was the burden of parenthood.
	She was like, these days you can put up a kid for adoption right away.
	That's very easy.
	She's familiar with this because she herself has adopted multiple kids.
	She was trying to argue that the reason for respecting the tradition of Roe It isn't applicable anymore because some of the arguments in both Roe and Casey no longer apply.
	Not only do we know a lot more about pain and more about the life of the fetus than we did back then, but we also now have all that you're really asking is you're saying the burden of the pregnancy is all you're asking the woman to bear by banning abortion.
	You're not asking her to bear the burden of parenthood.
	Because of the availability of adoption and how easy that is now available in the modern age.
	But that tells you where she's going.
	She's going to overturn Roe.
	The question is, does she join Roberts and say the states can't do it except after 15 weeks?
	Or does she join Kavanaugh and the three conservatives and say it's the state period.
	You can ban it whenever you want.
	It's up to each state.
	But I think my prediction, they're going to send it back to the States fully.
	Barrett will ultimately sign on with Kavanaugh's decision.
	Not a guarantee, though, because I'm a big skeptic of Barrett and her fear of the political tea leaves.
	Barrett did mention, by the way, the vaccination issue in the context of bodily integrity.
	The same people pushing a woman's absolute right to terminate a pregnancy at any time, that's what a lot of their positions are.
	Bodily autonomy.
	Yeah, bodily autonomy and personal integrity and so forth, bodily integrity, are the same people who are for vaccine mandates.
	Notably, they didn't respond at all to Barrett putting that out there.
	But you never know where that goes.
	Barrett may be intending that to mean a state can't impose a vaccine mandate because bodily integrity doesn't mean that much.
	That may be where she's going.
	But I think ultimately they're probably most likely they send it back to the states.
	There's a decent chance Barrett capitulates, goes with Roberts, and they just moved the deadline to 15 weeks.
	But viability, I don't believe there's any more legal viability to the viability standard of Roe remaining controlling precedent by next year.
	I had a question about Amy Cohn at Barrett.
	There were some articles accusing her, and I'm trying to make sense of the accusation.
	Of racism by raising the argument that adoption is readily available as an argument against abortion given her adoption of African children.
	I still don't even understand the accusation against her.
	I'm trying to understand.
	It's confession through projection because they kept hammering how critical it is to have abortion available for poor people.
	And at some point you have to ask yourself, is that because they're concerned about poor people?
	Or is that because they think like Bill Gates and don't want poor people having more kids?
	And don't want certain minority groups having more kids?
	Because that was the history of Planned Parenthood and Margaret Sanger.
	So that aspect, the pro-choice community has never dealt meaningfully with the eugenics and racist and elitist heritage of abortion supporters in America.
	And it goes way back.
	And I've dealt with it in person with high-ranking officials at Planned Parenthood.
	But I think that a lot of people think it would never be overturned.
	I think they're wrong.
	It will be overturned.
	The only question is, is it moved to 15 weeks or is it moved to the states entirely?
	And I'm betting it's probably going to get moved to the states entirely.
	And I'll discuss the political implications of that with Richard Barris.
	Either tomorrow or next week, whenever he's available.
	Because it's not what people think it is.
	There's some Democrats that think it's a big winner if Roe gets overturned at the Supreme Court.
	I think they're wrong.
	And Robert, I want to bring this up.
	I hear someone screaming upstairs, and I don't know if it's joy or sadness.
	I'm going to leave.
	Marion is parenting right now.
	We're streaming.
	This is my question also.
	Nancy.
	It says, I've known two people who almost died from pregnancy, preeclampsia and hemorrhage.
	I don't like the idea of forcing someone to risk their life for another.
	So here's a question.
	Are there any hard exceptions?
	Risk of life to the mother, rape, and potential or diagnosed deformations or issues with the baby.
	Are those issues at play in the current debate?
	Not before the Supreme Court.
	It's what the states can do.
	And whether the state chooses to have exceptions for when the pregnancy is not the result of consensual activity, which would be rape incest, whether self-defense is applicable, because that's what that person's talking about, a version of self-defense.
	Even though it's innocent life, they're not trying to cause you risk, but that's the theory by the health and well-being and life of the mother.
	And if people think it through, this gets real tricky philosophically and legally, too.
	But, you know, when exactly is self-defense permissible?
	What if your life depends on you shooting an innocent person?
	You know, I mean, that's one of those classic moral philosophy questions.
	Because that's kind of what, when people say, I don't feel comfortable with the pregnancy risk, the health risk of pregnancy.
	If you accept that the other...
	Most of those people are saying the fetal life is not the same as the woman's life.
	They're making a moral biological judgment, whether they realize it or not.
	I think, at least unconsciously, that's taking place.
	Because otherwise, if you see the fetal life is the same as a human life, no different, then you have a very vulnerable life, for which, if it's not a case of non-consent producing the pregnancy...
	Then, you know, consensual activity to produce the pregnancy.
	At that point, is it okay to just shoot an innocent person to save your own life?
	I mean, those kind of things, like, hypothetically, happen in certain, like, wars and certain circumstances.
	But, you know, that's not an easy...
	I find that's actually a very difficult debate that most people have because they go back and forth.
	But most people in the abortion context, down deep.
	Either see the fetal life as equal to other human life, or they see it as some form of lesser human life, whether they fully appreciate that or not.
	I'm only speaking from my own perspective, or potentially equal, but causally dependent.
	And so I don't know if causally dependent means...
	Yeah, I mean, that's the sophisticated feminist argument.
	There's a sophisticated feminist argument that goes, you are brought in, somebody needs your blood and organs to live.
	And you're the only one that can do it.
	Could the state compel you to go for nine months and have your blood and organs?
	And risk your own life in the process.
	Now, the difference is, if it's the product of consensual activity where you know that's a known outcome, known possible consequence, I've been on the side of that's different.
	I mean, especially in the way we treat child support laws.
	We say, hey, you're responsible, even though you didn't control what happened during the pregnancy process, and maybe you didn't want to get...
	Maybe you thought it couldn't happen.
	It did.
	My baby sister was born that way.
	My mom had one idea, my dad had another.
	As was one of my brothers, just throwing that out there.
	Not a risk to life, but it was a total accident.
	It just happened because of...
	Accidents.
	Yeah, my mom intended it to happen.
	My dad just didn't know she intended it to happen.
	But the peanut princess was born, my little sister.
	So I think the nature of...
	It gets into a lot of deep moral philosophical questions.
	And Kavanaugh's point was, isn't that more appropriate for the democratic legislative bodies at the most local level to determine?
	Because these are such deep philosophical, moral, religious, spiritual questions where there's robust debate about.
	Sotomayor tried to pretend there was no debate in the science.
	Just not true.
	She also pretended that the only people who believe life begins at conception are religious.
	Also not true.
	You know, it gives you an idea for what little tiny cubicle of a world that she lives in.
	The same one where she's the only apolitical justice on the court.
	It's that same fantasy land.
