Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 12, 2021 - Viva & Barnes

02:26:59

Ep. 91: Live with Viva & Barnes - Sunday Night Law Stuffs

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I forgot to do my new intro, which I was going to sit in the chair with my back to the camera for like five seconds and then...
	Hold on one sec.
	Hold on one sec.
	Oh, good evening, people.
	The dog is just devouring a Nerf dart gun, and now he's going after my earlobe.
	Do you want to talk and say something to people?
	Okay, get out of here.
	All right, peeps.
	Another Sunday, another evening, and there has been some mildly big developments over the course of the last week.
	Julian Assange, we're going to talk about this.
	We talked about it a while back.
	Robert and I went over the original decision to not extradite the, I will say, logical inconsistencies in that decision.
	To have invoked mental health issues and then locked him up in basically max security in the UK.
	Ghislaine Maxwell.
	Kim Potter.
	Jussie Smollier.
	We have to talk about that.
	I was going to do a vlog on that.
	But then Robert sent me a court order in the Steve Bannon indictment, which is basically going to ensure that Steve Bannon's indictment is carried out under the cloak of darkness.
	And we all know what happens in darkness.
	Nothing good.
	I've said it for my entire life, probably because my parents told it to me.
	Nothing good happens after midnight.
	Nothing good happens in the darkness, except perhaps anglerfish, you know, using that little lure on their heads in the dark depths of the ocean to attract...
	There's a kid screaming out of his brains upstairs.
	You know we're live down here, right?
	Okay.
	That'll do nothing.
	So...
	That's what's on the menu.
	We're going to get there in a second.
	We're going to get to a rant because it's been a big week on Twitter as well, coming out of Canada.
	Yeah, standard disclaimers, people.
	We are simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	Rumble, as you may or may not know, has a function called Rumble Rants, which are the equivalent of YouTube Super Chats.
	YouTube takes 30% to Super Chats.
	If people don't like that, and I can appreciate people don't like that.
	Rumble is the place to do it.
	Rumble takes 20%, which is better for the creator, but better for someone who wants to support a free speech platform.
	I did a live stream with Chris Pawlowski.
	I have an eyebrow that's getting in my way.
	I did a stream with Chris Pawlowski this week, which I think was interesting.
	I hope I didn't give Chris too hard of a time, but I don't think I did.
	And we discussed all of the issues.
	Standard disclaimers, no legal advice, no medical advice, no undermining election fortification advice.
	This is not legal advice, but it's informative.
	So I hope you all enjoy it.
	Freedom Fro getting huge.
	It's getting...
	I may need to trim the Freedom beard down because one thing is wildness on top is Einstein.
	Wildness in the beard seems to get my parents angrier than the Fro, but it's coming in nicely.
	I do like it.
	Thank you very much for the super chat.
	We got Alex Ambrose.
	Viva, can you do a video on CRT as a legal theory or have James Lindsay on Sidebar to explain it?
	I was at a party and shocked to find out how little even educated people know about it.
	I'm going to screenshot this.
	I'll talk about it with Barnes when he gets in here.
	I don't know if we can get to it tonight, but we'll see.
	Let me see if I can...
	Get to some non-superchat questions so no one accuses me of only addressing the superchats.
	Get a haircut, you hippie.
	I'm telling you something.
	Not only am I not getting it, I think I'm letting the freedom fro reign.
	And I think I've got an idea for some merch, which is not my idea.
	It's my good friend's idea.
	And this...
	I don't know how you read my mind, Hollis, but this might have been part and parcel of what it's going to be about.
	We'll see.
	We'll see.
	Slammer, I concur.
	All right, viva fro.
	Viva to and fro.
	And bring this one up, and then I'm going to go into my rant.
	My rant.
	Little Rock, how you doing?
	All of my federal criminal cases have the evidence under seal.
	I hate when they do this because you have to memorize.
	Some have told me they take pics.
	Some have told me they take pics, but I am not that ballsy.
	Yeah, if you can't do something, don't do it, because if you get caught doing something you're not supposed to do because you can't do it, it's almost, it's worse.
	Be upfront and say, I'm going to take pictures of this.
	And if you don't like it, hold me in contempt.
	But don't do that.
	That's breaking the law.
	Have you considered twisting the from into dreads?
	Babylon dreads deluxe.
	I used to have dreadlocks.
	I mean, I tried at least.
	I got the honeybee oil that you rub into them.
	I twisted.
	I cut it.
	Okay.
	Really enjoyed the chat with Master Russell Lee.
	Hope to see him again.
	You will, Winston, as my spirit animal.
	That was the...
	The live stream we did after Chris Pawlowski, I'm losing track of days, weeks, months, and years.
	Inner City Press talking about Ghislaine Maxwell trial, and it was amazing.
	And man, you know when you talk to someone and you just touch the tip of the iceberg of their knowledge, Matthew Russell Lee has stuff to say.
	And I think Barnes would love meeting him as well.
	Going to laugh when you see your wife sneak up and cheer your freedom, bro.
	It keeps me warm in the winter, too, so it's like a win-win.
	Rant.
	Let's get this on, people.
	I'm going to bring it up.
	I'm going to bring it up just because it needs to be brought up.
	Share screen.
	I'm not going to...
	I've cleaned up my screen so that nobody can potentially see anything.
	Okay, I'm sharing a screen.
	I'm sharing a screen with this guy.
	Dr. Kieran Moore, Chief Medical Officer of Health for Ontario.
	Wait until you hear what he says.
	In addition to delaying the lifting of proof of vaccination requirements, we will begin requiring proof of vaccination for youth 12 to 17 years of age, participating in organized sports at recreational facilities, Listen to that again.
	We will begin requiring proof of vaccination for youth, 12 to 17 years of age, participating in organized sports at recreational facilities as of December 20th, 2021.
	This is the Chief Medical Officer of Health of Ontario.
	In addition to...
	In addition to delaying...
	To delaying lifting of the measures that they had announced they were going to lift, these COVID measures.
	In addition to delaying the lifting of the measures, we're giving you more.
	And by the way, what are the more measures that we're giving you?
	Above and beyond delaying the lifting of the ones we said we were going to lift, so we're like double wrong.
	Not only are we not lifting them, we're giving you more.
	Penalizing children aged 12 to 17 who want to exercise, who want to be healthy.
	I try not to use hyperbolic rhetoric.
	Is this the other one?
	I try not to use hyperbolic rhetoric, but evil comes to mind.
	I'm not saying it.
	I am thinking it.
	I'm saying that I'm thinking it, but I'm not saying that I'm saying it.
	I'm just thinking it.
	Listen to this one.
	We're not done with this individual yet.
	I know with the holidays approaching, you may be concerned what this means about getting together with family and friends.
	I hope everyone can hear this.
	Please keep your social context to a minimum.
	Your gatherings should be small, and you should limit the number of gatherings you attend.
	And know the rules in your local public health jurisdiction.
	Listen to this.
	Listen to this.
	And advisable to ensure everyone in attendance is fully vaccinated, especially if seniors or immunocompromised people are attending.
	And wear a mask if there are vulnerable people in attendance, even if you're fully vaccinated.
	I'm going to stop sharing right now.
	And if I could go to the bathroom and vomit, I would.
	I'm a very patient person.
	I might be irritable.
	I might be tired, fatigued, having children, having dogs that don't let you leave a room without whining and barking.
	It can get anyone a little irritated, but I'm patient.
	But I'm not patient for what I perceive to be the most offensive notions ever.
	This guy is telling you to effectively impose the vaccine passport on your family.
	For celebrating.
	But bearing in mind, by the way, something like 90% of Ontario is vaccinated.
	If I'm mistaken on that, it's a very significant majority of Ontario that is fully vaccinated.
	Telling you to limit your gatherings.
	Telling you to impose this, I will call it a discriminatory policy of vaccine passports on your family.
	Divide your family.
	Break up your family at the demand of the government.
	I mean, there's nothing more Orwellian.
	I don't even know what the words are.
	Is it fascist?
	Is it totalitarian?
	Is it dictatorship?
	Is it inhumane?
	Is it evil?
	Is it diabolical?
	I don't know what the words are anymore.
	I just know that I'm feeling all of them all at once when I listen to this.
	And I went to a...
	My kid had a birthday party at a trampoline house.
	I didn't get to go in this time.
	I might have saved an injury.
	I might have saved an injury because I have a knack of...
	Well, not getting seriously injured.
	It is...
	I didn't go into this place.
	I went in and dumped her off and then went back to the car and did a productive vlog.
	I made myself useful sitting in a car freezing my nips off.
	It was cold in the car.
	I ran the engine every now and again just to regain heat.
	I can't show papers in order to participate in the leisurely activities of society.
	I don't even want to be in there where people are going to look at me from the outside and say, there's a guy who must have shown his papers and feels better to be Clean, socially elevated from the lowly, as if the vaccination now has become the litmus test of COVID threats.
	I mean, it's just, we really went from two weeks to flatten the curve to shaming the unvaccinated as though that is in any way correlated to the objective sought when we had two weeks to flatten the curve so as not to overwhelm the healthcare facilities.
	The internet will say it better than me because I try to weigh my words and I don't want to Be misinterpreted.
	It's nauseating.
	It's repulsively nauseating.
	Okay, let's do this here.
	Contact Tracy Wilson from the CCFR to discuss the government, adding...
	Oh boy, Andre.
	Well, there might go my plans to go duck hunting in the new season.
	We'll see.
	Can't wait to flush...
	Can't we just flush the shots?
	Okay, I can't read these things.
	And by the way, in all of this...
	Scott Adams pointed it out.
	Cernovich pointed it out.
	No rapid testing.
	No implementing rapid testing.
	The issue is not whether or not you are actually carrying COVID.
	It's whether or not you are not carrying COVID but unvaccinated versus potentially carrying COVID but being vaccinated.
	It's just...
	I see Robert's in the house.
	He might be saving me from saying something that I'm going to regret.
	I'm in Ireland last year.
	They refused to give out the numbers we have this year.
	Oh, I see what you're saying.
	Yeah, I have to watch the words here, because last week's stream, for whatever the reason, was confirmed demonetized.
	I don't really care about those things, but it affects viewability oftentimes.
	Yeah, I did.
	You took the clot shot, Viv.
	I don't even know what the clot shot is.
	Yeah, I did.
	And what is it of your business, sir?
	Or ma 'am?
	I said it before, you know, the idea of shaming anyone for their decisions is just as bad on one end as the other.
	If you want to judge me for that, you're in company of other people who want to judge other people for that.
	I stopped shaving when the two weeks to lower the curve.
	I gave up after six months.
	Okay, so anyways, that'll be the rant, I guess, for the night.
	What's really disgusting and depressing is that society has been molded.
	They've been conditioned.
	We have been conditioned.
	It's worked.
	What the government has intended to do, it worked.
	It took two years to do.
	You have turned.
	Good people into judgmental people.
	You have turned rational people into fear-idled zombies who will do anything.
	They are told if they think it's going to give them the slightest bit of protection.
	If they are duped into believing it's going to give them some security, they're doing it.
	Discriminating against their own family, dividing their families, punishing their children, and they're doing it because it is...
	It's been cloaked under the guise of benevolence.
	It's the banality of evil when it just becomes so commonplace.
	It loses its evil force.
	And that's where we are.
	And I was literally up in the middle of the night because I'm just thinking, the government has effectively won.
	They have convinced a lot of people that this is normal.
	In Nova Scotia, in New Brunswick, sorry, and then I'm going to get to Robert because I see him in the back room.
	In New Brunswick, there's a farmer's market, an outdoor farmer's market.
	That is excluding the unvaccinated.
	An outdoor farmer's market in New Brunswick.
	The government itself, I got the email.
	I mean, I got the email.
	Basically said, grocery stores can impose a policy to not allow the unvaccinated in.
	But don't worry.
	For your life-essential items, life-essential supplies and materials, there's other ways of getting them.
	And it makes sense to people.
	And it's not...
	People are not sufficiently outraged.
	They've been beaten into submission.
	Psychologically, spiritually, financially, emotionally.
	Alex Ambrose says, Bravo Vivo, way to stick into your principles for not showing the papers.
	That's a testament to your integrity and character.
	The first time with the bowling alley, I did it because I made the mistake and I was not going to punish the kids for that mistake.
	Now I don't go out to eat.
	It's great.
	I'm a lot healthier.
	Okay, with that said, people, it's going to be a good night tonight.
	Robert, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	Oh, boy.
	I think I did everything.
	I did all the proper disclaimers, right?
	Okay.
	Robert, people always ask, what's the cigar recommendation for the week, book for the week, before we forget?
	Sure.
	This is Romeo e Giulietta, limited selection, 2018.
	Freely available in Canada.
	One of the few things of freedom that Canada has.
	And then the book is Jean Le Carré, A Most Wanted Man.
	Very good book about the nature of renditions.
	Is what it's really about.
	The film was good, too.
	Philip Seymour Hoffman played the lead character.
	Excellent.
	And, Robert, there was something else I wanted to ask right off the bat.
	Oh, yes.
	People, they don't accuse, but they criticize or wonder why you never consume the cigar.
	You're not allowed doing that on YouTube, people.
	So people have gotten into a lot of trouble.
	Also, it's not possible to smoke a cigar and talk a lot.
	That's not exactly an easy combo.
	So that's it.
	It's not just there for, I don't know what the word is that people refer to it as, but yeah.
	People think it's a prop, but actually it's, well, maybe George Wallace isn't the best source, but I like, I mean, he liked to chomp on cigars.
	A range of people have historically, and it actually does provide a little mental boost, actually.
	Well, and the tobacco does get absorbed into the lips.
	I mean, this is not rocket science.
	Where does Barnes buy his ties?
	Robert, first time anyone has ever asked that, actually.
	A range of places.
	Not one single place.
	I think Tucker Carlson gets all of his shirts special made by a particular clothier, but I never have.
	The best tailors in the world are London or Hong Kong.
	If you want the best value, it's Hong Kong, actually.
	I don't know if that will still be the case, but it used to be.
	Alright, Robert.
	We've got so much on the menu for the evening.
	We've got Julian Assange, which I think we might want to get to first because a lot of people are asking.
	I've got a few questions.
	We're going to get to Kim Potter, Jussie Smollett, Verdict, Alec Baldwin, Andy Ngo is being sued.
	We've got a lot on the menu, people.
	But let's start with the newest and the one that will actually lead us into the Ghislaine Maxwell trial update.
	Assange.
	So the high court or the higher court in England, it's not the highest court because there's still an appeal that could be had.
	Two to one, from what I understand, overruled the original decision, which was not to extradite Julian Assange to the US to face the charges of espionage, whatever.
	I forget exactly what he was charged for.
	And the rationale that the initial judgment gave was that given his mental state, his fragility, he couldn't...
	He could not be subjected to the punishment or the extradition process, but then they nonetheless kept him locked up basically in maximum security anyhow in England.
	I mean, I guess, who appealed the crown or the queen appealed and they succeeded two to one on this appeal?
	I mean, that's the bottom line of this?
	Yes.
	I mean, it required the U.S. government to request the appeal, for the appeal to take place, but they appealed because the sole grounds the trial court gave was that the conditions of his potential punishment in the United States were too severe for his current mental health condition, in particular the risk of Supermax prison in Florence, Colorado, and a range of other potential risks that he faced.
	And they appealed, and the U.S. government claimed they would never send him to Supermax, and they claimed made a bunch of other promises that are completely legally inconsequential and not binding, that the U.S. government has a long and notorious history that this high court completely ignored, violating their promises, particularly in the extradition context.
