Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 15, 2021 - Viva & Barnes

02:14:39

Sidebar with Gruler & Nierman - Viva & Barnes LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Oh, it's in French.
	Okay, that was not done on purpose, but everyone has just had their first exposure, I guess, to...
	That was a French-Canadian ad, not a French-from-France ad.
	I wonder if everyone else is getting the same ad.
	Alright, people.
	So, how goes the battle?
	How is everyone doing?
	This is going to be...
	No, Robert Gruller has been on the channel several times before.
	Joe has been on at least once, possibly twice, with another...
	Panel.
	Invoice of lawyers, as we say in the industry.
	Oh, shoot.
	Copyright strike.
	No, not quite enough.
	And we've got Barnes coming in.
	Tonight, we're going to go over the latest in the Glenn Maxwell trial.
	We're going to go over the mind maps.
	If anybody here has not yet started watching Robert Grueler every evening, basically doing the synthesis of the on-the-ground reporting coming from Nierman.
	Coming from Inner City Press.
	You've got to watch all of them.
	Because it goes from the overall aggregate summary to the synthesized detailed summary in Grueler.
	And now we're going to have something of an overarching summary of the summary of the synthesis of the day to the day.
	Is my audio good, everyone?
	I should have asked before we go any further.
	Do I have...
	An intro rant today.
	I'm not even sure that I have an intro rant.
	I'm going to do a video on something coming out of Quebec called the Bill C21, which I've actually done a video on a few years ago.
	And it's the wonderful thing about having consistent reasoning and logic.
	Exceptions aside, if the facts don't change, the reasoning should not change over time.
	And I'm happy to say that my reasoning a few years ago has proven to be totally applicable to today.
	Bill C-21 coming out of Quebec is barring religious symbols, religious garb wear for state employees while they are carrying out state employee functions.
	Judges, administrative judges, yada, yada, yada.
	Can't wear hijabs, turbans, I guess very big flamboyant Jewish stars, big crosses.
	They have to hide or not.
	Wear religious symbols when carrying out their state functions.
	And people all of a sudden, all of a sudden people think that that, you know, what about our rights?
	What about our rights?
	I will not get into the rant today.
	My mic is fine, good.
	Oh, standard intros, I should probably say.
	Like a boss.
	No legal advice, no medical advice, no election fortification undermining of the sanctity of the electoral process advice.
	I would suggest everybody, everybody out there, go watch Joe Rogan's most recent podcast with the new Voldemort of YouTube, who then went out and started his YouTube channel, wanted to get to a thousand subs so that he, the doctor who did the interview with Joe Rogan, could do live streams on YouTube.
	And wouldn't you know it?
	His podcast with Joe Rogan was up for all of 5 to 10 minutes on YouTube before it was taken down.
	So if you're gonna go find this doctor, go find him on Rumble.
	I tweeted out the link to his channel.
	Who needs proof of life of Winston?
	Get over here!
	Oh, my back!
	You need proof of life of my back.
	This is Winston.
	He had a yeast infection in this ear.
	So he's got that yeast juice that I gotta rub in his face periodically.
	Yeah.
	So this is...
	Proof of life of Winston and Pudge's upstairs.
	Look at...
	Oh, look at dirt.
	Look at dirt.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So, I forgot exactly what I was just talking about.
	Oh, go find The Doctor on Rumble.
	Listen to the podcast with Joe Rogan.
	I...
	Okay, this is my rant.
	This will be my two-minute rant while everyone trickles in.
	People say they don't have time.
	To watch it, to listen to a two and a half hour podcast.
	First of all, learn how to listen at 2x and it's an hour and 15 minutes.
	Second of all, if you want to take a position publicly or privately or among friends, if you want to think you have a position on something and you don't have the time to go listen to things, even if they shock your conscience to listen to, willful ignorance and your opinion, not only is your opinion seriously compromised, your right to publicly expose that position are seriously compromised.
	Listen to the interview.
	It'll blow your mind.
	It will blow your mind.
	Okay, with that said, peeps, Winston looks very regal today.
	He looks very regal every day, I dare say.
	And yeast infection, Viva, have you...
	These dogs are prone.
	He's got apparently all three forms of the yeast infection in his ear, and he's a very sensitive dog and does not let me touch his ear, so it's always a struggle to get that juice in his ear to treat his yeast infection.