	It's called a silo, Roberts.
	Yes, exactly.
	But I think Ro is gone.
	Ro is on life support.
	And I think they're going to pull the plug by the end of 2022.
	It'll probably be an issue right in the middle of the elections.
	They'll probably announce the case sometime in late spring, early summer.
	And I have lived now through an era where even the people on the left are going to say, our conspiracy theories have come to fruition.
	When everyone told us Roe vs.
	Wade was never on the table two years ago.
	Lo and behold, it's on the table, and now most people are saying it's going to be overturned.
	Robert, I'm going to bring this one up.
	I don't expect us to do it in unison, and I don't want us to, because that would be total cringe.
	But my two-year-old, my two-year-olds, no, my two-year-old keeps saying, hi, Viva, hi, Robert, and waving at you guys.
	Would you guys wave back at the camera and say, hi, Lex, please?
	Hi, Lex.
	Enjoy the evening, and well done, because...
	Oh, that's good.
	You know, that's good.
	I double-checked that to make sure that wasn't a prank.
	But Hi, Lex is fine, yes.
	Otherwise, that name could have been, we could have been, you know, Simpson-style prank.
	I read it first.
	That one I read through first.
	Okay, so that is phenomenally interesting, and I do feel like I'm living through...
	I have my opinions on the matter.
	Nobody gets a rat behind about my opinions.
	But it's interesting.
	I can see now how people on the left are going to say, you called us conspiracy theorists two years ago.
	Look who's laughing now.
	But I also know what I know about Roe v.
	Wade, his origins, and how it might not have ought to have become law that it became regardless.
	Okay.
	One hour, 40 minutes in.
	We're doing good, Robert.
	We're doing good because we haven't even gotten to the bulk of the issues for the evening.
	But I don't know how long we're going to talk about Juicy Smouye.
	I mean...
	Everyone's been following it, but Robert, I can't follow trials if I can't see the witnesses.
	If I can't see the Osundair brothers talking about the fact that they were paid by Jussie Smollett, that they ran a test run, that they got along with him, that one of the brothers said, in your plan, Jussie, one of us can't punch you because you don't trust him enough to pull the punches.
	If I can't see the testimony live...
	It's like I'm reporting on a dude, tweeting on it in court, and it doesn't feel right, and I can't do it.
	But that trial, from what I understand, is a pure...
	Is it dog listening?
	Shit show.
	It's a pure shit show, Robert, where you had the Osundara brothers come in and effectively embarrass the defense to the point where the Osundara brothers come in, confirm the exact story we've known they've been saying for nearly two years now.
	He paid them.
	He asked them to do a dry run.
	He texted them the night of, said, let's meet up and let's do this.
	Let's get in front of a camera that we think is rolling, but it wasn't rolling.
	Punch me.
	Don't do it too hard.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	And here's $3,500 by way of check for your hardship.
	And they're embarrassing him to the point where apparently, and this is, I think, the only thing of interest of the trial, the defense attorneys were calling for a mistrial, purporting that the judge lunged at...
	the lawyer and then denied a mistrial.
	I mean, I followed it closely.
	I don't think I can add much more than that, Robert.
	What's your take from what you've been hearing of the Jussie Smollett trial?
	Well, it's another example, like the Ghislaine Maxwell case, that should be televised, because then we would all know whether some of these allegations are true or not, and some of these media interpretations of events are true or not.
	So, because it appeared the prosecution from most...
	I heard had a very successful week in the trial that the twins held up very well, that the defense cross-examination was kind of all over the place.
	Like, one minute was, you know, weren't you really, you know, there wasn't a lot of sexual tension because you're really gay, but you're actually a homophobe, but you're really gay, you know, that kind of routine.
	Because it appears there, the defense is, he had no incentive to do this.
	He was making $2 million a year with Empire.
	That these are these two other people that came up with this to do this to him.
	Not quite explaining, you know, why was there a prior relationship?
	Who goes out at 2 a.m. in Chicago in the winter for a subway to begin with?
	Robert, I'll stop you there.
	He didn't go out for a subway.
	He went out for eggs because his physical trainers, the Osundara brothers, sorry, it's only one of them, it's not both of them, said, get some eggs.
	And he went out to Walgreens, allegedly.
	Again, this is a 12-year-old thinking their parents are idiots, and they expect us to buy this crap.
	Sorry, I just had to throw that in.
	I mean, it was all of it, though.
	Everything about the story was clearly patently ludicrous.
	The media looked like total fools.
	Kamala Harris jumped on the bandwagon.
	She looked like an idiot at the time, but just even more so.
	And you can see why the media doesn't want coverage of this case.
	It humiliates the ways in which they eagerly lie about these kind of cases to promote a narrative.
	And it was a lie that as soon as I heard it, I mean, even like Dave Chappelle said, as soon as he heard it, it was like, nope.
	One, it's downtown Chicago.
	That's not MAGA country.
	Secondly, MAGA country.
	Downtown Chicago, in the middle of a winter vortex.
	Yeah.
	Nobody's out there that doesn't have to be out there.
	Number three, most people didn't know who Juicy Smollett was.
	He was a big actor on Empire.
	He wasn't some huge media star, just that everybody's hustling after him.
	And that they would wear MAGA hats and that they would bring a lynching rope.
	I mean, this was ridiculousness after ridiculousness after ridiculousness that just shows how Robin Roberts should have been fired before Chris Cuomo got fired at CNN, which he was this week.
	Sorry, Frito.
	Those memes are coming.
	But they already got the Chris Cuomo thanking Frito.
	It's just great.
	But all of that is just embarrassing, and that's what the case has laid out.
	But we don't know.
	The defense is saying the judge is making faces at him, lunging at him.
	Nobody reported that at the time, and there's other people in the courtroom.
	So it appears the defense lawyers are just making things up, but we can't know for sure because we don't get to watch it live.
	This is...
	It's one thing Judge Schroeder said during the Rittenhouse trial.
	I was like, I'm not going to let media in again if you continue to misrepresent what I said.
	And I was like, a lot of us were like, dude, that's why you need them there.
	The difference between lunging and...
	Let me just get a pen.
	I don't have a...
	Where's my pen?
	My lipstick will be a...
	And pointing a pen at someone?
	That's just a question of interpretation.
	So you got some defense attorneys who were apparently literally crying.
	Saying, the judge lunged at me when he might have just been pointing, or she might have been pointing a pen saying, you better pipe down over there.
	And then when you don't have cameras, I don't know what happened.
	And now I have to decide between what I believe to be a dishonest defense team versus the truth.
	But Robert, it was of the straw man defenses to Jussie Smollett.
	So some people said like, okay, the argument now for the defense, by the way, is that the Otsundar brothers are career criminals.
	They're thoughtful criminals, like calculated criminals, and they set this all up.
	If it wasn't a deliberate attack, it was a fabricated one.
	The $3,500 payment to them by check was for training services, and this is the defense of the defense, and I'm not joking.