	They've made these kind of promises all the time, and unless it's considered a limit on the jurisdiction of the U.S. court.
	They completely ignore that.
	I mean, the U.S. has prosecuted people who have been kidnapped from foreign countries repeatedly.
	So, I mean, it's slap in the face to extradition law on its face.
	And so the idea that the U.S. government's just going to make these promises and somehow that means it's now okay when they're totally unenforceable promises really makes a joke out of the high court of Britain.
	But, you know, the British legal authorities and...
	Political authorities have been good little puppets of the United States for a while.
	I mean, we beat them in the revolution, and now they act like they've been slapped down so much they have to follow us around.
	Whatever we tell them to do, they say, yes, sir, as quickly as they can.
	They're a sad, pitiful shadow of an empire that can't even honor their own constitutional limits or their own legal precepts whenever the U.S. comes telling them to do what they tell them to do.
	They're a good little doggie.
	Boris is a good little doggie, and the Brits are good little doggies, and those little justices are good little doggies.
	And it's a sad, disgraceful state of affairs in the British High Court.
	Hopefully the British Supreme Court reexamines all the issues and takes the But Robert, the one thing that I find...
	It's ironic in the most cynical sense is that they're extraditing Julian Assange based on warranties and representations that the U.S. gave in their pleadings or in their representations to court that they will be good to Julian.
	That if he's convicted, he can serve in Australia.
	That his fragility, his mental state is either not bad enough or they'll accommodate.
	This is the same government that was secretly plotting to assassinate him.
	Making these warranties and representations to the court.
	Don't want to get blackpilled.
	How does anyone not laugh at this and say it's an absolute travesty of representations coming from the entity that was literally plotting to unlawfully assassinate him?
	It's a joke.
	I mean, what the British High Court did, taking that at face value, is a joke.
	It would have been one thing if they would have said that even if he was subject to the worst possible conditions, it's not grounds to deny extradition.
	I would have disagreed with that legally, but that would have been at least a factually credible argument rather than a factually incredulous argument that they made.
	I mean, to pretend that the U.S. government promises mean anything at all.
	In this context, given their long and notorious history around the world for over a century of ignoring extradition law and ignoring their promises in diplomatic context.
	You know, I mean, just ask the Russians how the U.S. kept its word on, don't worry, we won't expand NATO if you dissolve the Soviet Union.
	We have a current crisis in Ukraine over that broken promise.
	So it's just ludicrous.
	But it shows that the Brits have no independence.
	When the U.S. deep state comes asking them to hop, they only ask how high.
	And it's sad.
	And who should be embarrassed is the integrity and the independence and the authority of the British courts themselves.
	Because they've made a mockery of themselves to the whole world by the way they've handled this case.
	Now the appeal to the Supreme Court will be much more robust than the issues they dealt with here.
	And you know what?
	I don't know who doesn't know of the Julian Assange, but maybe if we can do a five-minute overall summary of everything, because I think most people don't appreciate the trauma that the individual has gone through, whether you like him or not.
	But bottom line, so Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, once upon a time released a bunch of classified information, which revealed nothing shy of, do I have to say alleged American war crimes in, I think it was Iraq?
	No.
	Yeah, it was proven war crimes.
	Targeting journalists for extrajudicial termination.
	A bunch of other stuff.
	Released this information.
	By all accounts had no active role in misappropriating that information.
	It was transmitted to him through someone who misappropriated it, but there's a long-standing case law on the legality of that in the U.S. Why did he end up in the Ecuadorian embassy again?
	He was...
	While they were...
	Pursuing these charges, some interesting charges appeared from Sweden accusing him of sexual improprieties, something called stealthing, which is allegedly removing or causing a condom to break during the act of intercourse, which is itself a form of sexual impropriety, to use proper terminology for YouTube, in Sweden.
	They wanted to extradite him to Sweden.
	His fear was that he was going to get extradited to Sweden, then extradited to the U.S., so he holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.
	For a day that turned into seven years to avoid extradition to Sweden, the investigation into him in Sweden was ultimately dropped because they said time had lapsed where they could no longer usefully prosecute him.
	Explain to the world who doesn't necessarily understand why he got booted from the Ecuadorian embassy and what was going on at that time that might explain that political decision.
	So, I mean, Julian Assange is the biggest publisher of whistleblower information in world history.
	He has exposed the criminal secrets of governments around the globe, including, in particular, but not limited to, the United States.
	He was targeted for that reason, first with heavily politicized and highly questionable criminal accusations in Sweden that ultimately, as you note, didn't result in any prosecution.
	They had pretext for it, but their pretext didn't really make sense.
	The reality is the facts didn't support their claim, is my belief.
	And he sought amnesty from the Ecuadorian government, received it from the Ecuadorian government, but the British refused to allow him to leave the embassy.
	And so he was stuck physically in a small room for about seven years, the worst form of home imprisonment you could have.
	Then the Ecuadorian government, under Vice President Pence, Helped coordinate with a range of people, including some people that are still popular in Trump world that don't deserve to be in the Trump administration, to buy off and bribe the Ecuadorian government into basically allowing the British and the Americans to go in and kidnap Julian Assange.
	In the interim, they had multiple plans to try to kill him and murder him, including Hillary Clinton famously asking, can't we just drone bomb him?
	Willingness to drone a foreign government embassy, just to make her point.
	If you could open a slight parenthesis there for people who don't appreciate why embassies are impenetrable on foreign soil.
	And just one side parenthesis, he was locked in a room, basically a hotel room, maybe a little bigger for years.
	At one point, I remember there was a fundraiser or a push to get him a treadmill so at the very least he could exercise while he was in there.
	But explain why embassies are inviolable property in foreign countries.
	It's basically part of treaty law.
	And so a government says, if you recognize our embassy's right to be immune from domestic prosecution, we will reciprocate, and your embassy will be immune from criminal prosecution in most instances on our turf.
	And the other reason is this, it's fundamentally the foreign government's property is also how it's perceived.
	So it's not, even though it's located within the United Kingdom, that property is considered the property or territory of the foreign government.
	When Ecuador had a change in presidents, then Vice President Pence came in and bribed them to help them kidnap Assange out of the embassy, and they went along with it and allowed it to happen.
	By itself, a patent violation of basic international norms and disturbing.
	I mean, if we grant amnesty to someone, are we going to feel comfortable with some foreign government coming in and kidnapping them back to that government?
	I mean, we would be enraged, and yet we participated and organized this ourselves.
	So then he was jailed in Belmarsh Prison, one of the worst prisons in the world already in the United Kingdom, subject to all kinds of restrictions and harsh punitive restrictions.
	His mental health has deteriorated while he has been in there, and his physical health has deteriorated.
	He apparently recently had a stroke.
	Belmarsh Prison, like most prisons, is not well-suited to provide competent or capable medical care.
	Especially for someone with fragile mental health, as Assange has got to that place.
	He was practically...
	They played mental tricks and mentally tortured him the last year or so.
	He was in the Ecuadorian embassy.
	So he's been subject to this now for years.
	Then the lower court...
	Now, the robust challenges brought was that the...
	An extradition to the United States would violate various British law.
	It was a politically motivated prosecution.
	It was for punishment of free press.
	It endangered the means of free press.
	And that was the core of the challenge.
	It was secondary arguments was his mental health.
	The court ignored the other arguments, went with mental health.
	The issues of free press and politically motivated prosecutions was not dealt with by the high court because it was not part of the appeal.
	It will, however, be part of the appeal to the British Supreme Court, to the highest court in Britain.
	I forget whether, I maybe called something else, but the highest court in Britain, which can...
	They've declined to review the extradition, but they really shouldn't, given the high-profile nature of this case.
	And they will have to address all of those issues, not just the issues of his mental health in that appeal.
	And I cover this because it's funny.
	This is another one of the stories that was the introduction of my red pill trajectory.
	At one point, you know, the issue about fighting his extradition was that typically the UK would not extradite someone to a country that potentially had the death penalty because that would be cruel and unusual punishment and therefore a barring for extradition.
	And what he's being charged with could in theory, although highly unlikely, carry the death penalty, Robert?
	Or am I wrong on that?
	They've said they won't seek the death penalty, and that may be binding on them, that particular promise.
	But the other ones would not be binding, such as how he gets treated, whether he gets sent to Australia to serve his sentence, whether or not he goes to Florence, Supermax, all of those things.
	The U.S. government has proven utterly untrustworthy and unreliable on that, and the court just ignored that.
	I think the more robust issues are, this clearly is a, I mean, this is a targeted prosecution.
	That even the Obama administration declined because the Obama administration went after more whistleblowers than any administration.
	In fact, all of the prior administrations combined.
	And yet even the Obama administration recognized that this would be an impermissible prosecution under First Amendment standards, under the New York Times-Pentagon Papers case.
	Because again, those were stolen papers by someone who did not have authority to release them who released them.
	So, you know, when people tell me there's a difference between the Ellsberg case and the Assange case, no, there isn't.
	And not have any honest review of the facts.
	People claim Assange got people killed.
	They've produced zero proof of that.
	Big fat zero.
	If you want to keep listening to the lies of deep state operators, you're the sucker, not anyone else.
	To make it even broader, it went at one point from he got people killed to he put people at risk, and then there was still no concrete evidence that he put soldiers at risk in any event.
	He put some criminals at risk.
	That's what he put at risk.
	He put criminal murderers at risk.
	Criminal murderers.
	That's who these people were.
	And some people are so reflexively defensive of the military, even with its woke incarnation, even with its current imposition of vaccines on its own soldiers, still so reflexively defensive of the magic of the uniform and some medals that they think disclosing any of their secrets is a bad thing.
	No, disclosing their crimes is a good thing.
	It's what we should be entitled to as a citizenry.
	I'm not old enough to know the Pentagon Papers, but if that's the argument for Assange, I mean, what did the Pentagon Papers reveal and the publication of the Pentagon Papers was permitted by the Supreme Court?
	What did that have that was not equally as offensive if this is the criteria?
	Yeah, it's identical.
	So, I mean, basically they're trying to make new dangerous law because they don't want anyone to be like Julian Assange in the future.
	Because Julian Assange's whole thing is what keeps up corrupt governments or secrets.
	So it's sort of like, you know, the movie.
	Sneakers.
	No more secrets.
	That was his mantra.
	No more secrets.
	Uncloak the secrets and you take down the corruption of governments because they need secrets to thrive and commit crimes.
	And that's why he was the greatest threat to that system of corrupt governance probably in the history of the modern world.
	And that's why they want to make an example out of it.
	So nobody wants to be another Julian Assange.
	And that's what it's all about.
	And that's why they went after Daniel Ellsberg, too.
	But the corruption of the case got publicly exposed, and so Ellsberg was able to ultimately walk, but not without the Nixon administration trying it.
	And a lot of this is, you know, some of Trump's best advocates put together a memorandum for him to pardon Assange, and after January 6th, he got his cojones clipped, and he acted like a wuss throughout the last three weeks of his administration, rather pitifully.
	And the effect of it is that Julian Assange is put in this position of danger.
	A president who some people believe partially got elected because Julian Assange exposed the secrets of Hillary Clinton.
	And I guess that's a preemptive answer to the question Trump should have pardoned him.
	Your belief, this is an opinion, is that after Jan 6, it would have been publicly impalatable?
	It would be unfathomable.
	To have pardoned Assange after January 6th?
	I mean, is that how maybe Gansix was weaponized in the first place?
	Yeah, I mean, it was what Mitch McConnell and other people told him.
	Told him that he would get convicted in the Senate if he pardoned Assange or if he declassified a bunch of record requests.
	Not only related to Russiagate, but also John F. Kennedy's assassination and other items.
	And so he folded.
	I mean, he almost didn't pardon Steve Bannon.
	At the last minute, he decided to go ahead with that.
	But the only two people, a bunch of people pushed for Bannon's pardon, along with other people connected to Bannon's case.
	You know, and other people, you know, like...
	Certain people connected to CPAC were taking money from people to try to get other people pardoned.
	And some of those people got commutations and things like that.
	The way he handled the pardon system was disgraceful.
	Just disgraceful.
	Showed lack of courage, a lot of cowardice, and him capitulating to some big money donor crowds.
	And we're now seeing the consequences of that, and it's to his shame that Julian Assange is even in this position.
	White Lightning, and by the way, I think we're just going to move into Bannon after this because it's a perfect segue, but a lot of good that pardon for Bannon has done for Bannon, but he should not have accepted it, is my humble opinion.
	Wouldn't it have been better for Assange just to accept extradition?
	It's hard to imagine a left-leaning D.C. jury convicting a whistleblower.
	Well, he would be tried in Northern Virginia, number one.
	Number two, the professional class left hates Julian Assange.
	They blame Julian Assange for the election of Donald Trump.
	So they hate him as much as anybody, probably more than anybody.
	And so that's where that is.
	Just look at the history of national security trials.
	I don't know if anybody's been acquitted in a while.
	It's very, very difficult to get acquitted in those cases.
	Those cases are a joke.
	They're quasi-secret trials in violation of the Constitution, in my view.
	And so the idea that he can get a fair trial or anything vaguely resembling it.
	It's just not accurate.
	And the D.C. crowd hates him.
	So the left doesn't support whistle.
	Barack Obama prosecuted more whistleblowers than all of his predecessors combined.
	That's what the D.C. left thinks of whistleblowers.
	They don't like whistleblowers at all.
	So they only like whistleblowers who are on their political side.
	That's it.
	I don't know if I have any more questions for Assange.
	I mean, I do.
	So they're going to appeal the process, or they're going to appeal the process for the appeal.
	It's not going to be overnight, so there's no interim extradition pending the appeal.
	So it'll be another however many months, because, Robert, when was the last time we talked about this?
	It could easily be another year before there's any Supreme Court adjudication.
	And whether he's still alive by that is an open question.
	Because in the meantime, he's still in max security with the worst of the worst in England.
	It's the scene from Braveheart where at the end of the movie, you know Braveheart or William Wallace is not coming back once they open his stomach.
	And we're at that stage in Assange's life regardless.
	He's the shell of the man that he was.
	It's not even clear he could ever be rehabilitated to anything of what psychologically, spiritually, physically he was.
	And now he's become a figurehead, so to speak, of what he represents, which is a free press and...
	The embodiment of someone who's been persecuted, prosecuted, and tortured for the last decade because of what he did.
	And even if you free him now, that's going to serve as one hell of a deterrent to anyone else who would ever think of doing anything along the lines of what he's doing.
	Although James O 'Keefe is still, you know, he's pushing the envelope in terms of what he's reporting on.
	So he'll be in jail for another year while they appeal this to the highest court.
	If they hear it or don't hear it, however they adjudicate, even if he's alive and even if he wins.
	He loses, the system wins, and then maybe a principle is set that is worth what it's worth at this point in time.
	It's a very perilous precedent for any kind of free press, for any kind of...
	Not only that, just open, transparent government, exposing government crimes for whistleblowers in general.
	That the most famous whistleblower, the most successful publisher of whistleblowers in world history, is basically tortured into death, effectively, is the path that the United States government has currently put on.
	And it's sad and disgraceful.
	And it will go down as one of the great failures of the Trump administration, especially if that ends up being the end destination.
	Punishing Assange probably won't deter the next Assange, like punishing Ross Ulbricht's Silk Road founder hasn't deterred those sites.
	I don't know enough about Ross Albrecht, although I know a bit of the story.
	And you're right, I don't think it'll deter future Assanges, because I think on the one hand, people will never reasonably expect to be treated like Assange, and there's going to be too many.
	And it's like Anonymous, or the movie V for Vendetta.
	The more there are, they can't do this to everybody.
	They're trying with Jan 6th.