	This all just went really downhill real quickly.
	Viva, are you really anti-media?
	We are the anti-media.
	And with that said, people, I'm bringing in Grueler, Nierman.
	Can we hear you and everyone in the chat?
	Tell us if the audios are level for all of you.
	Testing, testing.
	Hello, everybody.
	Thank you, Viva, for having me on the show.
	Grateful to be here.
	I'm excited to talk to you.
	And I'm really excited to talk to Joe because we haven't had a time to talk about Galen, and I know he's been grinding away.
	So thanks for having us.
	Thank you for coming.
	Joe, let's hear your...
	Look at that.
	His audio is off.
	I was totally kidding around.
	I was just not talking.
	Thank you so much for having me, VivaFro.
	I appreciate it.
	Love coming on here.
	And yeah, Robert is basically, he's the inspiration for how to cover a case properly.
	And I think he sets the benchmark that we all try to meet.
	And I'm privileged to be a part of that communication of his of the Glenn Maxwell trial to his audience.
	And I send him individualized clips that I create just for Robert so that people hopefully will help find me and get get some direct information.
	Well, first of all, Joe, we're going to get into what you're doing, because I've got more questions than just the trial.
	Like, I want to know what the day-to-day is going into a courthouse to do this.
	But everyone has to appreciate, the law verse on YouTube has exploded in terms of...
	Popularity, in terms of diversity, in terms of lawyers covering different things.
	You got your Emily D. Baker covering Housewives, Britney Spears, and I'm not saying that to be glib.
	She literally is obsessed with those topics.
	You got Gruler, who does pretty much everything but focuses more on the gritty side of the law YouTube stuff.
	You've got you now, who is really specializing in this Ghislaine Maxwell trial.
	I expect you to write a book on it afterwards.
	You got...
	Nick Ricada, who's covering Kim Potter.
	You've got Nate Brody, who was covering Kim Potter somewhat, was covering Ahmaud Arbery when Nick was covering...
	I don't want to forget anyone.
	You've got Uncivil Law.
	You've got Legal Bites.
	You've got Legal Mindset.
	Have I forgotten anybody?
	Robert Barnes.
	Bronca.
	Bronca.
	You've got Kevin Bronca, Law of Self-Defense.
	Andrew.
	Andrew Bronca.
	I have not seen him get inebriated with Ricada, but I'm told it's quite the thing to watch.
	It's something to behold.
	Just watching him sloshing around the other night was just...
	It was comedy gold.
	They were listening to Binger's interview, which that was a joke unto itself.
	So when you take a joke interview from a person who takes himself very, very seriously, and you're listening to two lawyers who don't believe in anything that he's saying and have basically been trashing him for months, and you get one of them really drunk.
	Wow.
	Wow.
	What came out?
	It was great.
	And I just wanted to check.
	I did send Barnes the link, so hopefully he can make it.
	Okay, so you know what?
	Let's start off with the absolute intros.
	For anybody who may not know who you guys are, starting with Gruller Esquire.
	Elevator pitch.
	Who are you?
	Where can people find you?
	Yeah, my name is Robert Gruller.
	I'm a criminal defense lawyer.
	My office is the R&R Law Group.
	We're located in Scottsdale, Arizona.
	And we've got a team in Scottsdale.
	We help good people charge with crimes.
	We actually have lawyers.
	Sort of in court every day, boots on the ground, fighting for justice.
	And so we're very passionate about that.
	That's sort of our day job.
	On the evenings, I host a live show weekdays called Watching the Watchers, where we talk about police, prosecutorial misconduct, judicial misconduct, political misconduct.
	We've been covering a lot of the trials, of course, for a long time.
	We've talked all the main ones, really, that both of you have been talking about.
	And for the last, about...
	Three weeks.
	It's only been Glenn Maxwell.
	I mean, this case has been something that has been wild to observe.
	And so that's really been our focus.
	But we go live every day at 6 p.m. Eastern Time.
	And it's a lot of fun.
	Mr. Nierman.
	My name is Joseph Nierman.
	I am a New York litigator turned YouTube content creator inspired by none other than Viva Frye to realize that I can actually make a living doing this.
	That was my goal, and I'm working my way in that direction.