	Why would Jussie Smollett have paid them $3,500 by check for their perpetrating this act, and then given them $100 cash to buy the Bleach and rope and hat.
	To which I said to this person online, you don't get stores that accept checks.
	So obviously, you pay them, but for the deeds that they need to get done for this act, you're not going to get stores to accept checks, so you give them cash and you say, go and buy what you need.
	This is it.
	What's the excess penalty for Jussie Smollett for carrying it this far?
	A year and a half ago?
	I would have been prepared to forgive Jussie if he said, I'm so damn sorry.
	I didn't appreciate what I was doing.
	And forgive me.
	I throw myself at the mercy of the public opinion court.
	What sanctions can he face now for taking it this far?
	Well, he's obviously not doing any favors with the court.
	The only reason why I got this far was because all the political actors in Chicago wanted to cover up for him.
	But there was so much public exposure that independent prosecutors had to get involved, override the DA's office to make sure he was actually even prosecuted in the first place.
	But it was such a ludicrous story.
	It never should have been seen as meritorious from the beginning.
	But clearly, he was lying about all these things.
	All of it was nuts.
	And it's obvious it's nuts.
	And he just doesn't have a good cover story for it beyond attacking these guys and now attacking the court.
	And so he should do real time.
	But he is like Ghislaine Maxwell, gives off the vibe of someone that has lived such an entitled way of life that he's used to just getting away with things and just can't imagine ever facing consequences.
	Did he cross state lines?
	I mean, we'll never get old.
	But Robert, so we're in Illinois.
	Wait, this is a state crime, so we're in Illinois.
	Who determines...
	What's the word I'm looking for?
	Yeah, the sentencing is the judge.
	Okay, so is it conceivable that a judge is going to say, sweet, merciful goodness, had you just pleaded guilty from the beginning, we would have given you time...
	I don't know, whatever.
	There was no time served, but we would have given you something non-incarceration, but now you've come and you've made a mockery of the system.
	I'm going to give you 30 days.
	Even if it's 30 days, 30 days in jail, Jussie, enjoy it.
	Is there a risk that the judge says now?
	I think because of how high profile is, they almost have to give him something like a year.
	In jail?
	Yeah, because otherwise, everybody knows this guy made up a crazy story and lied to cops for days.
	If he doesn't do time, what's the disincentive?
	For anybody else to just not do the same thing themselves.
	So you jerk around the Chicago Police Department like that, the judge almost has to send a signal, a message of some meaningful time.
	If he'd cut a plea, he could have dodged time.
	But he chose not to.
	So he's got, in my view, they almost have to give him time.
	I gotta tell you, I was prepared to forgive him a year and a half ago when I did that video.
	Look, I didn't send the link because I'm...
	I'm a little embarrassed about it because this fucking guy, he has not apologized.
	If he had done it then, I would have forgiven him.
	Now, taking it to court, impugning the system, impugning the judge, trying to actually get the Osundari brothers, in theory, to suffer more for their being duped into his influence in Hollywood.
	I think he's got to go to jail.
	I would have said 30 days.
	That would have been enough for Jussie, but...
	Yeah, I think he does need to actually do time at this point.
	And I think a judge, especially the one accused of lunging at the defense attorneys, when the judge knows, I don't do that.
	I don't do that stuff.
	Okay.
	Amazing.
	Hold on.
	What was that?
	That was...
	Justice Mullen owes me $3,500 to have to listen to this BS for two years.
	It was a learning curve for me.
	Pre-trial diversion, Chicago corruption, defamation.
	Oh, man.
	And their defamation lawsuit, the Osundar brothers' defamation lawsuit, has increased in stock value because of this.
	Okay.
	Smollett, so you think it's going to be an obvious conviction.
	It's going to end this week.
	The question is going to be sentencing.
	Well, I mean, highly likely.
	It's Chicago, so you never know with a jury in Chicago.
	So there's never a guarantee in Chicago.
	Well, if I'm betting, and I'm not, but if I am, I'm betting on a conviction because this is...
	Yeah, I'd say 85% chance of conviction.
	I like those odds.
	Robert Kim Potter.
	That's the next one that's been going on this week.
	I have not been following Kim Potter.
	Oh, because I have.
	Actually, I'm undermining my own knowledge.
	It was jury selection, and I think that's all that got done this week, right?
	That's it.
	So nothing substantive, just jury selection.
	I believe the trial will start next week.
	I think it will be video broadcast live, and Nick Ricada, I believe, will be covering it.
	Andrew Branca, as well, will be covering it.
	So those will be the places to go.
	The most interesting trial this week, there was also, we'll get to the Elizabeth Holmes Theranos case.
	Not interesting, but the most interesting one, Robert.
	Which one was that, dare say?
	Please.
	Elaine Maxwell.
	Here's what's amazing.
	They are videotaping all the trial proceedings, but they're only broadcasting it if you're inside the courtroom.
	So I think they should be broadcasting it to the world for the world to know and see.
	I'm also not super comfortable at keeping anonymous the names of any adult victim, even if they were victimized when they were a minor.
	We have public trials for a reason.
	I've never been comfortable with adults being kept, their identities being kept secret.
	We don't have secret trials in America, and we shouldn't start introducing them under any pretext.
	And I'll be fair to you, is that you don't even think, the same argument for protected witnesses, even if they're adults, would apply to protecting jury members, and I know you don't support that either.
	So that is a question of opinion, it's a question of judgment.
	But Robert, before we get into this, what drives me crazy...
	I read a lot of the comments, probably all of them.
	I don't want to admit it because it's embarrassing.
	People accuse you, Robert, of saying you don't want to drop the Mossad word as relates to Jelaine Maxwell's family.
	But to which I say, you guys are new to the channel.
	Welcome to the channel.
	We covered this.
	I remember where, Robert?
	I was in my mother-in-law's sunroom in the Eastern Townships and you were dropping truth bombs that I had never heard of as relates to...
	I'm a schnook.
	I knew nothing.
	I knew nothing of Jelaine Maxwell's father, her history.
	So I just want to do it right now.
	Nobody works for Mossad and is protecting anybody.
	Robert, if you could just illustrate Jelaine Maxwell's father's history with intelligence agencies to explain away why she might be getting something of preferential protective treatment from the states, if you can.
	Well, or the way I would put it is, as we predicted last week, This criminal trial, the prosecution is going way out of its way to avoid any mention of any third party that could be implicated by this case.
	The defense has occasionally brought up names.
	The only name the prosecution will talk about is Donald Trump.
	And again, it's James Comey's daughter bringing the prosecution.
	What you have not heard about in the trial is Mossad, is MI6, is CIA, is Robert Mueller.
	Bill Clinton.
	The Clinton Foundation.
	Now, Bill Clinton has come up by the defense, but not by the prosecution.
	Kevin Spacey came up by the defense, but not by the prosecution.
	A lot of the other people on those planes came up by the defense, but not by the prosecution.
	Fidel Castro.
	And this was news to me.