	We're probably going to get there at some point tonight, but they'll try.
	But the more there are, the less likely it is that they can do this to that many people, because there will be people out there speaking about it.
	But I guess it's a good segue, Robert, unless we've missed anything, to Steve Bannon, where if they don't get you on the substance, they will get you on the procedure.
	And Bannon got his indictment for the We Build the Wall indictment.
	Colfage didn't.
	And I said if Bannon...
	I like to think if I were in Bannon's shoes, I might say, I decline your indictment and I will stand with my brethren.
	I'd like to think I would do that, but I don't know what I would do in that position.
	But a lot of good it did to him because in the wake of Jan 6, Bannon gets a congressional subpoena.
	Congress has created their own raison d 'être, their own authority, to investigate anything and everything related to the events.
	I don't want to use the words, Robert, but it rhymes with schmenschmerists of January 6th.
	They've designated this as 9-11 2.0, and they've given themselves all the powers in the world to investigate everything and anything.
	They issue subpoenas to Bannon, who says...
	I'm not complying with them.
	I believe I have privilege, executive privilege.
	If I'm wrong, prove me wrong.
	And, Robert, you'll explain to me why they don't go adjudicate that question first, but then they indict him by a grand jury, and there was a recent court order in that case.
	Before we get there, why is there not an obligation to adjudicate on the purported defense of executive privilege before moving on a contempt on the basis of executive privilege?
	It's very difficult to contest congressional subpoenas in court in advance of a contempt proceeding as a private citizen.
	So that's the hard part.
	I believe Meadows is now contesting it.
	Trump, of course, did, and we'll get to what the D.C. Circuit did with that.
	But it's generally considered difficult to contest it.
	I would have advised trying it rather than go the contempt route.
	To let them go the contempt route instead and challenge it in that way.
	Okay, so he just simply refuses to comply.
	Leads necessarily to an overly zealous, highly politicized, highly weaponized DOJ, Attorney General Merrick Garland.
	They go and get him indicted by a grand jury on contempt of Congress.
	And now apparently, Robert, you're going to have to explain to me how it even happened and came up.
	The United States of America, the Department of Justice, petitioned the court basically to have everything be, if it's not under seal, it's pretty damn close.
	They don't want anything being made public in the context of those proceedings.
	What's the word?
	Protective orders?
	I don't know.
	Basically, Bannon cannot make public, cannot publicly discuss or disclose any of the supporting documents the government supplied, filed, submitted to the grand jury.
	The confidential information is going to be next-level protection, but even the ordinary documentation in that file is now subject to a protective order.
	How does it happen?
	What's the documentation conceivably containing that it would require a protective order in the first place?
	So if Julian Assange is the man in iron chain, Steve Bannon is now the man in the iron mask, basically he is being prohibited from disclosing any of the documents that are produced to him in discovery in the criminal proceedings to anybody.
	There has to be permission granted to file it in court for it to ever become part of the public record.
	And this is absurd.
	It is increasingly commonplace with prosecutors going to judges saying, we want any of the discovery on some pretext hidden from public disclosure.
	You know, well, there were once grand jury records, something else, but it's a completely misapplied doctrine.
	Because criminal discovery should not be subject to a protective order unless it entails private information of the defendant that the defendant wants subject to a protective order unless it becomes pertinent to the trial.
	But otherwise, these kind of broad protective orders where they seal and order a party, gag a party, I mean, that's what this really is.
	This is a gag order on discovery.
	You're not allowed to disclose to the world any information the government gives you.
	Unless it's filed in court itself.
	And so that is extraordinarily broad.
	No limits.
	No requirement that it meet any particular standard.
	The sensitive information has a heightened provision of protection, but...
	All of it is limited under the protective order.
	This is the same Federalist Society Trump appointee who also ruled across the board in favor of Dominion in the defamation claims.
	It's another failure of Trump, another one of these appointees that is unreliable on the bench in terms of liberty interest.
	Not a surprise because over half of his appointees were Federalist Society members whose oaths are to something else other than the Constitution, in my view.
	And they've proven it repeatedly while being on the bench and in just the brief time they've been on the bench.
	So this is just absolute deference to the executive branch, misuse and abuse of judicial power to silence a defendant from arguing in the court of public opinion or exposing government malfeasance and misconduct in the court of public opinion.
	That's all that it really is.
	I had so many things to say, one of which was the idea of preventing the eyes of the public from Accessing this evidence.
	So if it's submitted, Robert, in court proceedings, then it becomes public?
	Or is it not still suppressed in the context of court proceedings?
	It depends.
	The court can make a second ruling on that at that time, whether or not to seal it or disclose it.
	So at this point, it's going to be very, unless he's real creative and aggressive in filing things in court, all this information will stay secret until there's a trial.
	And how he can get a fair trial in the District of Columbia is a joke to me, as we'll get to with what the D.C. Circuit said about Trump.
	It's not possible to get an impartial jury or impartial judge, for the most part, in the District of Columbia.
	Well, before we get there, Robert, you're a straw, not straw man, steel man this for me.
	I can't even conceive of what could be in that indictment, charging documents, the information submitted to the grand jury.
	I can't conceive, logically.
	What could have been sensitive enough to even require a protective order in the first place?
	Hypothetically, steel man it for me.
	What could be in the documents submitted to the grand jury for Bannon's indictment that could be necessary remotely for a protective order?
	I mean, historically, this stuff is stuff they got through.
	They claim grand jury secrecy.
	Anything the grand jury got should be kept secret until it goes to trial.
	That's not what grand jury secrecy is about.
	Grand jury secrecy is supposed to be until there is an indictment.
	The information that the grand jury has, they have to keep secret.
	Not people who testify before it, as the government routinely tries to lie people into believing, but even try to intimidate James O 'Keefe and Project Veritas on those grounds.
	Completely bogus.
	The way they went about it.
	Any private citizen who appears before the grand jury is not subject to grand jury secrecy.
	Period.
	End of story.
	Only the grand jurors and the government and the investigators are that are part of the government's case.
	So that's usually their pretext.
	This court order established no independent basis whatsoever for this broad protective order.
	None.
	Didn't say here's why, here's the kind of information.
	Said no.
	If it's criminal discovery, it has to be hidden from the world.
	That was it.
	That was all the judge said.
	It was not well-reasoned or well-argued in the opinion.
	It was barely reasoned at all.
	The only thing I was asking myself, and I said it in my vlog, is it was granted in part.
	What part of it was not granted?
	Because the judge, maybe the judge, he opened the caveat.
	Documents that are already public or already in Bannon's possession are not covered by the order.
	If that was the concession, well, big freaking deal.
	Whoop-dee-doo.
	That was already the law.
	You can't apply a protective order to things that aren't part of the protective order.
	No, duh.
	Why is that even in the judgment?
	That which is in public domain can't be protected.
	Thank you, Dr. Einstein judge.
	What part of the order was not granted?
	The order basically said if it's not protected or classified information, it wasn't classified.
	If they put the word sensitive on it, then it had a higher threshold before it could even be put into court.
	I mean, the only thing that should have been protected, or there was even an argument for protecting, was what was labeled sensitive.
	And even some of that was too broad.
	I mean, again, we have public trials for a reason.
	And you have a right to defend yourself in the court of public opinion, as the U.S. Supreme Court has said in prior cases, Gentile versus State of Nevada.
	And yet, they're basically denying ban on that right.
	They're prohibiting him from exposing government misconduct related to his case.
	It's funny.
	Now I'm putting pieces of puzzles together in my head.
	They tried to do this in the Colfage ban an indictment.
	They tried to get a gag order enjoining Colfage from publicly discussing the trial while he was being indicted on alleged fraud for the rebuild the wall.
	It's un-effing believable because the second you...
	The second you extricate from the equation the aggregate knowledge of the internet, public opinion, people who can help crowdsource knowledge to Bannon, you then put one party at an absolute disadvantage because the prosecuting party has endless resources, endless funds, endless assets to do what they want to do for prosecution, and the defendant can't even make copies of the documents.
	And if it's sensitive information, Robert...
	He can't even take notes unless his counsel ensures that the notes being taken are compliant with this court order.
	And I do want to highlight, it was a Trump appointee for the judge.
	And that's not to say the judgment has to be either better or worse.
	It's just to say, I did my entire assessment.
	I didn't know who the judge was.
	I said this order, in my mind, reeks of garbage.
	Then I say it's a Trump appointee.
	It's like, holy crap.
	Maybe there's a reason why this is a good order.
	I was like, no, this is all bullcrap, and I don't care that the judge was appointed by Trump.
	The judge made the wrong decision, or at the very least, really stretched the bounds of the believable.
	But they have to live with this court order now, pending the entire indictment, or is there anything remotely appealable in this decision?
	You can appeal, but you're appealing to the D.C. Circuit.
	So unless you get a miracle and you get the U.S. Supreme Court to take it, which would be an extreme long shot, you're stuck.
	And the D.C. Circuit made clear this week, And Trump's objections to the January 6th committee subpoenas that the D.C. Circuit is just a bunch of political hacks who will make up facts and think MSNBC is equivalent to God's gospel when it comes to the truth about January 6th.
	Okay, now hold on.
	Before we get there, I don't do this for the numbers, people, but we did just crack 10,000 live viewers here on YouTube.
	Thumbs up it if you don't mind.
	And also, it's very nice to inundate the chat with comments.
	But no, go hit the thumbs up and share this around, especially clip sections from the Assange so that people can know what's going on.
	And just also appreciate, Robert and I have talked about this at length.
	We've now been doing these, Robert.
	We're nearing 100 live streams just on the Sunday nights, which is beautiful.
	Okay, so what's going on with the chat?
	I'm not up to speed with this one.
	What's going on with Trump and the Jan 6 subpoenas in D.C.?
	So this is that special committee.
	Formed like no committee in the history of Congress that did not recognize minority rights, so it padded the committee with only those Republican members that Pelosi wanted, not with respecting.
	Traditionally, what happens is the majority puts on their members, and then the minority, through their leadership, the minority party, through their leadership, picks their members.
	Unlike all of those committees, this committee wasn't formed that way.
	Pelosi refused to put on anybody that the minority member leadership requested and instead put on those members who are anti-Trump and have the same beliefs about January 6th as Pelosi does.
	Or that Pelosi wants the world to think is true.
	They get to call it bipartisan by doing that.
	Yeah, exactly.
	It's a crock.
	And they're still pretending it's consistent with the way a committee has to be formed in Congress.
	It's not.
	So that's problem number one.
	Problem number two is they say that they're looking at legislation, but it's quite clear that's not what they're doing.
	I mean, what legislation is exactly, are they investigating?
	What they're doing is they're going after people for political purposes to have public show trials, to promote a false narrative, to help themselves in the 2022 election.
	Now, the legislative branch does not have executive power.
	And does not have the, was not really, frankly, they should have never had subpoena power.
	But, you know, they granted them subpoena power on the pretext, even though they're not a judiciary and they didn't go to the judicial branch to get a subpoena, even the executive branch doesn't have subpoena power.
	It has to go to a court to get a subpoena enforced.
	Even these administrative summonses that get issued are only enforceable if a court says they're enforceable.
	So normally only the judicial branch can issue subpoenas, yet here we gave it to the legislative branch.
	Self-enforcing subpoenas.
	And so that's the second issue.
	So first issue, this committee was not formed in a manner consistent with the way Congress is supposed to respect minority party rights.
	Second, they're exercising subpoena power the Constitution never gave them.
	Third, the only subpoena power they do have, according to the courts...
	It's for legislative purposes, to gather information necessary for legislation.
	This is not about legislation.
	They're not going after Trump's records because of legislation.
	And then fourth, the issue was the executive privilege.
	The President Trump asserted executive privilege, and it's already been established by the U.S. Supreme Court that, yes, a former president can assert executive privilege.
	Biden is one of the first presidents ever.
	To ignore a former president's request for executive privilege.
	And it's going to open up Pandora's box.
	And as was argued to the D.C. Circuit, all this will do is executive privilege will be dead.
	The moment a president of the opposite party gets in, they'll say, screw it.
	If it embarrasses my predecessor, no executive privilege.
	And the D.C. Circuit just flat out lied about the consequence of that.
	But if you read the D.C. Circuit opinion, one Biden appointee...
	Two Obama appointees that were on the D.C. Circuit, they write an opinion that is inflammatory, prejudicial, made-up facts.
	They just lie.
	Judges lie all the time.
	They just get away with it because judges get to judge their own lies.
	Stop right there for one second.
	Prejudicial.
	That term in law, people are finding it confusing given the recent court trials in which it's come up.
	Something that's prejudicial to the defendant.
	In theory, conviction is prejudicial.
	So what do you mean by prejudicial?
	Because I know it has a specific legal meaning.
	That people don't necessarily appreciate the nuances of.
	Sure.
	So prejudicial, like if a case is dismissed with prejudice, it means that's the end of the case.
	You cannot reinstate the case at a later date.
	So sometimes that's in the favor of a defendant, sometimes not.
	Depends on what the dismissal was.
	But usually pro-defendant, you know, hostile to the plaintiff.
	Here I'm referring to prejudice in its old-fashioned sense, in its colloquial sense.
	These are judges who are biased.
	There's been no trial here, no evidence you're hearing here, and they just make up a bunch of facts.
	It's rhetoric that even MSNBC would be bashful to use.
	Rhetorics like on January 6th, this is the greatest, most dangerous, violent assault on the Capitol in American history.
	Blood was shed.
	Lies were lost.
	I mean, it's this gibberish from these judges, these political hacks who lied about the record because they hate a past president and they have to make up things about January 6th.
	How are these judges in any position to judge any January 6th defendant or any issue concerning the January 6th committee when they believe and repeat and publish?
	Outright falsehoods, fabrications, and lies.
	It's a crock.
	That ruling is an embarrassment.
	I put it up on our locals board just to show this is how insane the D.C. Circuit wants to replace the Ninth Circuit as the nuttiest, looniest court in America, and they're achieving it at record pace.
	Robert?
	I think I may have just fallen in love with the angry Barnes.
	I mean, I was reading the...
	What was it?
	Whatever it was that defined the powers of the committee, and they're using words like domestic shmishmerists, and it's like, you're using those terms.
	The FBI itself came out and said there's no coordinated effort.
	And the D.C. Circuit did.
	The D.C. Circuit called it that.
	I mean, these D.C. circuits are going to rule on bail decisions.
	They're going to rule on venue decisions about the January 6th defendants.
	They're going to rule on the Steve Bannon issues about the subpoena.
	They're going to rule on Mark Meadows' issues with the subpoena.
	They have shown they have no capacity whatsoever for impartiality.
	It's the same D.C. circuit that proved that in spades.
	In the Flynn case.
	But this is one of the most political cases and political language ever.
	Just openly, brazenly politicized language that had no basis in fact.
	They just made things up.
	Yeah, people died that day because Capitol Police shot unarmed people.
	It's ludicrous what they said.
	They're just lies, littered with lies.
	Robert, I'm trying not to get blackpelled.
	And someone said, stop rummaging my hands through my hair because it's distracting.
	Yeah, okay.
	And I want people also to appreciate the judges who are adjudicating on this and using this rhetoric.
	I'm stealing your knowledge here.
	This is not my insight.
	If they believe that this is what it was, they were the victims of the alleged attack.
	And they are therefore being literally the judge, jury, and executioner in some sense in a process in which they are...
	Where does it go, Robert?
	I mean, where does this go?
	Because it makes sense as to why the Brian Stetlers of the world, the CNN, MSNBCs, they're not letting up on this Jan 6 nonsense.
	And the further away it gets, the more hyperbolic their memory of it gets.