	In general, I host a nightly live stream from Sunday through Thursday where I talk law and politics, and my passion on that stream really is discussing philosophy and philosophical underpinnings of law and American civics and morality especially.
	I've been...
	Swept up into the Glenn Maxwell trial, which honestly, before this trial started, I had very little interest in following it.
	But being that I live close enough to New York that I can travel into the Sun District of New York every day, which is the only place that anyone can actually view the trial.
	So I sort of made it my mission to make sure I could cover that and provide that information to the public.
	And basically, since the first full day of testimony, I have been going into the Sun District of New York.
	And sitting in on the testimony, and what you hear there, as you'll probably see over the course of this stream, is very different than the transcripts.
	It's a very different trial that I'm watching and that only 100 people who are actually viewing it are watching from what millions of people are getting from the media in general.
	So that's become my main deal, and it's going to continue to be my main deal throughout the balance of this trial.
	And I basically drop a video, a 10-minute synopsis at lunchtime after when we break for lunch.
	And then I drop another 10-minute video when we break for the day.
	And I also send a little clip over to Robert to help flesh out some attorney perspective on the trial.
	And then at night, what I'll do is I'll spend two hours.
	And just flesh out everything that happened that day and what we learned.
	And I'm trying to really assess the value of what's being added by the prosecution, by the defense, and how the judge is taking everything in and how she's playing it.
	And give you a feel for what it's like to sit in the jury.
	I'm going to bring this one up from Little Rock.
	Little Rock had some health issues a little while back and told us about them.
	Met Joe on Riquetta, Rittenhouse Extravaganza.
	By the way, whoever said also that more people watch the SpaceX stuff?
	113,000 people were watching Rakeda with the invoice of lawyers.
	So that might have been better than SpaceX.
	But all of you are amazing.
	I get my prosthetic leg next week and will still use wheelchair for jury trials.
	I have noticed a sympathetic vote over the last week.
	Well, Little Rock, I hope you're doing well.
	Thank you for the support.
	Thank you for the Trooper Chat.
	Seriously, speedy healing.
	And Joe, you say that I inspired you.
	To think of making a living doing this?
	When I started doing this, and it only started picking up reasonably in any meaningful sense in 2018, I never thought I could make a living doing what you actually love.
	And it's the biggest blessing on earth to actually...
	I was doing it before it was sustainable, and that's just the icing on the cake?
	The cherry, whatever.
	Amen.
	We all have our different styles also.
	Like, you know, you're more of like a reporter.
	I bring up more passion, I think, from my perspective.
	I look at Robert Gula like he's sort of like a true crime attorney, like that type of breaking down the law and in a perspective as far as, you know, what seems just and what doesn't.
	The flavor, if you watch any of us for like 15 minutes, you can tell the flavor is very different, even though our opinions often.
	And certainly not always, but often may coincide with each other.
	Well, it is, speaking of the different styles, yes, I have come to grips with my style.
	It's manic, hyperactive, and scatterbrained all over the place, which is much different than Robert, which brings us into our first question of the evening.
	Robert is methodical.
	Robert is calculated.
	Robert is detailed.
	That mind maps thing that you break out every time.
	I'm jogging on the treadmill, and it's like entering the Ghislaine Maxwell trial verse.
	But the first question is this, Robert.
	I know you talked about it on your channel.
	I was in that group chat when this whole drama, infinite drama broke out.
	To this day, I don't know what happened.
	That was great.
	What was the embarrassment?
	What was the issue?
	And what happened?
	Okay, so it's a good story.
	It's not my finest moment.
	It was, you know, one of these blunders that we all happen.
	You know, these stories always start off with, there was a group chat, right?
	There was a group message that I was a part of.
	Like, it always starts with that as a preface, and that's exactly what happened.
	I was working on this mind map, and I can just share that right there, so people can just see my box in the screen.
	You don't need to change my camera, but it's just...
	I will, I will, hold on.
	It's a lot, right?
	So, like, I've been working on this project.
	And you can see that there's just a lot of detail in this thing.
	This is all Glenn Maxwell, and we can spend a lot of time sort of bouncing around this and learning about the victims and learning about the Jeffrey Epstein wing and all this stuff, right?
	And this software is brand new.
	And so I was playing around with the software, and there's a function where you can share your stuff.
	You can actually share this with other people.
	And so I was just building this thing out, and I was going to send it to a...