	There's photos of Epstein with Fidel.
	What was Jeffrey doing down there in Cuba with Fidel?
	So, you know, it implicates a lot of people in a range of plays.
	Bill Gates, somehow his name has dodged any accountability in the trial.
	So as predicted, they've structured this trial to limit accountability to only Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell and pretend these other big people really didn't have anything to do with it.
	And that's actually, I am not even referring to them as conspiracy theories anymore.
	I'm just saying theories.
	Some of the theories as to the critiques as to why James Comey's daughter is the prosecution, as to Allison Nathan is the judge, is not that they're going to spare the rod on Ghislaine.
	It's that they're going to spare the rod on everyone else, incidental or directly correlated to Ghislaine.
	And that was one of my questions.
	I said, okay, they're going after Ghislaine.
	I've seen enough now of the summary of the trial to know that if they've been following Ghislaine and Epstein for however long, and it looks like a decade plus, They know each and every person who procured these services for which Jelaine and Epstein are being charged.
	Why are none of them being charged?
	Robert, do you have a...
	Yeah.
	Well, things like...
	Other than politics?
	How did the computer towers disappear on the eve of the search warrant raid?
	That came out that there was all this computer equipment, but the towers were gone.
	And somehow it's not going to be discussed at the trial.
	So what has developed at the trial, the best coverage of this, who's going down to watch it live on the video screens inside the courtroom, is good logic.
	L-A-W-G-I-C.
	So he's been following and breaking it down.
	He gets up and does his prayers, then he takes the train, then he hustles back, and then he tries to...
	Just so I don't want to accuse you of anything discriminatory, Joe Nierman is religious, it's overt, and he's admitted to it, so there's...
	He's exhausted.
	Basically, it's like 6 a.m. to midnight every day after day after day after day because you've got to hop the train in New York.
	You've got to get through it.
	You've got to get through all the security that's there.
	Then you get up into the little room.
	So he's been breaking it down day by day by day.
	Robert Gruller does breakdowns at the end of the day.
	And from what I've seen, she's fried.
	Maxwell's fried.
	Joe Nierman is good logic, and I don't want to...
	He's doing the Lord's work, no pun intended, in terms of this.
	Day in and day out, updates during pauses, and great coverage.
	Inner City Press...
	And you have a legal pad full of notes.
	Well, Inner City Press, I don't know how they're doing it on Twitter.
	They're updating, and I don't know if they have their phone in there, but it's like minute by minute.
	They're not inside the courtroom.
	They've created a bunch of additional rooms where you get to watch it on TV.
	Okay, and I'm bringing this up.
	Joe's doing a good job, God bless him, because he does deserve recognition for what he's doing.
	Day in and day out, yeah, no, Jelaine Maxwell is going to...
	Here's what I don't even understand.
	The defense of Jelaine Maxwell is not that Jelaine is innocent.
	It's that everyone else is guilty.
	His name is Juan Alisaro.
	Juan, don't call me John.
	Don't call me John, Juan.
	That's a shirt right there.
	The Juan, don't call me John Juan, who even when he was cross said, I didn't think anything was offensive of being called Juan or John.
	Their main way of undermining Juan's incriminating testimony against Jelaine is by saying, you participate in it, you're just as guilty.
	That's not a defense for Jelaine.
	That's just more of like everyone else should be involved and throw everyone else under the bus.
	That's not going to get Jelaine acquitted.
	It's very much like the Juicy Smollet.
	It's attack everybody else.
	And it's like playing to the ego of the defendant.
	Oh, yeah.
	They're bad.
	They're bad.
	They're worse.
	They went along.
	They compromised.
	So, well, you know, I shouldn't be held responsible for this.
	Every witness is bad.
	And like Ghislaine appears to be acting, according to some people who have seen her in the courtroom, very confident and happy.
	Which would be consistent with her delusional mindset that I think she's had from day one.
	I mean, they came up with these crazy rules within their...
	They were like mini-Nazis.
	They had all these crazy internal rules for staff.
	You can't eat in front of us.
	You can't drink in front of us.
	You must stand this way.
	You must look this way.
	You can't do this.
	Pause it there just so everyone knows what's going on.
	Robert, you now are referring to the Emanuel, the Black Book, instruction for staff.
	Again, when I saw the words on the paper of this Instruction for Staff, and it's a lengthy document, I was like, okay, this is either fake or it's psychotic.
	It's one or the other, because if it's real...
	It's British royal family.
	Elaine Maxwell clearly thought because of her daddy that she was effectively British and her friendships with some of the British royal family who also somehow the prosecution can't get the names Prince Andrew out of their mouth during the case so far.
	Very interesting.
	Classic.
	Maureen Comey is doing what her daddy did well.
	Cover up for the real criminals.
	While looking like they're...
	Prosecuting the bad ones.
	It's a show trial.
	But it's a show trial with someone who's clearly guilty, who's happy to play in the show because she lives in such a narcissistic, entitled world that she can't understand the sense of responsibility or accountability.
	And anyone who says anything is bad.
	Now, a lot of these witnesses, apparently the one guy had a couple of thefts, a couple of this, a couple of that, so apparently he had some problematic past issues.
	Didn't change his testimony.
	No, that's the thing.
	Okay, so Juan tried to steal $6,000 on one occasion, $5,000 on another, apparently a firearm on another occasion.
	Juan, and was driving victims around, was cleaning up the massage.
	As the idiots elicited on cross, he drove Ghislaine around scouting talent.
	Which was, you know, finding underage girls with, you know, ice cream cones at the park.
	And so they were able to take apart, like, you know, the victims are going to have, because of the length of time, because of the nature of the trauma, because of the usual biographical background of someone that is targeted.
	They target people that already have issues.
	And because of that, those other issues can create problems in their memory recall and other things that they experience.
	And they've been able to document some of that.
	But not that changes the core story.
	The prosecution did do a good job of putting on a grooming expert on the stand.
	And I thought GoodLogic was right about the timing.
	Putting the victim first and then the expert, they're able to understand everything the victim said.
	And now we'll be able to be looking for it for the next group.
	And the problem is they're all going to fit.
	Because it's clear Epstein is guilty.
	And it appears that instead of a linear...
	I thought they would take a limited defense of...
	Of when, of just challenging whether she was there or not.
	And they were going to say that she's only being added to the equation because she happened to date him years ago and because there was a lot of money to be made and naming more people.
	And they've made that defense, but it hasn't been the focal point.
	Instead, they go other places because I think her ego wants the witness attack, not understanding that the nature of that attack actually undermines the defense.
	Everyone needs to understand that because I'm sitting there saying, okay, good.
	So you are now...
	What's the word, Robert, when you put the witness in contradiction to their previous statements?
	Prior inconsistency.
	Okay, that might be it.
	There's a word I'm looking for, but they're going to say, okay, Juan, you are such an unreliable witness because you were a co-conspirator.
	He wasn't a co-conspirator in a formal sense, but...
	You participated in this.