	Where does it go?
	So Trump can try en banc, but that would be a waste of time in the D.C. Circuit because two-thirds of the judges are just like these nutjobs.
	And so that puts it, so I assume he will go up to the U.S. Supreme Court, and maybe they'll take it because of some of the key issues.
	But you have a lot of politically nervous Nellies up there on the Supreme Court, and it would likely come down to either Kavanaugh or Barrett granting cert.
	Because I can't imagine either Roberts or the Democrats granting cert, despite Sotomayor saying she can't imagine anyone perceiving the Supreme Court as political.
	Putting that aside for the moment, this is so overtly political that a conscientious liberal should have either watered down this decision or should be concerned about it because it's so over the top.
	Literally, it reads like all these people do is sit and watch Rachel Maddow all night.
	I mean, the only thing they didn't throw in there was some Russiagate lies for kickers.
	They lied about what Trump said during the...
	And then they made a lot of statements by omission.
	They failed to make a lot of clarifying statements throughout.
	So they either lied by commission or omission throughout the opinion.
	Again, they had no basis to make these factual claims.
	These factual claims were not part of any evidentiary record, not part of an evidentiary hearing, not part of a jury trial.
	They were made up by the court.
	They came from MSNBC.
	And many of them have been directly refuted.
	Directly rebutted by no less authority than the FBI, as you note.
	So, I mean, who's obviously corrupted in this whole case.
	So, it's a disgraceful ruling showing how partisan and politicized some of our courts have become.
	I'm going to have to go read it.
	I didn't read the decision.
	I read the synopsis, the summaries, but I'm going to have to go read this and maybe...
	Just read the first paragraph and you're like, what in the world?
	Did I tune into the Rachel Maddow show?
	Reading the order coming from Bannon and I was like, it's a Trump judge.
	Did I tune into the Rachel Maddow show?
	Can't they just go before them and refuse to answer questions based on the committee being corrupt and invalid?
	If Bannon had gotten up and said, I refuse to answer, I refuse to answer, I don't remember might be a lie if he does remember.
	That's actually how they got...
	It was either Roger Stone or Michael Flynn on an I don't remember when they said, but you did remember.
	But you can't just go up and you can't plead the fifth, or can you?
	Oh, of course you can.
	But Benny Thompson, the congressman, the committee chairman of this focus committee, has gone on public CNN and elsewhere, MSNBC, and said anybody who takes the fifth, he's going to accuse of...
	That's evidence of criminal knowledge.
	So Bannon could have gone in and asserted the fifth as to all of it.
	Alex Jones has already said he's taking the fifth.
	He's not playing the game of going to contempt.
	He's not playing the game that they want him to play.
	It's like taking the fifth.
	You want to argue with it?
	Go with it.
	But, I mean, he recognized right away that...
	That that was the best, probably, approach for people to take.
	Because we have a corrupt Congress committee, we have a corrupt D.C. prosecutor, and we have a politically corrupted D.C. court system, and we have a politically prejudiced jury pool.
	I mean, again, you know, even Birmingham and Martin Luther King could have got a fair trial in 1950s Birmingham with an all-white jury than any Trump supporter can get from any aspect of the D.C. justice system.
	All right.
	What do we segue into from here, Robert?
	Well, speaking of corrupt trials, Ghislaine Maxwell's trial, the government's magically wrapped up already.
	Okay, so first of all, Robert, it was a last-minute thing, and I realized I only sent you the link about 20 minutes into the stream, but the stream had only been confirmed about 90 minutes before.
	Did you watch any of it, or were you able to catch some of the part with...
	With Matthew Russell Lee, who's the inner-city press reporter, I think we have to have him on for a sidebar, because I think the two of you would get along very well.
	But he gave us the updates.
	There was an issue about an illness with one of the lawyers, which the judge confirmed was not COVID-related.
	And apparently everyone was back in court the next day.
	So this is what happens now.
	The black book, the infamous black book, redacted...
	Entirely.
	I put up a tweet as a joke.
	It was just a fake redacted document.
	The infamous black book, fully redacted, to the point where the judge said, why are you redacting people's names who are not witnesses or protected witnesses in this case?
	You got the daughter of James Comey prosecuting this case, giving people the illusion, the impression, the perception, perhaps, that this is a, I won't say half-assed prosecution.
	But a very directed prosecution.
	Protect or do not allow to get caught up in the net everyone but get a conviction against Ghislaine Maxwell.
	They called four witnesses.
	A few of them might get excluded based on age issues because they were not minors at the time.
	So what good would their testimony be?
	What is your overall rundown of the last week of the trial?
	Well, we predicted exactly what happened.
	Which was that this trial was a show trial, meant to cover up true criminality, not to expose it, not to punish it.
	And that's exactly what happened.
	For one, this trial wrapped up in incredible time.
	It's supposed to take six weeks, and it took two weeks.
	I mean, what a crock.
	And so, I mean, that exposes number one.
	And number two, what we predicted is what came true.
	They decided to radically shift the story framework.
	The new story is that...
	Epstein was just a crazy pervert billionaire who had this desperate girlfriend looking for money, who was willing to be his solicitor and promoter and protector to some degree, but particularly the person who helped condition girls for him to abuse for money.
	And that's it.
	There's nobody else in the story.
	There's nothing else involved.
	Epstein wasn't part of anything bigger.
	Ghislaine Maxwell wasn't part of anything bigger, everybody.
	Maureen Comey has made that clear for everybody.
	There were no clients to this.
	It was his insatiable appetite, and that's what all of this was done for.
	By the way, Robert, how did Ghislaine Maxwell get before the UN?
	How does that happen in the world of this?
	I don't know why she was there.
	I don't know if you know.
	I'm springing the question because I don't know the details.
	But how does someone like Glenn Maxwell get before the UN?
	I watched the whole Inner City Press interview because that was fascinating.
	That guy is fascinating.
	A lot of genius insight.
	There's a lot of tunnels we could mine in future discussions with him.
	Inner City Press, you can find it online.
	You can find it on Twitter.
	You can find Matthew Russell Lee on Patreon.
	But great disclosures because there's a movie out there called Whistleblower.
	Based on a true story, I recommend people watch that.
	And you'll understand what he's talking about is that Epstein is a smaller version of what the UN allows to happen on a global scale.
	That they misuse and misappropriate diplomatic immunity for the purposes of true criminality, allowing, indeed...
	Traumatized places, war-torn regions, crisis-torn regions, natural disaster-torn regions, they're perfect places for predators to find orphaned children who end up becoming trafficked.
	He didn't know about Alex Jones, but Alex Jones has been talking about it for a quarter century.
	He was one of the first people to out it.
	Before Whistleblower, the movie, he was talking about it a decade before.
	He was putting some of those connections together back then.
	Simply because he read some of the underlying files that exist if you dig deep enough and look broadly enough.
	But the media does a good job of covering up how the UN is probably the leading trafficker of human beings in the world.
	And the leading abuser of human beings in the world.
	And they use immunity to do it.
	When I was doing a lot of domestic violence and other representation, the common...
	Traffickers look for certain vulnerable victims, and they often look for certain spaces where they can get those vulnerable victims.
	That's why you're going to...
	If you're a predator, you become a foster parent.
	If you're a predator...
	By the way, make it clear, most foster parents are wonderful people who do good work, but it's just disproportionately going to have where predators go because that's where they get access to vulnerable kids.
	Same with orphanages.
	Same with juvenile centers of different kinds.
	Juvenile facilities.
	Ramp it with it.
	Ramp it with it.
	If you want to figure out where Rosenbaum became the pedophile he became, look no further than the juvenile facilities he was in.
	They help condition and create that behavior.
	Hold on a second.
	I'm bringing this up.
	I will not bring up another one of these.
	Barnes won't mention her father and her connection to the Mossad.
	Hunter, you must be new to the channel, and I welcome you to the channel.
	We've gone into this in detail on multiple occasions.
	I mentioned it in my last vlog.
	Robert and I mentioned it in the last stream.
	We mentioned it when I was sitting in my mother-in-law's basement.
	Not basement, sorry.
	Sunroom.
	And I was getting, at that point, red-pilled.
	I was certainly pulled out of the blue pill because I knew nothing of Ghislaine Maxwell.
	First of all, I didn't know of her religious background on one side of the family.
	I knew nothing.
	And Robert was one truth bomb after another.
	So please.
	Enough with it.
	And the other thing with those people, they only want to talk about one agency.
	They don't want to talk about CIA.
	They don't want to talk about MI6.
	They don't want to talk about KGB.
	They don't want to talk about the United Nations.
	They want to focus only on one country for some reason, as if they've discovered the only secret about this one country.
	Yes, but we went into great details about that connection.
	All of that hidden from trial, by the way.
	None of that has come out by the prosecutor.
	And not only that, the third proof of what we were saying came out in glaring form because, as you note, This is what embarrassed the judge, I think, into talking about it, because what happened was they took the pilot logs that have not been widely disclosed to the world.
	There's pilot logs that everybody has seen that's come out in different formats, different forms.
	These were the ones that had not.
	Maureen Comey redacted everybody that was on those flights.
	Everyone is just all blacked out, page after page after page.
	At whose request did she black them out?
	There was no court order, obviously, because the judge was sort of taken aback.
	At whose request, at whose initiative, Robert?
	Do you know, or do we have a theory?
	These questions, I think the only reason the judge asked these questions is because of the inner-city press guy.
	You see why he got kicked out of the UN.
	Kept sending, you know, he sends emails, you know, and he's a New York lawyer.
	So he sends emails.
	Hey, why is this out?
	Why isn't this disclosed?
	Why isn't this here?
	I'm going to petition for this.
	I'm going to petition for this.
	And so because he's an old school investigative journalist of that type, he put pressure on the judge.
	Who knows everybody's watching this trial.
	And she's done a nice job of letting the prosecutors keep this case hemmed in nice and neat and narrow.
	But this was one step too far given people like Inner City Press raising a storm about it.
	And this is the same judge, by the way, who decided not to allow people to call in to hear the trial.
	I mean, I was led to believe that that was going to be allowed.
	They suddenly stopped it all.
	In the name of federal courts don't allow it.
	And as the Inner City Press guy pointed out, D.C. courts are still doing it.
	To humiliate the January 6th defendants, everybody can call in and listen to those courts ram, do their little speechifying in their cases, yet somehow the Maxwell case, no, we couldn't listen into?
	Why couldn't we listen into it?
	But even the judge was like, why in the world is this all redacted?
	Because the inner-city press guy was raising the problem.
	Maureen Comey couldn't justify it, couldn't explain it.
	Good Logic, who originally didn't have any strong sense one way or the other on this aspect of the trial, said this was highly suspicious, what was going on, and there was just no good, and he's been following it.
	People don't know, you can get all your daily updates and full updates from him.
	I gotta do one thing.
	Good Logic had been selling himself as the only lawyer in the courtroom, and then I learned, and we all learned during the stream, that Matthew Russell Lee is a lawyer too, so now Good Logic has attenuated his verbiage.
	He is now...
	One of two or three lawyers in the courtroom.
	But good logic, Joe Nierman has been in there doing good work every day.
	Yeah, he said it made no sense.
	Even the judge is like, too much.
	Redact what needs to be redacted and come back Monday.
	And by the way, tomorrow's Monday.
	But they've closed, Robert.
	So do they come back with that unredacted logbook or not?
	Wouldn't it be interesting if they used the excuse that they closed the proceedings to say they're not going to introduce that into evidence and consequently don't want any unredacted version in?
	We're going to find out Monday, won't we?
	But the problem for the judge is little Matt Lee with his little inner-city press.
	Where is it?
	And the judge is, oh man, everybody's paying attention.
	So we'll see what the judge does if the prosecutor plays that game.
	But that would be the final nail in the coffin.
	This was a...
	Show trial to create a fake narrative around the whole history of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein.
	What was not explained in the whole trial was, where did Jeffrey Epstein get all that money?
	Where did that money come from?
	Do we need that explanation, though?
	Hold on, let me just...
	I was trying to double-check.
	We are still green-lighted, by the way.
	That's why I pulled out my window, but you can't see that.
	We're still green-lighted.
	Apparently, we've been good enough, Robert, in terms of not getting the YouTube kick.
	The question I was just about to ask is, where did he get his money?
	Not that university graduating is correlative to salary, but he did not graduate from university, ended up with a teaching degree at Dalton.
	Or teaching at Dalton.
	With Bill Barr's daddy getting him the job.
	Very interesting books.
	And it's when he's at Dalton...
	That he begins this unique behavior.
	But it doesn't reach full scale or global scale until Ghislaine Maxwell shows up on the scene.
	And again, her father was Robert Maxwell.
	You can look it up.
	He famously just dropped off a boat when he said he was going to talk about some people after he'd stolen about half a billion pounds from his pensioners.
	Half a billion pounds, which is maybe where Ghislaine Maxwell got the money from, or the family at the very least.
	Well, I mean, they were technically broke because of all the problems that he incurred after his death.
	But the question was whether she just re...
	I mean, Robert Maxwell was famous for both being part of and complicit in various honeypots by a range of governments and secret and basically the deep state of the world.
	And it was on both sides.
	He said CIA, MI6, Mossad, and KGB.
	I mean, this guy worked everybody.
	He was a publisher, was reportedly where he made his money.
	And then, you know, he got caught in a lot of scams.
	And rumor was he was going to rat out some people.
	So he went out on his boat, named Ghislaine, and didn't come back.
	So the coincidence that it was her who suddenly shows up next to Epstein, and that's when Epstein's operation becomes global rather than small scale.
	And it's around the time, not long after, Epstein suddenly is super wealthy.
	Which no one has ever explained.
	How does this guy have the nicest house in New York City and an island and a place in West Palm Beach up the road for Trump and a huge ranch?
	By the way, the only person Maureen Comey would talk about, she would name drop Donald Trump repeatedly, even though there didn't appear to be any relevance whatsoever with Trump.
	There was no proof of anything concerning Trump.
	Trump never visited the island.
	Trump never visited Epstein's homes.
	The only trip Trump took was from Mar-a-Lago up to his golf course in New Jersey.
	At least that was introduced in the evidence.
	But it's interesting who she would name drop.
	But Bill Gates' name magically never appeared.
	Is that one of those names that she's redacted on those pages?
	I mean, we know Bill Clinton.
	Just on the published logs, he took 26 trips.
	How many did he take on the redacted ones?
	Are those the ones that go to the island?
	Are those ones that go to the island more than once?
	I had a public...
	It's a Twitter spat.
	I love...
	Nate Brody as well, and we're good friends, so it's not like a mean-spirited spat.
	But Nate said, you know, like, all right, the left covers for Clinton, the right covers for Trump.
	And it's like, no.
	If you show me that Trump flew not just inter within the country, but multiple times within the country, or even one time to the island, my ears will perk up.
	And it's not going to be a question of defending Trump.
	And then Nate said, oh, well, look, here's the spin for the right.
	And I was like, no, it's not the spin.
	Pretending unequal things are equal or unsimilar things are similar is the spin.
	So if Clinton, who is president, is flying on the Lolita Express without security detail, well, sweet and merciful goodness, that's a little different than not president.
	That's a big key.
	Why did Clinton tell the Secret Service to stay home every time he hopped on the Epstein plane?
	We're not saying it's clear.
	Otherwise, they would be with him.
	And we're not saying it...
	Who's calling me?
	Sorry, I cannot take this call right now.
	We're not saying anything new right now.
	This has been known even since I was blue-pilled stage.
	Yeah, I knew that Bill Clinton was on a plane.
	I knew that he didn't have security detail.