	A friend of mine and say, Hey, you know, I'm just building the software out and I just want to make sure if I, like, if I send this to you, if I share this over, are you, and I'm going to, I'm going to pull back out Viva.
	So you're going to, you're going to zoom me in.
	But, but I said, you know, if I share this, in other words, what can you do with this?
	You know, can you sort of export the whole thing?
	Can you copy the whole thing?
	Can I stop you there for one second?
	Actually, the mind maps, is it a software that you have to license purchase or did like, is it a thing that you can purchase?
	So yes, this is software that you buy and you can use this.
	It works right in your web browser.
	And so you can actually see here, like, so first of all, I can actually share this with your audience.
	So I just, I put the link in the chat, in the private chat.
	So Viva, if you want to share that with your audience, they can post around and actually they can browse this right now in real time.
	All right.
	So they can actually go and click things and open up and close nodes.
	And we can spend more time going through this.
	I mean, basically.
	This has been my culmination of all the data, just kind of lumping it into this mind map.
	Okay, that's not the point of the story.
	I can share this with the chat right now.
	I'm sharing the link right now.
	Share it right now.
	It's good.
	Everybody can browse around it.
	There's already 20-something people who are looking at it.
	It's like a 3D integrated temporal map of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial.
	It's literally like if you're scrolling through the timeline of history, and then you go, oh, 1918.
	World War I. Zoom in.
	And then you're like, oh, this dude was a player in World War I. Zoom in.
	It's mind-blowing.
	So, okay.
	Appreciating that now.
	You then say, I want to share this, but I don't want people.
	Because you have to put in a lot of work.
	You have to add these details in every respect.
	The information, the links, whatever it is.
	So you put in a lot of work to create that.
	Right.
	So that was the point, right?
	I'm just playing around with the software.
	The mind map at this point, this is, you know, three weeks ago, whenever this was.
	It's just this little baby little thing with very little nodes.
	And so I send a message to my friend saying, hey, I'm about to use this software.
	There's going to be a lot of work that I put into this thing.
	Attorneys are concerned about their work product and things like that.
	So I say, hey, let me share this link with you, just like you did with the chat.
	And I want to see if you can just copy the whole thing.
	Can you just take this whole mind map and make it yours?
	Or can you export the whole thing?
	I just was trying to test around the rules of the software.
	And so I send this guy this message and I say, hey, I just want to make sure that nobody can copy any of my stuff.
	Can you test this?
	No, no.
	You didn't say, can you test this?
	You basically said, I just want to make sure nobody steals my stuff.
	That's the way you worded it, which made it that much better, this story.
	Okay, so can I be honest?
	I sent about eight or ten text messages after that because I was freaking out so badly.
	And then I left the group.
	So I don't even know what I said.
	I can pull it up and read what he wrote.
	Here's the thing.
	I read your message and I was like, oh, he wants to know if anybody can steal his stuff.
	I was like, okay.
	Totally legit question.
	Then I was like, bang, bang, bang.
	So sorry.
	I meant that for someone else.
	And then you left the chat and I was like, Robert, there's an expression my oldest brother says, when you step in dog, S-H-I-T, stop.
	You know, and recalculate.
	Don't run around the house like a panic, like a panic fool.
	And you literally ran around the house.
	Oh my God.
	And I was like, I said, I didn't, I didn't even understand what was wrong with your initial.
	I thought what you meant to ask was that to the group?
	Because yeah, you don't, first of all, you don't want people taking your hard earned, your hard work and misappropriate it.
	Second of all, from a neurotic perspective, you don't want them modifying it or making it look like it said something it didn't say.
	So it was your reaction that I didn't understand, but okay.
	So that's what it was.
	That's what it was.
	I just thought, I thought that I had just blundered because I sent a message, a group message.
	So I think 18 other lawyers, like the group of all the lawyers, I think on YouTube that exists.
	And I said, and I was, I was basically threatening, you know, I was like, I hope these people don't copy my stuff, you know?
	And I'm like, oh, that's not what I was intending at all.
	Like I really, you know.
	Even if that's what you intended.
	I was like, okay, that's a very reasonable expectation.
	The whole thing sounded, if you just read the first two clips that he sent out, the reason it was so funny is because it literally sounded like he was saying, hey, I've got this thing, mind maps, which, and implicitly, I know all of you want, don't go stealing my crap.