	You tried to steal.
	You tried to steal money, a gun.
	You were traveling around.
	You knew everything all along.
	At one point, from what has been reported, when they asked Juan in cross-examination, did you see any signs of violence or whatever?
	And he said, no, I wish I had.
	I would have intervened.
	And apparently, the courtroom laughed.
	Because what you have is a courtroom saying, this witness...
	Is so in bed with the crime itself.
	Okay, fine.
	He's not on trial, but the defense by undermining him, by making him look like he's equally guilty, all that it does is further incriminate Jelaine.
	So like, okay, good.
	So this guy's an unreliable witness because he's a criminal who was working with the criminal for 12 years.
	How does that exonerate Jelaine?
	Exactly.
	It didn't help at all.
	And then a good amount of the cross-examination of the victim.
	Some of it was effective at pointing out her memory recall, you have reasons to doubt.
	But the core of the story, you don't have reasons to doubt.
	And so I think they really didn't make much headway there.
	If they would have kept a narrow focus, they would have had a remote but still viable chance.
	I think at this point, it's no chance.
	But I think she'll be shocked.
	She'll be shocked by her mind, by the way her defense is acting, by the way she's behaved to date, by the way she's behaving in court.
	And basically, it was very revelatory.
	She thought she was the equivalent of a royal family.
	You will sit around and you will do this.
	You will say this.
	You will behave this.
	You will not look at this.
	You will see nothing, hear nothing, and say nothing.
	I mean, you know, it's stuff that you got a real view of who she was.
	And then, you know, all the toys and all the other stuff.
	I mean, that was just...
	First of all, and I don't want to make light of any of this.
	This is revolting to the pit of my stomach so far down it goes to my butt.
	I mean, this is revolting through and through.
	And my only issue is, it's nice.
	They're going to convict Jelaine, thoroughly convinced.
	They're going to convict her so as to absolve everyone else who was involved in this, including the named co-conspirators from back in 2000...
	What was it?
	2007.
	But two things.
	First of all, in that book that Juan is alleged to have stolen, the Black Book, with the instructions to the staff, it said that if the toothpaste was half empty, throw it out and refill it with a new one.
	And like...
	I'm sitting here, I'm jogging, watching Robert Gruller talk about this, and I'm thinking, in my house, when the toothpaste is empty, we cut the back off, we pop it open, and we rub the toothbrush inside to get any remaining toothpaste out.
	I've listed this, it's like, I would say royalty, but it's more like fascist dictators, like Kim Jong-un.
	It's fascist royalty kind of behavior, because that's how it, very self-entitled, power-driven, ego-driven.
	And then people were saying, Nobody was really going to blame Juan for trying to steal anything because that was pretty much the job from hell.
	You had to set up and clean up after Epstein?
	You had to bring the toys back?
	That basically was prison.
	It's like...
	I won't even...
	Clean up words you cannot mention on the YouTubes.
	But I say it's the worst job on earth, but it's also criminals like...
	Hey, Juan is sitting there saying, what are they going to do?
	Yeah, I stole $10,000.
	Report me to the cops.
	Good luck with that, sir.
	There was one orange thing I wanted to bring up here.
	I love you both and all the beautiful people of vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	You all literally saved my family's lives.
	Become a member.
	Jennifer Lamp, thank you very much.
	And thank you for being a member as well.
	But my issue is that, never forget that Maxwell herself is the smokescreen.
	I was just going to say this.
	If the Epstein network of celebrities, politicians, scientists, etc.
	don't go down or get exposed, this will all have been for nothing.
	That is where...
	Oil went for something that they can take you out anytime they want and cabin and control the damage so that all the people who really profited from it never face any consequences.
	Because like, to me we're asking...
	There are clear connections between Epstein and Mossad and Israeli high-ranking officials.
	There's clear connections between Epstein and Mueller and FBI.
	There are clear connections between Ghislaine Maxwell and her father, Robert Maxwell, with intelligence agencies all around the world.
	And when people always want to exclusively focus on Mossad, I'm like, okay, maybe that assumption is on you a little bit.
	Because Robert Maxwell was not limited.
	He was in bed with MI6.
	He was in bed with the KGB.
	And this goes all the way back to how he escaped the consequences of the Nazis in the Ukraine in the first place.
	Well, this is something I do want to bring up because when people say, focus on Mossad, focus on Mossad, typically those are people with an agenda who want to focus on Israel and religion.
	Mossad is just another country's intelligence.
	And the issue here is not one specific country.
	It's pretty much all intelligence of the most powerful nations on Earth.
	Yes.
	Military.
	So, yeah, MI6, CIA, Mossad, KGB.
	I mean, it's nothing to...
	When you say it, Robert, it's nothing to do with being anti-Semitic or anything related to religion.
	It's just intelligence agencies of military powers.
	And these people were.
	And we all know it now.
	And we're watching a freaking trial and I'm sitting there trying to say, okay, fine.
	What are the theorists going to say about what's going on?
	She'll get convicted.
	Prosecution is doing a good job convicting her.
	She'll be convinced in her head that she can win on appeal.
	And I don't think she'll ever rat anybody else out because I don't think she thinks that way.
	And if they're ever worried about it, eternal truth number two will probably take place.
	Epstein didn't kill himself.
	We'll see what happens with Ghislaine Maxwell if they ever do think she's going to start spilling the beans on who else was there.
	Though Epstein had a lot more knowledge than she ever did.
	This is not a question of every fear hides a wish and I don't want to plant the seeds.
	I'm just saying to myself as I'm looking at this, if they wanted to do the Epstein, there's people that they could Epstein...
	Who might be melting off too much now already?
	The only question, I guess, becomes, at what point does it become too much?
	But I thought it became too much with Epstein himself, where you had Sticks, Hex, and Hammer, all the other guys saying, they're going to kill him!
	They're going to kill him!
	Everyone says, you're crazy!
	Then he dies.
	Epstein was more cognizant of his situation, I think, than Maxwell is.
	And to the degree she has any inclinations the other way, she knows what happened to her dad.
	Her dad went out on a boat, didn't come back.
	He fell off.
	What was the name of the boat, Robert?
	I know, but what does the crowd not know?
	You know what?
	Remind me.
	I think it was called the Jelaine, if I'm not mistaken.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Because this is how much I pay attention, Robert.
	And I'm saying, for the criticism, I was like, no, dude, we talked about this so long ago that it shocked me.
	It's like, first of all, call me stupid.
	I didn't even know of Jelaine Maxwell's origins because I thought the name was original name.
	Wasn't the original name.
	I was...
	Naive to the point of stupidity.
	So I can admit that now.
	And if people want to know how groomers operate, the groomer's testimony, the groomer expert testimony was very good for that.
	I think that has utility beyond this case.
	To know what to spot the signs, spot the flags, spot the problems, etc.
	Now, I mean, to some degree, it was all because of some of these parents.
	At least the first victim's parents were totally in on it.