	They just went fishing, like when Trudeau went to Aga Khan's Island and went jet skiing.
	Yeah, but except Trudeau had security in Aga Khan's Island, and he charged Canadians for it, but set that aside.
	I knew that was fishy at the time.
	So if there's anything remotely semblant, I will...
	It immediately changed tunes.
	If there's a picture of Donald Trump getting a massage...
	If there was anything like that, I guarantee you it would have already been published.
	Given the scale and scope of the inquiry, Southern District of New York has subjected Trump to targeting him for anything and everything.
	If there was an iota of anything beyond what they have, it would be publicly known.
	I doubt it's Trump's name that they're redacting for visiting the island.
	Not only that, Trump had also publicly hinted repeatedly.
	At who Epstein was before this was popular public news, and it was Trump's Department of Justice and his U.S. Attorney in Southern District of New York who decided to reopen this whole prosecution.
	But what happened is, Comey and other people got control of it, and they cabined it.
	And once they whack Epstein, and because it...
	Eternal truth, number two, Epstein didn't kill himself, folks.
	And then they really, I mean, this has been a containment trial, much like the way Robert Mueller did the Noriega trial.
	This has been a containment trial.
	They've had much more success here than they even did Noriega, because they magically made this sound like something it's totally not.
	Their only explanation for Glenn Maxwell's conduct is, oh, she was down on her luck and needed money, and that's why she did this.
	And maybe she did it because she wanted to be loved by Epstein.
	It's like, does that sound like a compelling explanation?
	And they only put up two actual victims in the whole government presentation.
	I still think she'll get convicted, but that's an extraordinarily small portion of the total victims.
	I want to bring this up before I forget.
	Hey, it's my 53rd birthday today.
	Emma McCoy.
	K. McCoy.
	Sorry.
	Happy birthday.
	But Robert, this...
	You know why they might have called only two victims?
	Those victims weren't going to go other places.
	These were victims that only had issues with Epstein and Maxwell.
	The other victims, because there were so many of them, probably had other names that they would have talked about.
	And they didn't want...
	The government didn't want those names out.
	And you probably just blackpilled about, let's say, 6,000 people.
	Because I think 5,000 people watching are already blackpilled.
	But it...
	Incredibly insightful observation, Robert.
	And for everyone out there who's saying Trump came out in 2006 and said what a good guy Epstein was, but that he has young flavors, you might want to think of that public endorsement, as some people want to spin it, as Seth MacFarlane coming on the Oscars talking about Harvey Weinstein.
	You might want to view it that way.
	Trump was the first person to hint at this at all, publicly.
	He has very peculiar taste, he said.
	He's a great guy.
	He's a good friend.
	Who says those two things in conjunction for anybody who thinks he meant one and the other at the same time?
	It was exactly like Seth MacFarlane saying everything about actresses who had to work with Harvey Weinstein, who didn't have to do certain things.
	It's that public, please notice it.
	And do something about it.
	So that's my reading.
	But maybe I'm a Trump lover because I love Trump so much.
	So they closed their freaking case, Robert.
	They had four witnesses, two explained that were excluded based on the fact that they were not actually underage at the time.
	Correct?
	They really weren't victims at all.
	So, I mean, they were people who showed a modus operandi.
	But again, they're two people who had limited testimony.
	In the sense of nobody else named.
	Only Ghislaine Maxwell.
	Only Epstein.
	Nobody else.
	They magically managed to pick the very small subsample of overall victims that were only victimized by Epstein or Maxwell or both, and only two of whom are criminal victims in the sense of the criminal laws because they were underage at the time.
	The other two are not.
	And both of them had a lot of problems on cross-examination.
	That's why what Lee was saying is accurate, that that's pretty much a gamble with the jury in that you could have put on 20 victims, and 20 victims would have been open and shut.
	Two victims, I think it's a very small risk, 5% or less of acquittals, but they still ran that risk rather than open the door to other names coming out in the court of public opinion.
	Robert, this is great.
	Trump often says he's a good guy, but right before he insults that person, he also says, God bless him, when he doesn't necessarily mean God bless him.
	And I have learned something from reading some books.
	That is a sign of where Robert comes from.
	I like it.
	It's a good habit.
	But it's like his happy Thanksgiving even to the haters and losers.
	That's very common.
	But this trial went exactly as we predicted it was.
	It's a show trial, not a real trial.
	I think she'll be convicted.
	I think she deserves to be convicted.
	But they're doing a great job cabining exposure.
	The other disclosure that Lee made that I thought was very interesting is that he has reason to believe They never even offered a plea in exchange for information in this case, which tells you what else this was all about.
	They're not interested in Maxwell telling about, in fact, they don't want her telling anybody else about anything else.
	They want her to be a discredited, convicted felon before she could ever spill anything about anybody else and want to make sure that this is a fake narrative about it gets told.
	And that's often what big federal criminal prosecutions are all about.
	They're often about redirecting.
	From the actual narrative and creating their own fake narrative.
	But speaking of justice, there was a little justice this week.
	Hold on a second.
	Before you get there, I had to Google it because someone asked the question, who is John Galt?
	Now, I hope this is not more deep than what I think it means.
	John Galt is a character in Ayn Rand's novel, Atlas Shrugged.
	Although he is not identified by name until the last third of the novel, he is the object of its often repeated question, who is John Galt?
	And of the quest to discover the answer.
	Also, in the later part, it becomes clear that John Galt had been present in the book's plot all along, playing several important roles throughout, though not identified by name.
	Okay.
	Thank goodness I thought John Galt was something much more incriminating to the trial.
	Okay, Robert, I'm sorry.
	Moving on to the next subject.
	Which is what?
	We got justice for Juicy.
	Juicy small a.
	Speaking of prejudicial stuff, Robert, okay, none of this is going to come as a shock to anybody.
	I think I had been covering the Juicy Smouye trial before we met, because I know that had I known you at the time, I would have consulted you on what a deferred prosecution agreement is.
	He finally got convicted.
	Fine.
	It was a slam dunk of a prosecution from all accounts, although we were not able to see it because they didn't want to broadcast it.
	Although it's not a federal court, state court.
	First question, Robert, why didn't they broadcast this?
	Because it was a state court, not a federal court, so no federal rules.
	Did they make a decision not to broadcast this embarrassment of a prosecution?
	Yeah, yeah, they did.
	I mean, and why the court made that choice, I don't know.
	Because, again, these are trials that should be broadcast.
	People could have seen Small A's performance on the stand for themselves.
	The whole, I'm just being attacked again because I'm black and I'm gay.
	He tried to hoax the jury like he tried to hoax the world.
	It worked with Robin Roberts.
	Think of all the media people who are now totally humiliated by the results of this verdict.
	Robin Roberts, prize-winning...
	Award-winning journalist who promoted this hoax to the world with a straight face.
	And the problem was, even a Chicago jury couldn't buy this.
	And even his story, which was, oh, really, this is a spurned gay lover, and the other guy's bitter because he doesn't like anybody being gay, and he's homophobic.
	And what he failed to explain was, why is their dynamic the reason why you couldn't tell that they were black?
	When you said two white guys in MAGA hats attacked you, right?
	I mean, there were parts of his story that just could never be justified or explained, and he didn't come up with any good ones for trial either.
	And this is the thing.
	I know what I remember knowing at the time.
	I didn't know Jussie Smollett was gay.
	I didn't know.
	These are not questions I ever ask.
	It's not information I think I'm entitled to.
	I didn't know that he was gay, I think, until the attack itself.
	But I'm not sure if everyone else out there...
	Also was not aware of that fact, because I don't know how widely publicized his sexual orientation was at the time.
	But even some close friends' contacts said, why was it such an obvious slam dunk?
	Like, what was the incriminating evidence?
	And just to throw it out there for everybody who may not know, one of the pieces of information came from one of the investigative police officers who said, Jussie Smollett, he didn't just come back with the rope around his neck.
	You know, 40 minutes later.
	He didn't just go out at 2 o 'clock in the morning in Chicago during a polar vortex to get eggs from a Walgreens because his fitness trainer said, get eggs.
	And then when he couldn't find the eggs, he went to a subway.
	He came back to his apartment with the subway sandwich.
	Now, I don't know if this was adduced in evidence during the trial, but apparently that investigative police officer said, victims of violent attacks, assaults, don't...
	Come back with trinkets that they would have been holding in their hands.
	They drop their stuff and they run.
	And the fact that he came back with his subway sandwich, with the rope still around his neck, the rope, whatever it was, it was all funky from the beginning.
	Then the major incriminating aspects were the Osundara brothers testified that they did a dry run.
	And they said, we want to be in front of that camera so we can capture this on camera.
	And lo and behold, the evening of, the camera was turned the other way, whatever.
	Jussie Smollett's explanation was that they actually did this to me because they hated me and I didn't know one of the brothers and yada, yada, yada, and I paid him $3,500 for fitness training, except he was in a car with them the day before the attack, driving around, and his explanation was we were smoking marijuana.
	So, like, none of it made sense to anybody where you say reasonable doubt does not include...
	And so the question was whether or not he raised reasonable doubt.
	And I said, nothing in what he said raised any doubt, even irrational doubt.
	But that was a long-winded rant.
	Did people know at the time that Jussie Smollett was gay?
	I mean, that was one question.
	I don't know.
	I mean, I don't know if people knew it before he made it public.
	That I don't know.
	I mean, he was kind of a marginal actor on Empire.
	I didn't notice him on Empire even, really.
	Now, I don't watch the show a ton, but he was apparently making good money, two million a year, apparently.
	But that was high stress, as he explained it at the trial.
	I mean, he did not help himself taking the stand, put it that way.
	That's why the conviction came back even quicker.
	Like, this guy's trying to hoax us.
	He's trying to pitch us some bogus story right here.
	And he's playing off the same sympathies.
	It's unbelievable.
	And he pulls the righteous indignation when the prosecutor uses the N-word that he used in his own statement.
	How dare you use that?
	I don't even know who is of what race in the context of this.
	It's just, I would have loved to have seen it because I think the world needed to see it.
	But no, we only saw his interview with USA Today afterwards.
	But here, Dapper Dave says, general consensus that Juicy, I'm reading it, I'm not saying it, that's what it says, will get probation.
	Does the judge have discretion?
	Okay, Robert.
	Yeah, he'll get time.
	I'll make that prediction right now.
	Yeah, because from what I understand, and I don't know what the rules are for Illinois, but there's maximum sentences, but there might also be minimum sentences based on the amount of felonies for which he was convicted.
	And if he's convicted for five felonies, he might get a freebie or a free pass on two, three of the first ones.
	But then is there not mandatory minimum time for potentially?
	It depends.
	I don't know Illinois criminal sentencing law.
	I'm predicting that based on the political nature of the case.
	Too high profile.
	He went all the way through trial, humiliated the Chicago Police Department.
	That judge will be under pressure, and at least the defense interprets the judge as biased against them.
	I didn't see anything to suggest he was that biased in favor of Smollett, put it that way, though he didn't broadcast the trial to Smollett's favor because that would have...
	A bit embarrassing and humiliating further.
	Do people see that bad acting routine on The Stand Live?
	But my guess is he'll get like a year or something like that.
	Holy shit, Robert.
	Sorry.
	A year's a lot.
	I was thinking maybe a month to six months max, although I said 30 days to 60 days.
	He's got to give him something that scares people into not doing what he did.
	A year is a lot.
	A year is a lot, but no time served because he never served time because his charges were dropped.
	Oh, gosh.
	Okay, well, and I'll stick with my initial uneducated prediction.
	30 days to two months, max six months, but we'll see.
	Everyone introduced he was gay.
	He announced he was gay, Tupac, in front of a huge crowd at a bar.
	Okay, fine.
	I mean, that's if you're paying attention to that.
	I mean, some people don't even know that stuff is going on the news.
	I didn't know it was that much, to be honest, before all this.
	Sweet, merciful goodness.
	And then the prosecutor...
	Well, they should have asked him the punishment question.
	They stripped up Alec Baldwin.
	Okay.
	My only exit from Juicy Sommelier was going to be his attorneys calling for a mistrial.
	Oh, no.
	Hold on, Robert.
	I got to get the question out.
	His defense attorney is calling for a mistrial because apparently the judge lunged at them, which if we had video footage, we would have seen the non-lunge or the lunge.
	But this is the question.
	Convicted on five of the six charges.
	The defense is arguing that the fact that he was not convicted on the sixth charge is the greatest grounds for appeal ever.
	And I have to get the sixth charge.
	It was lying to an investigator about the...
	Several weeks later.
	Okay, so, I mean, how do you not get convictions on all six counts in a lawyer's explanation?
	Because there was a difference.
	What they were saying was he lied initially, and when it came back a couple of weeks later, he was trying to hedge his bets, and they didn't think he was fully lying then.
	Okay.
	And honestly, that makes the jury look more fair.
	By the way, they divided the charges in that sense.
	I see the chance of appellate reversal extremely low.
	Extremely low.
	What is the threshold for appellate reversal of a jury verdict in general?
	Well, just in general, it's very hard in the States.
	So I don't know what it is in Illinois, but in most places, it's 20% or less of criminal convictions ever get overturned.
	So I would say the odds of this one getting overturned are about 5%.
	There weren't any controversial jury instructions.
	There weren't any big evidentiary exclusions or inclusions.
	Those are the kind of things that there isn't any core constitutional issue in play.
	This kind of appeal, 5% or less.
	The only reason he has any chance is you have a lot of liberal Democratic judges in Illinois.
	It's the only reason he has any shot at all.
	The slam-duck evidence?
	How about, this is MAGA country, said by someone that sounds like he are from Nigeria and not like some guy from the Midwest.
	And by the way, just so everybody appreciates, it's indisputed that the Oshundara brothers did this.
	There was the video evidence of them getting the equipment, the hat, the rope, the bleach.
	They did it.
	So whether or not they pulled out their greatest Midwestern accent to do this, who knows?
	They might be good actors as well.
	Hold on.
	I'm going to do this one.
	Viva, your innocence is a treasure.
	Watching it fade as you explore the reality outside the mainstream matrix is both entertaining and heartbreak.
	Enjoy.
	Enjoy.
	I was up last night realizing how society might be falling.
	But forget that.
	Robert, BLM.
	Okay.
	If they had any lasting credibility or lingering goodwill with mainstream America, came out and said, this is white supremacy.
	We never trust all police ever.
	I think it was Tim Pool, but it might not have been.
	He said, if you don't trust police ever, who are you going to trust to prosecute what you think would be the real hate hoax against Juicy Smollett?
	But we couldn't end the story without covering BLM's wholly irrational public statement that don't trust police ever, even when it's to prosecute crimes, especially fake ones.
	All right.
	What do we segue into?
	Holy crap, Apple.
	Oh, yeah.
	The punishment question was something that you know how juicy would have answered it.
	They would have asked him, how do you think someone should be punished if they happen to misrepresent things to the police?
	He'd probably say, oh, you know, just let them off.
	Probably good things.
	Good consequences.
	And so I think Alec Baldwin probably gave himself away again.
	With how he explained his position on that as well in that very fateful ABC interview.
	It's amazing.
	So Alec Baldwin, for whatever the reason, pulled the trigger.
	Or did not pull the trigger, but cocked the hammer back.
	Released it.
	The whole rust fiasco, disaster, tragedy ensued.
	And he has not been able to shut his big mouth since the beginning.
	Robert, I remember the first video I did on this.
	We had just had breakfast.
	Or we were in Harper's Ferry, West Virginia.
	And I went out to do this video before I met you for the first time ever.
	No, second time.
	I forget which.
	It was the weekend when we met.
	And I said, I'm going to withhold judgment until we get more facts in.