	That's how it came across.
	And that's why he was so embarrassed that he was basically accusing...
	And to be fair, the people who would have the most to gain from stealing it, he's basically accusing us of being the ones that we're going to go out there, steal his crap, not steal his crap, because it's actually amazing, but that he actually phrased it as, you're going to steal my crap, I know it, don't even try it.
	And then he was so embarrassed because he clearly did not mean to send that message to us, but that's just how it read to us.
	So his apology was like, not that I don't think any of you would take, he's so apologetic.
	And it was hilarious to see, but then he fled as if he was just humiliated.
	They accused you and me and 12 other lawyers of being thieves who were out to steal his work.
	And I've got to tell you one thing.
	This is where the confession through projection goes both ways.
	I did not even have that slightest reflex for one second, and I didn't understand what happened.
	All I know is I see Bing, Bing, Bing, Bing, Bing, left the chat.
	I was like, what the hell just happened to Google Earth?
	Well, on that note, we see the Barnes is in the house.
	Robert, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	All right, and I'm going to read this one here.
	We got Viva Joe and Rob, and now we've got to add another.
	Well, I guess it's Robert.
	I'm trying to draw attention to...
	Okay, I'm going to read this, and then I'm going to add a big caveat to this.
	I'm trying to draw attention to Sergeant Daniel Perry.
	Binker was bad.
	This prosecutor's worse.
	The prosecutor told the police to omit...
	Okay, I...
	I'm very reluctant to draw attention to anyone in these types of ways because it can be very easily misinterpreted as a call to harass docs or whatever.
	And I don't know what you're talking about in terms of the situation.
	So that caveat, because I read it out loud and I want people to appreciate that's not what we do.
	Shining the bright light of transparency.
	Yeah, we gotta...
	Put that asterisk in there.
	That's all that anyone means.
	And incidentally, Eddie, that's all I understand you to mean, but I just want to make sure that that's clear for everyone because we're not about doxing and calling people out.
	But, Robert, how are you doing?
	What's new with you?
	Not much.
	Was watching the Associated Press do one of the most libelous pieces in the history of the AP with a corrupt hack of a reporter.
	Anybody?
	Whatever you think of on Bobby Kennedy and Children's Health Defense and people who've raised questions, to give you an idea of how bad the lies were, one of the lies was they said that Bobby Kennedy and Children's Health Defense totally lied when they said that the FDA biologic licensed drug was not available in the United States.
	That's a known public fact.
	This reporter is so lazy, so dumb, such a liar and a libeler that they don't understand basic research.
	I mean, that's the easiest to prove defamation case I think I've ever seen.
	And so that AP reporter is going to get sued, is my prediction.
	And I believe it's up to Children's Health Defense and Bobby Kennedy what to ultimately do.
	But that's an easy open and shut case.
	And the other utility of it, potentially, is it presents, I won't go into detail, but let's say additional opportunity to prove things that people have been trying to suppress.
	So, for example, a lot of things about vaccines that the media repeats are just lies.
	Like in this AP piece, they say there's a scientific consensus that no vaccine has basically ever caused any injury ever of any significance.
	And it's like, what world do these people live in?
	I mean, they believe their own BS and propaganda, and then they think they can regurgitate it to the world and face no legal consequence.
	I mean, they're obviously agitated because Bobby Kennedy's book on Anthony Fauci exposes Fauci, exposes the FDA, exposes Bill Gates.
	It's one of the best-selling books of all time, of its kind.
	I mean, I think it's at 200,000.
	I mean, they're in reprinting number two or three or four, whatever it is.
	They cannot keep up with demand.
	They ran out.
	And then they printed a bunch more and ran out again.
	Because normally you don't sell 200,000 books in a week.
	And that's despite a media blackout on his book.
	That's despite, you know, CNN ain't putting Bobby Kennedy on to talk about his book on Anthony Fauci.
	They'll put Governor Sexual Harasser on.
	And, you know, back when he and his brother and his brother were still on CNN.
	And, you know, it turns out, of course, Cuomo took a bunch of money.
	Didn't belong to him there, Joe, according to the state of New York.
	I don't know if you follow that.
	Governor owes, what is it, 5.1 million bucks he owes?