	Because you go to some guy's house, some old guy's house, Is a bunch of naked women hanging around the pool and you're going to have your 14-year-old daughter there?
	I don't think so.
	Epstein's lucky he didn't go certain places because certain places they would have taken the law in their own hands and he would have found himself Louisiana fishing.
	He's lucky in that respect.
	I'm going to say one thing.
	You have gotten pixelated at the very moment we started discussing this and now I know people are going to say YouTube is throttling this.
	You're totally throttling it.
	So, that was one of my questions, Robert.
	I'm not a helicopter parent by any mean, but I'm a decent human being with a half a brain.
	How the flipping hell do the parents let this happen to their kids?
	For those that had parents involved, because from the evidence, it seems that parents were knowingly bringing their kids to these locations.
	Well, at least the first parent, the first person, basically she pimped out her daughter for her own financial well-being.
	That's what happened.
	They likely targeted those kind of people in those situations.
	When they're not targeting foster children and things like that.
	They target runaways, foster children.
	Eliza Blue gave you a good explanation of how they target people in a wide range of contexts on our sidebar interview.
	She does a lot of advocacy in that space and understand how it works.
	You know, it doesn't start off with, you know, give me a special massage.
	It builds and builds and builds and builds and builds, and they target vulnerable people to begin with.
	It was actually, it was the, I said we had to, I don't know if grooming is a bad word on the internet anymore, so the brooming, but whatever.
	The training, the conditioning of children.
	It is a process, and it's what these predators...
	Absolutely understand.
	Broadcasting this trial would have been good for the perception of justice, transparency of the system, but also for the knowledge.
	Reid, it's one of the body panel.
	By the way, Scott Rose was in the house earlier.
	I brought up a super chat.
	But Reid, I think it was...
	Robert, who did we do last from the body panel?
	Chase Hughes.
	No, before Chase Hughes.
	Greg Hartley.
	Greg Hartley.
	No, it was...
	It was Chase Hughes.
	Never mind.
	It was Chase Hughes.
	In his book, I think it's a six-minute x-ray, but how do I identify people who exploit weaknesses of others for their own personal gain?
	That's effectively what grooming is.
	Just change the object.
	And it can be Jelaine Maxwell-type exploitation, or it could just be monetary gain.
	It could be political gain.
	It could be social gain.
	When predators exploit their prey, they're looking for the same type of prey all the time.
	And it was...
	I read the reviews of what the expert was testifying to, and I think this is not new because I've heard it before, but it would have been great for everyone to hear, especially parents.
	Speaking of the third defendant that was reluctantly prosecuted because they were originally politically protected and is also playing the victim card, Elizabeth Holmes in the Theranos case may go to verdict, may go to the jury as early as this week.
	She took the stand in her own defense.
	This is the person who said she had all these high-ranking people, Henry Kissinger, James Mattis, Joe Biden, the Clintons, tons of people.
	David Bowies was her lawyer, saying that she had this magical way to basically detect disease and it would be all these ways to cure and so forth.
	It was all basically bogus.
	When it all unraveled, Originally, David Bowie's tried to intimidate the Wall Street Journal.
	A bunch of people are not reporting it.
	Then, ultimately, it came out anyway.
	Then David Bowie somehow managed to dodge accountability once again, as he always does.
	But she ultimately is being prosecuted as the CEO of Theranos.
	Another, like, kind of a Jussie Smollett kind of fraud story that had reasons to know it was fraud from very early on, that a lot of prominent people in the press and the political world...
	said the opposite about, vouch for her instead.
	Once again, all of them are not being prosecuted.
	Only she is, and her boyfriend at the time.
	And her explanation is that sometimes she just made some mistakes, that's half of it, but that she really meant well and so forth.
	But the big part of her testimony is she was under unusual pressure because her boyfriend was abusing her.
	And so her version of...
	I accidentally lied to a bunch of people because of the emotional and psychological abuse of my boyfriend.
	It's a high-risk gamble.
	They may know she has a lot of money, so I'm sure they did 20 mock trials on this.
	Maybe they know something I don't.
	Personally, I don't think that's going to work as a defense.
	I think they got her.
	I think she's...
	Guilty.
	I don't think the lies will fly.
	I think that's...
	It's amazing, this tendency of these kind of narcissist personalities to play the victim card.
	Well, for sure.
	Jussie Smollett, I'm really the victim.
	And in doing so, they cheapen the actual meaning of being a victim for everyone else who's a legit victim.
	And Jussie Smollett...
	You know, makes it harder to believe any victim of racist or homophobic crimes.
	Well, I forget Jelaine Maxwell, but Holmes now.
	All right, great.
	First of all, didn't she invoke mental incapacity due to insanity in the early part of the show?
	Basically, what she's saying is that she's not fully accountable to excuse her decisions that they weren't criminally intended because of the unusual pressure, in part.
	It's not all of her defense, but in part because it's really an emotional plea.
	It's, hey, I was getting abused.
	Don't blame me.
	Don't send me to prison.
	I mean, that's what it really is.
	The technical legal justification is I didn't fully process information that I should have processed because I was doing everything this abusive man was making me do.
	Yeah, that's a...
	It's just so bad because it ruins legit stuff for legit victims and it makes it harder for everybody else who might have been skeptical or somewhat reluctant to believe anybody going forward.
	They don't care though because it's just part of the game.
	They're playing with no sensitivities to the casualties it causes.
	I'm not following that trial at all except what I know by the overview.
	What's the status of the trial?
	How long has it been going on for?
	That's been going on for a couple of weeks, and it's anticipated the defense will wrap up this week, and so we'll see how long the prosecution rebuttal is.
	It's another case that, unfortunately, is not being televised.
	All these cases should have been televised.
	It'd be good education.
	It'd be good feedback from the court of public opinion.
	It would increase confidence in the transparency of our justice process, civil and criminal.
	It's a federal case, so it's not a surprise that it's being handled this way.
	This was the case where anybody who was unvaccinated was...
	Kicked off the jury pool.
	They may come to regret that.
	We'll see on the defense side.
	But Jussie Smalley and the Elizabeth Holmes case may reach verdict this week.
	Galeen Maxwell is scheduled for multiple more weeks.
	Kim Potter also starts this week.
	So we'll see how that goes.
	But otherwise, the big cases in the news, of course, were the vaccine mandate cases.
	Now, we'll finish on that?
	Yeah.
	Okay, let's do it.
	And by the way, I'm going to put this in the chat now.
	GoodLogic is live now, so anybody who wants the updates on Jelaine Maxwell, because he is on the ground, link has been sent.
	We'll finish on this, and then everyone who wants more Jelaine Maxwell stuff will go follow GoodLogic.
	You have the link in the chat.
	Robert.
	What's the update on the vaccine mandates?
	What's fascinating is the way he does logic is very New York.
	Good logic.
	Good logic, people.
	Exactly.
	Yeah, you do it much better than me.
	But it actually works because of New York.
	Whereas elsewhere would sound a little odd, but New York, that sounds totally normal.