	I did not appreciate that prop guns were real guns.
	I did not appreciate anything.
	But I said, I'm going to withhold judgment for Alec Baldwin, despite what Tim Pool was saying at the time.
	I think Tim Pool knew more than he let us on to know at the time.
	But then he did that George Stephanopoulos interview where he, if he does not get indicted, it's going to be a political non-indictment because he admitted to actual crimes.
	But the punishment question, to throw a little credit out to the four gentlemen at the behavior panel, Greg Hartley, Chase Hughes.
	Okay, good.
	Scott Rose and Mark Bowden.
	All four of them.
	I learned stuff from them and I didn't even know I knew it because I replayed that interview in my head and I was like, holy crap.
	Alec Baldwin just did something called the Punishment Question.
	He said, what should happen to the people that did this?
	And he says, well, the armorer and the DA did this, but I don't want them to suffer for the rest of their lives.
	I don't want them to be...
	I don't know what the word was.
	He basically...
	He described himself.
	That's who he was describing.
	They shouldn't be tormented.
	Nothing really bad should happen to them.
	Whoever did this, whoever pulled the trigger, let's be reasonable.
	They're good, hardworking people.
	It was another giveaway.
	Chase Hughes...
	The clip you played of Chase Hughes in that was a classic one.
	Between the difference between what his daughter and son said when they're asked the punishment question.
	Have you ever used it on your kids?
	No, my kids are very, very proud to admit when they do things wrong.
	So I don't have to worry about that just yet.
	I picked up my kid from school.
	I said, hey, how was your day?
	He's like, worst day ever.
	I was like, you got punished, didn't you?
	He was like, yep.
	It was great.
	But the Chase Hughes anecdote was that he comes into the living room, spilled chocolate milk all over the white carpet.
	He says, who did this?
	Everyone denies it.
	He goes to his daughter and he says, what should happen to the person who did this?
	Punishment, spanking, yada, yada, yada.
	Goes to his son.
	What should happen?
	No chocolate milk in the living room?
	And so that's how he was able to deduce who did it.
	If you're following Louis C.K.'s rationale, he might say that girls are much more prone to Endorsing the psychological abuse in the boys who might go for the physical abuse, but whatever.
	But it was the punishment question.
	It was great.
	But Alec Baldwin basically admitted to the wrongdoing that he is trying to impart on others by saying, don't punish him.
	I don't want them to suffer the anguish of the responsibility for having done what they did because he did it.
	He knows it.
	Robert, if we're making predictions, what are your odds for calling now?
	Suppress and overtake all of your prior predictions.
	Do you think Baldwin's getting charged?
	It's risen from 0% to 10% because of who the prosecutor is.
	But he's created a risk that didn't exist before him talking.
	Because the other thing that's happened is all these, and I think this is why Tim Pool was on it early, because Tim Pool has become a very big gun aficionado.
	All the gun experts that I watch and follow have all said there's no way he didn't pull the trigger.
	They've all said unless this gun was tampered with or badly handled, you know, something was radically done to it different, this cannot happen as he describes it without pulling the trigger.
	And they've been showing example after example after example after example by gun expert after gun expert after gun expert after gun expert.
	So when you caught him lying and then you add what he says about punishment and then you add the backstory of possible motivation.
	You really have a combination of what they could prosecute him on is you can almost guarantee he told the police the same thing.
	He told the police he didn't pull the trigger.
	That would be a false statement.
	You could just prosecute him for the false statement, even if you don't want to go after him for involuntary felony manslaughter.
	But I think he did commit felony manslaughter.
	And the question is whether or not the New Mexico DA in that county, Osoros, backed...
	Liberal Democratic DA has the guts to indict a prominent Democratic liberal.
	And I think the answer is going to be no still.
	But there's going to be more pressure because of all of this.
	Everybody's going to know why she didn't at this point.
	The ability to pretend he did nothing illegal is out the window based on his own testimony and what people have now revealed about that testimony.
	Two things.
	I just went to verify that we're still green, which is fine.
	That means that the system works properly because we've been good boys, Robert.
	But the other issue is that...
	People are saying he definitely pulled the trigger.
	One flip side argument to that is that he was always compressing the trigger so that when he pulled the hammer back, it never locked.
	And then when he released it, if he had pulled the hammer back all the way, then it could release with enough force to discharge a projectile.
	So he never technically...
	But he claims his finger was like this by the gun.
	Well, that's what he means by that demonstrative.
	Yeah.
	But he's like, he goes hammer, hammer, hammer.
	He does it like that, right?
	He's saying, oh, my finger was like this.
	It wasn't like this.
	So he's saying his finger was never there.
	And he's lying.
	Unless they looked at the gun and found out otherwise.
	Yeah, if it was.
	That the gun had some serious problem with it.
	And that'd be a whole different story.
	I'm just, the odds of that are remote, especially when you start looking at all, you look at his motivation, you look at how he answers the punishment question, you look at how he's lying about, like, as you pointed out, about the other people there.
	Oh, they're all good, hardworking people.
	No, he's thinking that's what they should be thinking and so forth.
	You add it up, you're like, you've got a classic false story here.
	And then I added it up, as I'm going to sleep, where he's like, when he's crying about...
	Shooting this movie, these hardworking people, they're so hardworking.
	He's saying that the day seven of them walked off set because they didn't like their rooms because it was too far from the set, if not also because of the occasional accidental discharges, he is not looking at them because they're saying that.
	He's looking at them because they should be saying that in his arrogant mind.
	And that's it.
	But by the way, I want to thoroughly plug Eric and Mark.
	Eric Hunley, Mark Grober.
	And America's Untold Stories.
	Let me just pull up my three fingers there.
	They're covering this.
	Mark Robert is to Hollywood what Robert Barnes is to law and politics.
	Encyclopedias.
	So you need to follow this and you need to watch them because they were close to 10,000 subs, but I have no monetary or metric interest in their channel.
	But they've been covering this from the beginning and this is where I get a lot of my info from.
	So check them out.
	Eric Hundley, Mark Robert, America's Untold Stories.
	And you get a lot of insider information from Hollywood that you might not want it.
	You might not want it, but it's amazing info what they're covering.
	So, Robert, I'm going to say it's more likely than not that he faces charges.
	And I believe he will.
	He may walk.
	He may never do time.
	But I believe he will face charges.
	And I called it a while back.
	After having said originally, hold off all judgment.
	I don't blame Alec Baldwin for anything.
	And I don't like him.
	I don't think I will ever like him.
	Having seen the way he's reacted since these charges makes me dislike him even more.
	Apparently he's throwing around an umbrella while he's entering Woody Allen's house in New York after this incident for reasons which Mark Robert and Eric Henley have explored.
	We'll see.
	If you're trying to get away with felonies, I would not advise going to the house of Woody Allen.
	Just saying.
	If you want the unlikely support of someone you don't...
	Actually want the support from whom you think you're going to get the support?
	Don't go there.
	Maybe don't go there.
	But speaking of...
	My opinion is the same as that based juror that I don't think made the jury in the Kim Potter case, who was explaining to the prosecutor that YBLM is a commie organization.
	And the prosecutor was trying to say, you're really racist.
	This has nothing to do with race.
	This is you folks politicizing cases.
	So you only prosecute these people and you don't prosecute these people.
	And he's like, so you're mad about not prosecuting people based on whether they committed a crime?
	And he's like, yes, yes, now you got it.
	It has nothing to do with it.
	He goes, well, how much does race have to do with this?
	He said, zero.
	So it was a fascinating little jury review that was on Ricada's channel who's covering the trial along with law of self-defense, Andrew Branca.
	That case, this was Tim Potter pulled the...
	What's come out at trial has been all pro-defense.
	So if she gets convicted at this juncture, if the trial keeps going in the same pace it's been going at...
	Then it will only be because you could not get an impartial jury in the Twin Cities.
	Because the African-American officer who was there said that she could have pulled a gun.
	Supervisor, the person that was her trainer.
	I mean, people, they said it live and said it later.
	They said, we were in the car.
	They said, absolutely.
	If I was in the position to pull the taser, I would have pulled the taser.
	Could she have pulled a gun?
	Absolutely pulled a gun.
	If she didn't do what she did.
	We likely are dead or suffered severe bodily harm.
	If she doesn't do exactly what she does, exactly when she did it.
	And that's the testimony of the government's own witnesses.
	And if you want to see how cross-examination is done well, it's my preference of style as well.
	So I may have bias on it.
	But this old man defense lawyer...
	The government goes on and on and on with these hour-long, two-hour-long direct exams that appear to be useless.
	Then the defense lawyer comes up and in 20 minutes just eviscerates the prosecution's case each time.
	Boom, boom, boom.
	Even did a brilliant job with the mother of the victim, the criminal perpetrator, arguably, the victim in this case.
	And the defense lawyer just took her apart.
	He's like, did your son actually have a driver's license when you were giving him this car?
	No.
	Do you know if he ever had a driver's license?
	No.
	In fact, it was titled in Somebody Else.
	Yes.
	And you met with a bunch of lawyers at the time you went and talked to the police, right?
	Well, yes.
	And included Benjamin Crump's firm, right?
	Yes.
	And you're suing and hoping to win a suit against the city, right?
	Okay, thank you.
	And all of a sudden, by the way, those tears that were flowing on direct, all of a sudden disappeared.
	Just like that.
	It was like, boom.
	People have to appreciate, I brought up the chat, and it was Duante Wright's victim did an interview.
	Here we go.
	She did an interview with Fox News.
	I didn't know where the interview was, but I saw the interview.
	And this is one of Duante Wright's victims, who said, like, when she sees the media or the powers that be propping up Duante Wright as a savior, as a victim, and when you said the word victim, Robert, we all took it colloquially, we know what you mean by it.
	She's like, every time I see that happen, it brings up my own PTSD in a meaningful sense.
	The dude was a bad dude.
	And I think we can agree that he was a bad dude without that prejudicing how we view the trial.
	He was a bad dude.
	Criminal history, I don't know the extent of his criminal history, but a bad individual.
	The moment of the incident, also a bad individual.
	Getting in a car after having assaulted a police officer trying to make a getaway.
	So that's all for it.
	And this part I didn't fully know.
	With one of the officers in the car.
	Or like part of body in his car.
	So had he taken off, that guy may be dead.
	That's what he testified to.
	And by the way, one of these key officers, African American who's lived in the neighborhood his whole life.
	And he explained about how dangerous everything related to Wright was, the history of high crime in that community, the fact that he's got an outstanding warrant, he's got outstanding gun-related issues, outstanding violence-related issues.
	Now he's fleeing with them in the car.
	He's like, if I could have pulled a taser, I would.
	If I could have pulled a gun, I would.
	And now, if I may, Robert...
	This is known to the intervening officers at the time, correct?
	Yes, yes.
	They say it live when she says, oh, I'm going to jail.
	They say, no, you're not.
	We would be dead if it wasn't for what you did.
	So they said it right then.
	And everyone should appreciate the distinction so that no one makes the false analogies.
	Kyle Rittenhouse did not know that JoJo...
	Right, in this case, they all knew that.
	So that could not explain Rittenhouse's reaction in real time.
	In this case, that's knowledge they had when making this...
	What's the word?
	Oh, jeez.
	I lost my words.
	The altercation.
	When getting involved with the incident, they knew this.
	So when the individual...
	Then violently arrests, and then gets in the car and tries to take off, allegedly with, I guess this might be evidence now, so not allegedly, with an officer potentially pinched in the door, and then Kim Potter pulls out the taser, thinking this will neutralize the situation, because it's escalated to the point where I need this, but she accidentally pulled out a gun.
	Those are the facts.
	And then this is the question, Robert, because this is where my entire perspective changed.
	A lot of people are claiming, testifying, and arguing that...
	Lethal force would have been allowed.
	People are saying that tasers are a lethal force.
	I want to bypass that argument and just say she would have been allowed to shoot lethally the individual at that point, given those facts.
	She thought she pulled out a taser, but didn't.
	So, yeah, I mean, the fact that she tried to use lesser forces to her credit, but she was not legally obligated to.
	She could have legally pulled the gun and fired the gun as well, given what the other officers are testifying to.
	So, and at this point, they haven't been able to damage that at all.
	So, the judge is playing games by not defining whether recklessness is subjective or objective.
	So, that may yet confuse the jury, but otherwise, in my view, the only question...
	Can you get an impartial jury in the Twin Cities?
	And I seriously doubt that you can't.
	This case will be a test of that.
	If you don't know offhand, how many charges is she facing?
	Is there going to be an issue of getting off?
	It's two of the three charges that Chauvin was facing.
	The risk that she gets off on the big ones, but still the compromise verdict.
	Is that going to be a real risk?
	I think my understanding is either charge.
	I think she's charged with two.
	And my understanding is either one serious time.
	I just want to bring this up.
	Barnes is not getting on SCOTUS, people.
	It's not because he's not worth it.
	It's because...
	Come on.
	There is zero chance Barnes gets on SCOTUS unless Trump is back in office.
	Robert, even if Trump gets back in office, do you have a reasonable chance of ever...
	If you had to bet on it, how much would you bet?
	What would you take for odds?
	It would require radical change in the Senate for anybody like me to make it onto the Supreme Court.
	Anybody with an independent life experience with an independent perspective.
	The system is designed to keep those people off.
	Who you could get on the bench is people like base Judge Stickman, judges like that.
	Some of these judges making good rulings in the vaccine mandate context.
	Some of these judges are proving their bona fides to be more of a populist conservative on the justice.
	We've had those, though usually they've been...
	Some populists on the left, Hugo Black and some others.
	William Douglas in certain respects.
	And there's probably maybe a half dozen decent justices in the history of the Supreme Court.
	For every justice who makes a good decision, you'll find that same justice making two or three horrendous decisions.
	So unfortunately, there's very few.
	Thomas has been very good.
	To get a Thomas type on the bench, that's the closest you'll get.
	Realistically.
	And you would need a lot more populists in the Senate.
	Now, that may happen over the next coming years.
	I mean, Blake Masters, J.D. Vance, Eric Greitens, this is a much better course of senators than other things.
	But speaking of politics, apparently David Perdue cut a deal with Trump.
	In exchange for Trump endorsing his candidacy for the governor's race, he agreed is my take.
	This is my interpretation.
	He decided to join an election challenge in Georgia, the same election challenges he hid from when he was running in the runoff election for the United States Senate.
	In fact, he refused to even say whether he would vote against certification of any place where there was a questioned or contested election.
	And, of course, it didn't become moot.
	He potentially could have been in the Senate.
	But now he has filed a semi-decent election lawsuit, though it's the kind of lawyers Purdue would almost never hire unless it's a deal with Trump, is my view.
	These are lawyers who brought some other challenges in Georgia.
	What I consider the good part of their challenge is wanting more transparency, wanting all the ballots printed for the world to see.
	And wanting all of the signatures on the ballots, on the envelopes that the ballots came in on, also published for the world to see.
	Now, it's not the best legal language.
	Like, for example, if you're going to claim that your claim is all based on state law, don't cite a bunch of federal law.
	Just a word to the wise.
	But there's things like that in it that are not great.
	As a Canadian lawyer, I knew that much.
	So I'm already one step closer to the U.S. bar.
	But sorry, Robert, I cut you off.
	But I like the part that's wanting more transparency.
	I think the due process, some of the other parts, they have a little bit better claim because Perdue was a candidate, a little better claim because they also have a voter who was told that she had already voted when she hadn't already voted.
	So she has a more specific factual claim.
	They're targeting just Fulton County.
	The reality is it was all the suburban counties had more weird voting patterns than Fulton did, but Fulton has always been a target of Republicans in the state because it's so democratically run and the Election Commission.
	They're hoping that the judge who handled the prior challenge handled this one because he seemed pretty fair, though he ultimately dismissed the constitutional components that they appear to be reinstating or trying to reinstate.
	It's not to overturn the election, but they wanted...
	Here's the giveaway.
	They want the judge to declare what the actual certified votes were after a full audit's been done.
	That's a Trumpian request.
	It would have no legal impact, but Perdue would never get near that unless he's cut a deal with Trump to, okay, I'll put my name on this suit in exchange for you endorsing me for governor.
	My own view is, you know, the Perdue family is, you know, Sonny Perdue has started it all, runs the whole political Republican machine in Georgia for a long time.
	If you want to know who Sonny Perdue is, imagine Boss Hogg from Dukes of Hazzard and then turn down the IQ by about 100 points.
	And that's Sonny Perdue.
	So the idea that we have more of these incestuous Perdue ties of people running the state of Georgia is not a great improvement in my view.
	And I'm not overly optimistic this suit will achieve a lot.
	But it's better than nothing.
	But there is another election suit being brought.
	And it is a sign of how the political tea leaves have turned.
	David Perdue, who ran and hid from the election issues during the election itself, suddenly embraces him because he has to if he has any political future in a state that his family built the political machine in.
	So it's a testament to the power of the court of public opinion on these issues.
	I'm going to read this.
	It's not on topic, but we're going to get back to this.
	Journalist, historian, and economics teacher Ryan Dawson from anchorreport.com has movies and maps.
	Of the Biden, I'm going to not read those words to not be accused of defamation.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	Please try to get him on your show.
	You'll be shocked.
	If we ever do an exclusive on Locals or Rumble, it might be there.
	But Robert, okay.
	I forgot what I was going to say now.
	Darn it.
	So yeah, it's a decent...
	I'm all for more transparency.
	I would like the suit better if it focused on the issue of signature matches.
	It focuses on...
	They had a forensic accountant review some issues that highlight whether or not there was multiple batches run through scanners and whatnot.
	They don't really explain how the hand recount doesn't moot that evidence very effectively, in my opinion, in the suit.
	It's a very long, long, long complaint.
	So maybe they did, and I didn't see it quite clearly.
	But if it wasn't clear to me, it's not going to be clear to the court.
	And I thought they would have been better off focusing on signature match issues, especially because they're focused on reforming the election process in Georgia for 2022.
	So it's better than nothing, but I don't think it will get a lot more than has already been done.
	Okay, and now actually on the subject of something that is...
	Poignant to the Americans that is going on these days.
	The SCOTUS Texas abortion ruling and how Gavin Newsom has tried to weaponize that ruling for the purposes of Second Amendment rulings in California.
	Robert, okay, so you've got to explain the interplay to me because explain the ruling in a nutshell, I guess, and how it's being weaponized by states and say, well, now we're going to use this precedent for other politicized purposes.
	Relating to Second Amendment rights.
	So this is the Texas abortion law that only allowed enforcement by private lawsuits.
	So all it really did was create a private cause of action.
	It didn't criminalize abortion, as has been popularly portrayed in some of the liberal press.
	It didn't really quite make abortion illegal in that sense.
	It made it a private cause of action.
	Now, it was unique in the kind of private cause of action almost anybody could sue.
	You didn't have to be connected to the incident to sue.
	You could sue in any county in the state, things like that.
	But basically, it subjected any constitutional challenges.
	It just shifted where a constitutional challenge would take place.
	So rather than the constitutional challenge take place in federal court, it's going to take place in Texas state courts.
	That's all it did.
	And I would have preferred if the Supreme Court would have made that more clear.
	That this is a question is, does a state have the power to make a particular legal issue?
	Subject only to state court review rather than federal court review, because that's all they did, in my opinion.
	So SCOTUS sort of split the baby.
	They said the Biden administration can't sue under these circumstances.
	They said that most of the plaintiffs couldn't.
	They couldn't sue the courts.
	They couldn't sue the court clerks because there's no adversarial relationship in that context, especially in a sort of preliminary form.
	But they said they could sue certain health boards in Texas because those health boards had broad enforcement power that wasn't clearly precluded by the law, even though I agree with Justice Thomas, who said the law says it's precluded.
	So, you know, it seemed pretty precluded to me.
	It was a political compromise is really what it was.
	And so what you had was a 5-4 split.
	Roberts would have found broader authority to sue more people, and particularly the court clerks.
	But probably the most significant aspect of it was the fact that there was a separate concurrence written by the three Democrats.
	So you have to ask, why was there a concurrence with three Democrats plus Roberts and then a different one with three Democrats?
	It's because Sotomayor's concurrence and the Democrats talks all about viability.
	So what that tells you is what we said last week.
	When identified that viability is DOA, that Rowe's standard and Casey's standard of post-viability or pre-viability abortion limitations being presumed unconstitutional, that that's going to be overturned.
	Because Roberts wouldn't even join that part of their decision, and they went out of their way to write separately about it, which also explains why they were so agitated at oral argument last week.
	They knew this opinion was coming.
	They knew they'd already lost Roberts on that issue, too.
	So I think it's the correct interpretation on sovereign immunity of states, though I'm not in favor of anybody having sovereign immunity.
	But in this context, I am in favor of states having sovereign immunity in federal court in certain cases because of the federalism balance of power.
	But otherwise, I'm not in favor of it.
	But in terms of existing law...
	Texas, I agree with Thomas.
	Ultimately, there isn't anyone to sue.
	The Supreme Court agreed there is.
	So it gets to go forward.
	But in reality, this is about should state court decide or federal courts decide?
	And can states shift a federal constitutional issue to state courts if they craft the law where there's no state actor that can enforce the law?
	And in my view, I think that's within the power of states to do.
	They didn't quite address it in those terms, found a loophole so that a few other people could get sued.
	Now, Newsom came out afterwards and said, well, if Texas can figure out a way to ban abortion by making a private cause of action without any state actor enforcement, I'll return the favor on gun control.
	There's two problems with it.
	One is they would need to make clear in their law that no state actor can ever take action whatsoever on the statute.
	Even Texas, despite language that said that, the Supreme Court said it still wasn't clear enough.
	So their language would have to be over-the-top aggressive.
	That's likely to never happen in California.
	It's the most regulatory, bureaucratic, happy state in the world.
	And so the probability is they're going to do anything that actually takes away regulatory power is unlikely.
	But if he were to do so, I still don't have a problem with that because then it just shifts to California state courts where you make your constitutional argument in California state courts.
	It will go up and it doesn't make it any more constitutional.
	And Newsom's foolish statements about this...
	Make it more likely it will be struck down as unconstitutional.
	But this is, I mean, if I think state courts have, or states have the right to give constitutional questions to state courts, if they design a law in the right way, I'm in favor of that, whether it's Texas on abortion or California on gun control, even though I may disfavor one or the other politically.
	But you still have the constitutional challenge.
	It's just who decides.
	And I'm in favor of states having the power to let state courts decide those questions if they design the law the right way.
	And so explain it to an idiot Canadian who might not understand it.
	Let's just say a state enacts an unconstitutional law.
	On the one hand, what does that look like?
	Let's say California comes in and says we're banning gun ownership.
	Screw the Second Amendment.
	But it's a state decision, so let the state courts decide.
	How does that...
	So the Supreme Court of the United States, their laws, whatever their precedents are, still govern.
	And they still have jurisdiction over state court proceedings, too.
	So the only court that's removed from this equation are federal district courts and federal courts of appeal.
	That's it.
	And instead, it goes to state.
	District trial courts, state courts of appeals, state Supreme Courts, then the U.S. Supreme Court.
	But it doesn't take away U.S. Supreme Court's supervisory power over the state courts on any federal constitutional question.
	So it only shifts at the lower court level which courts will decide.
	And to give an example, Travis County, full of liberal judges, already declared the law unconstitutional in Texas.
	So there's going to be, in almost any state, there's going to be some conservative county, some liberal county, some place that you can sue and get remedy if it's unconstitutional still.
	It's just who gets to decide what the constitutional limitations are.
	And I'm more in favor of states having that power through their court process than the federal courts having that power, particularly in very politicized cases like these.
	And yes, that will come with some downside.
	It means liberal states can do the same thing if they do it correctly.
	I mean, even Texas tried to do it this way, and the U.S. Supreme Court said they still screwed up because you could sue these particular state officials.
	So, you know, they're going to have to be super, super careful.
	But, I mean, right now, the reality is people are acting like this was unparalleled.
	Sotomayor was saying those kind of statements.
	No, it's not.
	There's all kinds of private defamation claims that violate the First Amendment.
	There's no law that, there's nothing that those claims have to be litigated through the state court process.
	You don't get to go to federal courts for those.
	So unless it relates to federal diversity jurisdiction or something else, otherwise you're stuck in the state court process.
	And you have the state courts.
	In fact, this is one of the points Gorsuch made who wrote the majority opinion.
	He's like, the primary place arguments about unconstitutional actions are made every day in America for the last 200 years has been state courts, not federal courts.
	So they've proven themselves fully capable of adjudicating and enforcing the Constitution.
	What you're going to have is slight political tilts.
	I mean, the biggest difference?
	Elected judges are making decisions rather than unelected judges.
	And I'm always in favor of that, even if it means liberal Democrats have the advantage in their jurisdictions.
	Someone said, Viva, stop frowning.
	Your face is going to stay like that.
	This wrinkle is firmly embedded.
	This is my blue pill or black pill wrinkle right there.
	No, it's very interesting.
	So like, okay, good.
	So the states are going to say, well, we're going to usurp the authority to enact unconstitutional law and then screw the SCOTUS, except if it violates the Constitution as opposed to state rights, well, the SCOTUS is still going to have its say at some point in time.
	So enjoy the roller coaster to the SCOTUS.
	You're going to get there anyhow, is bottom line for what Gavin Newsom is threatening in California.
	Yeah, and there is not a history of state courts ignoring the Constitution.
	There's a history of state courts interpreting controversial, questionable areas more aligned to the local politics of their jurisdiction.
	That's true.
	But ultimately, that's going to go up to the Supreme Court, too, if the Supreme Court wants it.
	So, I mean, that's where it's...
	This is mostly about who decides, states or the feds, at the lower court level.
	than it is anything else.
	And it's about, do you let local communities get to govern their interpretation of the Constitution as a matter of first instance?
	Or do you let the federal courts always dictate that?
	And I'm in favor of state courts having that power more often than not.
	Okay, beautiful.
	And yes, we have talked about the Bannon question.
	I'm going to go back to our list of items because there's a few we haven't gotten to.
	Maxwell Trial, Smollett, Potter, SCOTUS, we did, Assange.
	I'm going to skip the...
	I'm not even getting there, Robert.
	Let's do the claim against Andy Ngo based on a journalist who is now claiming copyright infringement against Andy Ngo, journalist Andy Ngo, for copyright infringement.
	I read the lawsuit.
	It's a short lawsuit.
	I did not get enough details from the lawsuit to allow me to come to any determination because the lawsuit really doesn't describe the images used unless you can go click on the links.
	But bottom line, I'm not political in this.
	It's just obvious.
	The plaintiff is left-wing political activists.
	It's clear as much from the allegations, if not from the tenor.
	They're political activists on the left, calling Andy Ngo a right-wing...
	Robert, what did they say?
	Provocateur.
	Provocateur.
	Les poissons, les poissons.
	Yes, they call Andy Ngo a right-wing provocateur.
	Fine.
	Okay.
	That led me to believe this was in the introductory paragraphs.
	It's a political suit.
	The bottom line is they're saying Andy Ngo violated their copyright claims on copyright protected material that they as journalists shot.
	I don't know what the substance is.
	So, I mean, I don't know what they used, how Andy Ngo did it, whether or not it was fair use.
	What do you know more of that suit than I do?
	What they're trying to hide.
	They insist, for example, that these are not retweets.
	What they admit is that these are videos that they uploaded to Twitter that then Andy Ngo shared and that he apparently always sourced it to them.
	So their argument is that they had blocked him on Twitter so that they couldn't be technically a retweet.
	And the reason for that is that it's pretty acknowledged law in the Ninth Circuit that retweets are not copyright violations, period.
	But they have two additional problems.
	One is...
	I guess they're kind of forgetting.
	They definitely didn't mention that Twitter's rules in terms of service are that any video or photo you upload, any other Twitter user can use however they want.
	That's just what Twitter's terms of service are.
	They're the most broad in this space, I think, than anybody.
	Maybe even in Instagram or Facebook or YouTube.
	People...
	Keep forgetting that it's no longer copyrighted material in a certain sense.
	Here's how it's copyrighted.
	If somebody downloaded it from Twitter and shared it on their personal blog or shared it on YouTube, then that would be a copyright violation because that would be outside Twitter's terms of service for changing the copyright.
	But people don't realize anything you upload to Twitter does not have full copyright protection because of Twitter's terms of service.
	And if I may intervene, just so nobody accuses you of misrepresenting it.
	If someone posts something on Twitter and you retweet it, you re-edit potentially and then repost on Twitter from the original content, that could be acceptable under Twitter's term.
	Because Twitter says even derivatives.
	As long as the only conditions are it was uploaded to Twitter and it was used and republished on Twitter.
	Those are the two provisions.
	That's to avoid the monetization aspect of this.
	Because if you take...
	Anyone who knows, you put up a video of an event and then reporters say, hey, can we use this in our broadcast on Fox News or whatever?
	And you say no, but they do it anyhow.
	They say, well, you put it on Twitter.
	Well, too bad.
	That didn't give you the rights to reuse it elsewhere and to monetize it and commercialize it.
	So massive distinction.
	Unless that gets the second issue, fair use.
	So you can publish it anywhere else you want if it's fair use.
	Here's their problem.
	They did exactly...
	What was her name that sued Sargon of Akkad?
	Kind of funny name.
	Akilah, obviously.
	Akilah Hughes.
	Yes, Akilah obviously kept losing.
	Obviously didn't know the copyright law.
	Remember, her mistake was she made clear the reason why she was suing was because Sargon of Akkad was politically mocking her.
	And the point the court made is that's exactly the definition of fair use according to your own complaint.
	That's what they've just done.
	By saying that he's a right-wing provocateur, they're acknowledging that this is being used for political purposes.
	In other words, it's fair use.
	It's commentary.
	It doesn't matter.
	In other words, that's their problem.
	If they would have said, hey, Andy, no.
	If they would have said nothing about his politics and said instead that he was monetizing this in some way, then even though they got the big problem of this all just being re-shared on Twitter, they don't allege he shared it anywhere outside of Twitter.
	Aside from that first big hurdle they have, they would at least get potentially passed the motion to dismiss stage on fair use.
	But here, in my view, their own complaint makes clear this is fair use.
	Because for people who don't remember, all Sargon of Akkad did was literally cut and paste her video.
	But it was obvious political commentary by just letting her talk and the world see it.
	I'm going to read this one as just an interruption.
	Viva Fryer, please make me a mod so I can delete the prawn bots.
	I did not notice that we had prawn bots.
	I noticed one person who I do not block because everyone's entitled to express themselves.
	Let me go ahead and look for those prawn bots.
	I didn't notice them.
	But that was what threw me off in Sargon of the Cod.
	This was one time where I made a wrong prediction.
	I don't know if I made it publicly or in my own head.
	I said, yeah, Sargon's going to get nailed because he didn't do anything.
	He just spliced and he made it a shorter version like a highlight reel.
	But the judge basically said in that decision, and it was affirmed and confirmed, this is political commentary by definition.