	Someone's going to say logic somewhere because they're not even going to know to put a soft J on the G. Exactly.
	But yeah, so the OSHA mandate case was assigned to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals because there were multiple OSHA mandate challenges at the appellate level, which have original jurisdiction uniquely because of the nature of the regulation at issue.
	When there's multiple appellate courts, they do a lottery to figure out one appellate court to hear all of them.
	The Sixth Circuit won that.
	Biden administration didn't like that.
	So they asked the Sixth Circuit to set aside the Fifth Circuit decision.
	Send it over to the D.C. Circuit instead.
	Overturn the lottery.
	Sixth Circuit said no thanks to both of those decisions.
	So the injunction against the OSHA mandate continues.
	The Sixth Circuit will make a decision sometime by the end of this month whether to follow that or to go its own route.
	The Medicare mandate that was imposed.
	So basically they used the Medicare policy.
	So OSHA, they said, we had to create an emergency labor rule.
	That took us two months to develop, but still emergency, that everybody has to be vaccinated.
	Well, really, everybody has to be tested except for those that are vaccinated.
	That gets enjoined because Congress never gave OSHA that authority.
	Then the second mandate was, well, we regulate Medicare and Medicaid, so under the guise that we have Medicare and Medicaid, we're going to require anybody within six degrees of separation of Medicare or Medicaid money to also be vaccinated.
	That went to challenge in two federal courts, one in Missouri, one in Louisiana.
	Both of them said the Biden administration had no such power.
	Congress never gave them that authority.
	In fact, explicit language in the statute said they don't have that authority.
	Said you can't use this to regulate employees.
	You can't use this to regulate the practice of medicine.
	They were trying to do both with vaccine mandates.
	And the Louisiana federal court made it a nationwide injunction.
	What was most interesting was some of the evidentiary statements made by those courts.
	But because those evidentiary statements would violate the YouTube overlords here, I've actually put up the entire decisions at vivabarneslaw.locals.com, which made some very interesting evidentiary conclusions about the efficacy of these vaccine mandates.
	By federal court.
	So these are now not just somebody's theory, somebody's speculation, somebody's idea.
	This is in federal courts, findings by federal judges after evidentiary hearings that certain evidence is not present as it relates to these vaccine mandates.
	Then the third challenge was the federal contractor case went before a federal court in Kentucky.
	And that court found, because there the Biden administration said that their control over purchasing power, or how...
	Vendor agreements work.
	Gave them the right to mandate vaccines on every contractor that ever does business with the federal government.
	And the court said, once again, no such power was given by Congress.
	No such power was given by the Constitution.
	You don't have it.
	And so the federal contractor mandate was enjoined, though only those states currently.
	And that's going up to the appellate food chain, so we'll see what happens.
	The federal employee military mandate Met a challenge by a federal court in Florida that said, while there usually has to be all these exhaustive remedies in the military, in this context, there is specific concern that they were not following the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, which does not require exhaustive remedies for members of the military.
	And so the court is ordering them to produce the detailed data about how many people they're granting or denying religious exemptions to, putting the military in a catch-22.
	If they deny a bunch of exemptions, they're violating their religious rights.
	If they grant them, then how necessary is this vaccine mandate anyway?
	And they know they're in some trouble, and so even the military mandate is facing difficulties.
	The federal employee mandate...
	Got some approval at lower courts levels and is going up on appeal.
	The San Diego school mandate for vaccines for older students was stopped by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on a limited grounds for now, but still stopped.
	Some lower courts greenlit some lower level mandates, but those are all going up through the appellate food chain.
	Some courts said they think the mandates are not legal, but that injunctive relief isn't available.
	That too, including the United case, is going up on appeal.
	So basically a major shift against the Biden administration I'll be filing suit this week for Children's Health Defense in the Western District of Texas on the grounds that the CDC and the FDA are misusing and abusing the Emergency Use Authorization Statute.
	They're just using it forever.
	Their interpretation is the emergency use statute allows them to avoid the legislative process, allows them to avoid the notice and comment process, allows them to avoid the citizen petition process, and allows them to avoid judicial review.
	While at the same time, they're violating their own rules governing biologic licensure, they're violating their own rules governing advertising to children, and they're violating their own rules concerning marketing in general.
	So we'll be filing suit there.
	A federal court in Tennessee said that our general challenge to the bait-and-switch, the court said, oh, no standing.
	Nobody can sue the FDA over their bait-and-switch because nobody's been directly injured.
	I disagree with the court.
	If the court was going to issue that lazy decision, it could have done so three months ago.
	But okay, we'll take it up on appeal.
	And that case will be going up on appeal.
	Standing will be the excuse that some courts that want to play Pontius Pilate will use in these proceedings.
	But there's so many ways to challenge the mandates and so many ways that are being used and utilized.
	And there's more and more cracks in the dam of the Biden administration's policies for mass vaccine mandates that it looks like it's only a matter of time before these vaccine mandates fall apart on their face, especially as the evidence keeps accumulating in a way that, let's just say, doesn't support what they said was going to happen.
	I guess I want to say two things.
	First of all...
	I hope this trickles up to Canada.
	I'm familiar.
	Apparently, in New Brunswick, they're talking about barring the unvaccinated from getting groceries.
	But everyone has to appreciate, I'm in Quebec, I'm a civil law lawyer, and the rest of Canada is common law.
	So I think, Robert, in the States, it's Louisiana.
	What's the other civil law state compared to the rest?
	I mean...
	I think only Louisiana.
	The French history, that's where that comes from.
	I'm on the only province in Canada that has a different legal system than the rest of the provinces, barring federal law.
	But I just hope this trickles up, because what we're seeing in Canada is, as of last week, if you're not fully vaccinated, you can't board a plane or a train within Canada to do inter-provincial travel.
	So it's good to see, Robert.
	And that was the question about the Children's Health Fund as to what happened with the, well, what the status is and what the new filing is going to be.
	You were about to say something.
	Yeah, only one addendum.
	The January 6th proceedings continue to go crazy, not only in the kind of sentences being issued, 41-month sentence to the guy who wears a hat.
	But Robert, he had a spear on the tip of his American flag.
	So clearly that's how all insurrectionists wage insurrections.
	And he asked permission while he was inside.
	Can I go up here?
	Can I go over here?
	Just nuts.
	And by judges, you know, happy to hit with crazy sentences.
	And other crazy things continue to happen around the January 6th cases.
	The second is the January 6th committee by Congress continues to go after anybody now who even raised questions about...
	The elections and election fortification.
	And they're going after people within the Justice Department and other places that were on Trump's side for the constitutionality of challenging things.
	They're trying to go after Alex Jones on completely bogus grounds.
	They know he was a main reason why things did not get...
	He told people not to go down, not to participate, that it was a setup effectively to back off.
	I don't know what, stand down.
	He went there at the site to get people out, get people out.
	And yet they're trying to do mass subpoenas of him, mass subpoenas of Roger Stone.
	It's clearly pure political witch hunt.
	I'm hoping somebody starts challenging these subpoenas, including the president's constitutional lawyer, John Eastman.
	He was ridiculously subpoenaed on this, even though he had nothing to do with anything connected to January 6th.
	Congress can only issue subpoenas if there is a legislative purpose for those subpoenas.
	They do not have executive power.
	They do not have general investigative power.
	They're clearly misusing and abusing power.
	It's so bad the chairman of the committee, it went on national TV and said anybody who asserts the fifth is guilty as a criminal.
	I mean, which is impermissible commentary on Fifth Amendment.
	We saw Binger try to pull that crafter in the trial, and the judge lambasted it.
	It was like, that's not how it works, and you can't do it.
	You have a ranking member running this committee saying that that's what he's going to use his soapbox to do.
	Clear misuse and abuse of power by that committee.
	I'm hoping somebody starts challenging him on the grounds that this committee is illicitly formed.
	It looks like John Eastman's lawyers are looking at that.
	They don't have the proper ranking committee people.
	This is not a regular committee of Congress.
	It does not have a legislative purpose.
	It's hard to sometimes bring those challenges in the courts because they've tried to stay out of it.
	The courts need to re-examine.
	This is patent abuse of the process.
	It's getting nuts.
	But the capper is...
	According to a story in the Washington Post, the D.C. prosecutor is running around bringing all these politicized cases, backing up this January 6th committee with a rogue contempt proceeding against Steve Bannon, going after this excessive punishment and excessive prosecution while doing discovery abuses in the January 6th cases.
	The same D.C. prosecutor has apparently opened up a grand jury going after Sidney Powell and everybody who donated to Sidney Powell on the grounds that somehow that's criminal within the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia.
	What does that have to do with federal law?
	If it indirectly led to the insurrection, then they financed an insurrection.
	They should all be brought to the fullest justice that is possibly available.
	This is how it gets weaponized to the point of undermining democracy in the name of preserving democracy.
	Let that sink in.
	But it's clear they're going after Sidney Powell, and they're probably going to try to indict her in the next six months, is my prediction.
	Darn, I had a couple of questions that I was going to ask.
	It doesn't matter.
	What do you do?
	They're going to use the build the wall methodology to do so.
	The way they went after build the wall, they're going to try to find a similar comparable angle.
	And just like build the walls in New York, which makes no sense, that case, they're going to bring this case in the District of Columbia, where you have the politically contaminated jury pool that cannot be impartial.
	Martin Luther King had a better chance with an all-white jury in Birmingham in 1951 than any conservative or Trump supporter has in the District of Columbia in 2021.
	Okay, well, that ends it.
	But Robert, before we go home, blackpilled.
	I'm already home.
	And by the way, whoever said that chat, the bed has always been in the background.
	These live streams have only contributed to my understanding of the world, and knowledge is power, even if you don't like the knowledge.
	But Robert, okay.
	Jan 6, going crazy.
	What do you say to people who don't want to get discouraged as to what's going on right now?
	It really seems like the system is being weaponized in a way that is framed as preserving democracy, but that is ultimately undermining it.
	What do people do?
	They'll contest the legitimacy of the committee to investigate Jan 6. Good for that.
	It'll take five years for that to happen.
	In the meantime, people's lives are ruined.
	So what's the silver lining to this cloud?
	Oh, it's that the pushback and success on vaccine mandates, stopping this extraordinary power grab by the federal government that happened in court after court after court, that is thanks to the court of public opinion, motivating legislators and congressmen, and even judges tend to catch up to that sooner or later, and we're seeing it reflected in the courts of law.
	That's fantastic.
	It goes back to the core principles of the book, Ratification, talked about by Pauline Meyer, about the people's debate about what it was all supposed to be about.
	Good signs, in my view, the issue of abortion should be an issue at the state level.
	It should never have been at the Supreme Court level.
	So I think that that's an appropriate, and I think that's where it's going, and it should have been there always.
	But it took them half a century, but better late than never.
	And from my perspective, that's good.
	Some people won't be fans of that.
	And then I think the Second Amendment will end up being more robust, despite there being temporary setbacks.
	Those setbacks will highlight the need for the Supreme Court to clarify and reimpose strict scrutiny so that self-defense means self-defense in America under the Second Amendment.
	And I think that's coming, too.
	So for all of the negative things out there and the threats and obstacles, there are plenty of very, very positive signs.
	And one of the best ones...
	If you want to read a great book on what's really been happening, Robert Kennedy's book is digitally available now, will be available, published.
	They ran out.
	People bought so many of them, they ran out of the first round of publishing.
	I mean, 200,000 or whatever, some crazy number went right out the door.
	It's because it's exceptionally well-detailed and exceptionally well-documented.
	And last but not least, hopefully this Wednesday for Sidebar...
	What some people thought as bad news is, in my opinion, good news once you get into the details, which is Rumble raising capital to be able to meaningfully compete and sustain its technology in a competitive way with other social media without forfeiting its commitment to free speech.
	And in fact...
	The nature of their IPO and the public statements they made basically legally locked them into the tunes of hundreds of millions of dollars of risk if they don't, if they were ever to go back on their free speech commitment.
	So that Rumble and locals are going to become very vibrant, very real, technologically adept competitors that maintain and sustain free speech values in the social media context.
	That too is good news.
	And we may have...
	An interview with somebody on Wednesday.
	I announced it in the beginning.
	Oh, he did?
	Yeah, he's confirmed for Wednesday, 7 o 'clock.
	I'm not going to send the links tomorrow, but I'm going to make the public announcements on social.
	It's confirmed.
	So it's going to be very interesting, and we're going to take the questions that I know everybody has.
	Oh, absolutely.
	Now, here's a question.
	When I do this, can everyone see my jawbone clenching when I get very angry at things?
	Not really.
	If you can, and if you can't, all the better.
	So, Robert, it's phenomenal.
	On Locals, you're covering, you're talking in more detail about the Robert F. Kennedy lawsuits, the one that's upcoming, the decision that has already come down.
	That's it.
	I mean, what else?
	I mean, if you can, we're at 2 hours and 31 minutes.
	Just say vivabarneslaw.locals.com one more time.
	I'm going to clip it and use this going forward because I need the freedom fro.
	To be reflected in the going forward references.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com Can't end any better than that.
	Robert, stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.
	Everyone else in the chat, good logic.
	Oh, Emily D. Baker is covering the Josh Duggar case.
	There's some things that I don't want to cover.
	I don't like that.
	I don't want to know anything about it.
	Emily D. Baker is covering it, so check her out if you want updates on that.
	Joe Nierman, Good Logic, is on Epstein.
	Nick Ricada is covering Kim Potter.
	So the day-to-day is there.
	The week-to-week is here.
	Everyone's got their specialties.
	Everyone in the chat, thank you for your support.
	Thank you for tuning in.
	Enjoy the rest of the weekend.
	Robert, stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.

▲