	This is fair use by definition, in that he did this edit to mock, ridicule, and shame you.
	And he successfully did it because you admitted it in your proceedings.
	I did think it was not sufficiently transformative because there was nothing transformative in the edit per se, except for the condensing and framing.
	So I learned a lesson in that case and I've never forgotten it.
	And now listening to this case, I didn't know the details because from the Yeah, I mean, it's trying to hide its bad facts, but it still can't help itself.
	It's such an overt political suit that it had to throw in stuff that makes the exact same mistake that Miss Obviously Wrong made.
	And so it's, I think it should now, it's in the Ninth Circuit, which has very good law on this, that sharing anything that's linked on another server is not considered a copyright violation that goes way back to 2007.
	They did this to protect Google Image Search and things of that nature.
	So the Ninth Circuit has robust law.
	There's a district court in the Second Circuit in the Breitbart case that came to a wacky decision that said otherwise, but even that was different facts than here.
	So I think under existing Ninth Circuit law, it should be dismissed because the only allegations are it was put up on Twitter and shared on Twitter.
	And then second, it's clear fair use by their own allegations.
	If they would have not thrown in the political stuff, which they needed to do to highlight the suit and harass Andy Ngo, then they might have been able to have a, you know, maybe they could get past the fair use problem if they could somehow get past the Twitter problem.
	I don't see how they get past either.
	It's in Portland, Oregon, so you've got some liberal judges up there, so maybe somebody's willing to just totally ignore copyright law.
	But it's not likely, because who the Twitter law protects is Twitter and Big Tech.
	So the idea that they're going to suddenly say resharing something on Twitter that was originally posted on Twitter now as a copyright violation would create all kinds of risk for Twitter and other people.
	Not likely to happen at all.
	That's why the Ninth Circuit ruled the way they did the first time was because so much of the high big tech companies are in the Ninth Circuit.
	They wanted to protect them first and foremost politically.
	And then secondly, again, this is classic fair use by the same example that Sargon of Akkad did.
	Because they're really saying, Andy knows making...
	I think they actually say this.
	But basically, Andy Knows republishing this to make fun of us.
	And it's like, that's called fair use.
	That's the definition of fair use.
	It's either fair use, even if it could have been copyright infringement in the first place, or it's just use under Twitter's terms of service.
	So, yeah.
	When I read it, and it was just so politically framed, I mean, Andy, no, as a right-wing provocateur, what planet are you living on?
	But even still...
	Robert, I've got to bring this one up because Mark Goddard might get into trouble again after this evening.
	I had to explain $136.5 Super Chat to my wife.
	Can you all please call her and tell her that this is where I do my comedy routine?
	Well, so first of all, Mark, you look a lot like Robert.
	And I had the same answers to my wife because I was Super Chatting.
	Hunley, and who else?
	Robert Grueler, who we have not shouted out tonight, who deserves to be shouted out, especially for his work on Dwayne Maxwell.
	That always reminds me of one of my favorite Tennessee stories.
	Back in the day, in the early 90s...
	A husband and wife stayed over at his mother-in-law's place and his sister-in-law's place for the holidays.
	And the sister-in-law got the bill, the phone bill, that showed a bunch of calls to a 900 number.
	And this was back in the eight days of 900 numbers.
	I have no idea what you're talking about.
	Calls her sister and says, what was your husband doing?
	This is outrageous.
	And they're ready to lecture him.
	And so they call the 900 number and they found out it was a Tennessee football recruiting hotline that he was calling, not something else.
	Only in Tennessee would that be your 900 number excuse.
	But there's similar Super Chat excuses.
	So here's an old joke.
	This husband comes back late in the evening and his wife says, where have you been?
	Oh, he says, I went out for a drink after work with some workmates, and I met this woman.
	She was beautiful.
	We ended up having an illustrious affair over the evening, and that's why I'm late.
	And he's like, you're a liar.
	You went out to play golf.
	I screwed up the joke, but the punchline is he was hiding the fact that he's addicted to golf through an affair.
	What the heck is prawn bots?
	Dude, okay, so...
	You switched the R and the O. And here's a little...
	To help fund the defeat of...
	Okay.
	Oh, well, that leads us in probably to our last topic tonight.
	There are a couple of smaller topics, but we'll skip those for another week.
	The Odyssey and Rumble getting into a legal battle over bots.
	Okay, we're skipping the...
	There was a prong bot option, Robert.
	We'll skip that one.
	Rumble versus Odyssey, people.
	So, apparently, Odyssey is a video hosting platform.
	I'm not comparing.
	This is not a question of Flex, whether or not they're on the same level as Rumble.
	Rumble's about to go public, or has merged and will be going public shortly.
	Odyssey put out a tweet.
	I'll get it in a second if anyone's not convinced on the thoroughness of the offensiveness of that tweet.
	Basically saying, we at Odyssey don't use fake bots.
	To generate traffic to swindle investors, the numbers don't add up, and they put that tweet out.
	Then what ended up happening, for anybody who doesn't know, Rumble sent a cease and desist letter, lawyer's letter to Odyssey, which Odyssey didn't make public, but for some reason, maybe they did, but a Twitter handle, whom I follow, and I'm not judging this individual, Karen Bolshenko, tweeted out saying, Rumble is all about free speech.
	And look what they're trying to do to silence Odyssey by threatening to sue them to take down a tweet.
	When I read Karen's tweet, I didn't know what the original tweet was.
	And I was like, oh, Rumble, what are you guys doing?
	Like, yeah, ordering someone to take down a tweet smells a little fishy.
	Then I went up and dug up or found the original Odyssey tweet.
	I was like, yeah, that's not free speech.
	That's called defamation.
	That's called accusing someone of securities and exchange commission fraud.
	I mean, that's a bad tweet.
	And whether or not Rumble's letter was great, I don't give a crap.
	It's easy for me to judge a letter.
	Ultimately, Odyssey did the right thing with Sass and Snark, and they said, we're taking down our tweets because we don't want to be known as yada, yada, yada.
	That's the outline, Robert.
	I think everyone might have heard about it, but let me preface this, by the way.
	Everyone thinks you're in the bag for Rumble.
	They saw the stream.
	People are saying, oh, Rumble's being very easy on Rumble.
	And I told you what I told.
	I'll tell everyone.
	Nobody appreciates the level of chess that you play.
	When you come out and you say, Rumble, I think it's great you're going public.
	You are making public statements to shareholders that you will not be able to violate barring a shareholder dispute, which is why I think this is a good thing.
	People cannot necessarily read between the lines and saying, Robert, you are forcing and reaffirming Rumble to make positive statements to facilitate shareholder lawsuits if they violate their fundamental tenets of having gone public.
	So I understand what you did.
	Some people don't.
	They might get there, but I might know you better than others.
	But setting that aside, Robert, what's your take on this?
	If people are going to accuse you, anyhow, of being in bed with Rumble?
	I think, you know, Odyssey sees Rumble as a competitor.
	I'm not sure that any of these alternatives should, like BitChute and, you know, Rockfin and all the others.
	Like, Rockfin hasn't seen locals as a competitor.
	They've just tried to improve their quality of what they deliver.
	And some of them are employing different methodologies to deliver the services they're trying to deliver.
	I think they would all be better served focusing on that.
	Same with Gab.
	You know, and Andrew Torba could probably try, you know, being a little less obsessed with certain countries and people.
	You know, if you want to have credibility that that's not what you're about.
	Torba, by the way, has bragged about his reporting accounts to the federal government.
	So for people who want to tell me how great Gab is, despite the fact that it's filled with people that seem to share some of Torba's dislikable beliefs.
	So they would all be better served promoting themselves than they would be taking potshots at Rumble.
	They don't take potshots at YouTube.
	Have at it.
	They're the monopoly dominator.
	But taking potshots at other competitors with YouTube, I don't see how that serves them.
	It's all because they're way behind.
	Rumble has leaped way ahead of all of them, has about 10 times the visits and views as any one of them.
	And so some of them feel left behind and think that they need to take Rumble down to boost themselves.
	And I think they'd be better served just promoting what they are trying to do.
	I mean, if you support unfettered...
	Well, it's kind of unfettered.
	It's really not as unfettered as people believe, but it definitely allows certain kinds of speech on it, like Gab.
	Okay, have at it.
	Support Gab.
	If you want certain kinds of technology used, like what BitChute is doing or what Odyssey is doing, then support them and promote them.
	But I think libeling Rumble was not a...
	I think...
	People at Odyssey may have thought this will get us into public conversation, get public discussion, because Rumble's going to have to respond.
	Rumble can't allow defamation like that while they're about to go public not be responded to.
	They had no choice but to respond to that.
	And Odyssey knew that.
	And Odyssey may have been playing a game of we'll get public attention, then we'll attract and be cute about it all.
	And I get they want to be in that conversation.
	The best way to be in that conversation, keep improving the quality of your service.
	That's how you do that.
	Don't try to take down competitors in your same space.
	I don't think that's necessary.
	I say what I say about Gab because I get people who push Gab and I'm like, no, no thank you.
	Because of how they go.
	But there will also be...
	There's additional news coming on the Rumble front that people will like.
	I won't disclose that yet until it's public news, but I think people have even more reason to have confidence in Rumble after some forthcoming announcements about clarification of certain policies and what have you.
	Okay, never mind.
	I'm going to go to this chat right here.
	That was Carlin's point in part, that Rumble needs to make their product better instead of wasting their time on Odyssey.
	True.
	The Rumble has to respond.
	They're on the public market now.
	They have no choice.
	They can't allow libel like that to be out there.
	I mean, they can't allow Odyssey to say, hey, you're committing fraud on the market and not respond.
	They have no choice but to respond.
	Odyssey knew that too.
	Odyssey did this to provoke sticking them in the public conversation.
	And I want to say, like, when people talk about grift versus hustle, and I'm not accusing Odyssey of grift, I'm just suggesting that this might be more akin to grift than hustle.
	When you try to create a controversy to ride off the coattails of a company that's just gone public or has announced it's gone public with a half a billion dollar public investment, calling it, what do they say, swindling shareholders?
	That's not a tweet.
	That's not opinion.
	Talking about a fake boss to generate fake traffic, it's not opinion.
	If you have an argument, make it.
	But that can land people and executives in jail if true.
	So if what you're suggesting can land someone in jail if true, it's not an opinion.
	It's serious.
	And don't F around when you do it.
	And I'll tell you one thing.
	I never had a bad taste in my mouth for Odyssey until this broke.
	Now I have a very bad taste in my mouth.
	And it's a great thing.
	Hey, maybe they got some attention.
	And maybe it's not the attention they ultimately wanted.
	But...
	We've seen...
	I mean, they were trying to fall on the track of Gab, which has made a habit of doing this.
	Of attacking everybody else.
	And that's partially why I'm responding to them.
	That and...
	Torba's an obvious bigot.
	He just is.
	And I get annoyed.
	If you're going to be a bigot, God bless you, but don't expect people like me to support you.
	I'll support your right to free speech, but I'm not going to say people should patronize your platform.
	He said God bless you, peeps.
	Robert, I love it.
	I love it.
	What movie was it where they said whenever they say God bless you, they don't mean God bless you.
	We don't need to go back to our defamation blogs to know that certain statements which are factual statements or I have nothing against her.
	I can't remember her name, and that's not about being against her.
	But yeah, it was obvious.
	You don't do things like that because you force people to respond.
	And maybe you think it's going to generate some increased traffic in the short term, but it's not going to generate lasting traffic in the long term.
	Robert, we've gone too long, but it doesn't matter.
	We're going to...
	Let me see if I got one more chat here that I can bring up.
	There was one comment that I wanted to bring up because it started with Viva and it looked accusatory, but I've missed it.
	What do you have on for the next week?
	Oh, Don Lemon trial.
	What's the update if you can share it?
	Nothing yet.
	Waiting on the court to rule on a range of things.
	The other question, what's going on at CNN is objectively bad, Robert?
	There's no way to say anything about it.
	Now, Don Lemon was also in the news this past week because it turned out he was tipping off just juicy small A to the fact that the cops knew that his story was bogus, which some could have interpreted in a lot of different legally, whether that was legally questionable activity.
	Definitely ethically dubious activity, but legally questionable.
	And how long Don Lemon has to last at CNN is probably an open question.
	Obviously, both Cuomo brothers are gone.
	And now it turns out one of the Cuomo producers is under indictment for...
	Very, you know, Epstein-like activity.
	Very, very bad things.
	And they're so bad, they're worse than the movie.
	Very bad things with Diaz.
	Christian Slater.
	Christian Slater and Jon Favreau.
	That movie was terrible.
	These very bad things are worse than very bad things.
	What was I going to say?
	I was going to say something about CNN.
	Yeah, who would have thunk that Brian Stetler's way of climbing the ladder is having everyone get indicted or fired for misconduct?
	Sorry, Brian.
	Well, apparently, Chris Wallace gained from all of it because he's gone from Fox and is now going to apparently be at CNN.
	Oh, yeah, that's great.
	And that was my tweet of the day.
	It's like, oh, great.
	Fox News is racist, insurrectionist, misinformation.
	But let's hire Chris Wallace.
	He's left now.
	Maybe he'll drag in some of that crowd.
	All right.
	What do you have on for next week, if I may ask?
	Who do we have for sidebar on Wednesday?
	I don't know.
	It probably won't be available this Wednesday.
	I will be on the road.
	Okay.
	But yeah, it would be good to get...
	I mean, there's a bunch of people we have sort of backstacked for sidebars, but I got to figure out what my schedule is going to be after this week in terms of when we can do them.
	And there have been...
	I have had a number of interesting follows on Twitter, which I don't get into, but I will save...
	If we can get one of them on, I will definitely...
	Robert, I can't do it without you because I know you want to be there.
	So, but Wednesday, we've got a number of things.
	Wednesday, there will be a sidebar with or without Barnes, but I'll be there.
	And leave us, Robert, to end the weekend, to head into the Christmas holidays, although we have another stream before then.
	91, we're up to 92 streams.
	Some encouragement, some something to let people not get blackpilled, and certainly not suppository blackpilled.
	Optimism.
	We need it.
	Well, maybe Chicago is MAGA country after all, because there was actually justice for Juicy Smollett.
	So that by itself was, you know, Rittenhouse is free, Smollett is heading for the big house, and the Cuomos are out of the governorship and CNN.
	So, you know, that's all pretty good news within a couple of weeks of each other.
	So that's reasons for optimism, despite some of the craziness we otherwise see.
	And I don't want to be neglecting Rumble.
	We had two Rumble Super Chats, or Rumble Rants.
	One was from Dr. Build.
	Never let an actor write their own scenes.
	That's on cue with Jussie Smollier.
	And there was one more.
	Oh, son of a beast thing.
	I might have missed it.
	Oh, no.
	It was right here.
	Nibupsh says, PPC up, mandates down.
	Freedom is the way forward.
	And CPC lives.
	NDP are all CCP assets.
	I may not agree with all of that.
	But I might agree with some of it.
	So with that said, people, Robert, stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.
	Everyone in the chat, thank you for everything.
	Thank you for all the continued support.
	Please feel free to clip sections to share on Twitter.
	The Assange bit, I'm going to section a highlight for tomorrow.
	We should be paying attention to that.
	I am not not paying attention to that because of the nature of it.
	We've been talking about it for years, like literally years.
	So it's been a travesty from day one.
	And everyone in mainstream media should appreciate that.
	There.
	And I'll be at a live chat at vivabarneslaw.locals.com a little bit after the show.
	Okay, awesome.
	Everyone in the chat, thank you for the support.
	Robert, stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.
	And enjoy the rest of the weekend.

▲