	Was it a book advance or the profits on the book?
	I don't know.
	I didn't get the details.
	Well, that's kind of funny, isn't it?
	It seems like that advance was about three times the size of the profits of the book.
	Hmm.
	I wonder what that's about.
	Can we say money laundering?
	Robert, alleged money laundering.
	Put it in quotes, everybody.
	I would never accuse a Cuomo or a Clinton of a crime.
	Always in quotes.
	Oh, man, that's amazing.
	Well, Barnes Preach.
	I'm going to download the book.
	I haven't listened to it yet, but I just got my...
	And folks can get it digitally for $2.99, as well as Alex Berenson's book Pandemia, which is also very good.
	Both excellent, excellent books.
	In fact, Bobby Kennedy had a kind of Donald Trump-type tweet.
	He said, if you can get two books this year, the second one you should get is Pandemia.
	Which would be like, you know, Donald Trump's great quote.
	There's his two favorite books.
	His second favorite, of course, was Art of the Deal.
	His favorite, of course, of all time was the Bible, of course.
	Because I'm sure Donald spent a lot of time reading that as a young boy.
	I want to read this just so that I didn't cast a disperse, whatever it is, on Eddie Oliver.
	Wright, I'm asking you to follow the case to shine a light on this case because the guy is getting railroaded.
	The defense filed motions about the prosecutorial misconduct.
	The case is similar to Rittenhouse, and yes, no documents.
	Is this that Austin case of the guy who shot back during a riot in Austin?
	Yes, I believe so.
	I've got to take a little deeper dive into that case.
	I've been busy.
	And you'll send me my homework.
	But not as busy as Joe going back and forth to the courthouse and Robert there.
	And by the way, this book is a good little book.
	It's called Beginning to Winning by one Robert F. Gruller.
	Thank you, Barnes.
	I appreciate that.
	Yeah, it's been a lot of fun.
	Galen Maxwell has been a lot, except for the last three days.
	You know, I don't know if you guys saw that, but Judge Allison Nathan was in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee today, actually.
	That's what the conflict turned out to be, eh?
	But hey, apparently the black book is going to stay blacklisted.
	Nobody's going to see the other details of that little black book.
	I'm sure it's coincidental that she's up before the Senate right after she made that decision in the court.
	I would never apply a quid pro quo myself.
	All right, now we're going to get there in a second.
	But my first question, we're going to start with Joe Nierman, who has been the man on the ground since the beginning.
	Joe, before we get into the trial, what is it like?
	What do you have to go through every day to get into the courthouse, practically speaking?
	And what's the ambiance like?
	How does it work to get in physically, even to start doing what you're doing?
	Some people show up at four in the morning in order to try and get into the courtroom.
	Because if you're one of the first three or four public viewers, you can get into the courtroom.
	And literally, they'll show up at 4, 4.30 in the morning to try to get into the room.
	And that's the only way you could see the jury and the makeup of the jury.
	I actually was sitting on Thursday or Friday.
	The last day that we had trial was Friday.
	I was sitting in front of this guy whose wife and friend went with him at 4 in the morning to try and get into the courtroom itself.
	And he said the cutoff was his wife and friend and he didn't make the cutoff.
	That's how strict they are on it.
	And part of the reason for that is because the seating throughout the Southern District of New York is they have pews like you would have in any church and they're lined up and they basically seat on a pew that's meant to hold up to like eight to, I don't know, ten people.
	They will literally sit three people, one on each end and one in the middle.
	Then they'll skip a row.
	And then they'll have another pew.
	We'll sit another three people.
	So an area where traditionally you would have between 24 and 30 people, there's six.
	And so that's part of the reason that space is so limited.
	And it's like that throughout the courthouse.
	Now, the rest of us are sitting in viewing rooms.
	And there's roughly, I would estimate somewhere on any given day, between 70 and 100 journalists of varying stripes.
	I'm sitting next to people from the Epoch Times.
	I'm sitting next to someone else in the NBC News.
	And that's how it's situated in these different viewing rooms.
	And when one viewing room fills up, they'll send us to a different one.
	Just one second.
	Those who are lucky enough to get in, the three or the four or the six who get up at 4.30 in the morning, there are no cell phones allowed in that portion of the courtroom, correct?
	Not just that.
	There are no cell phones allowed in the courthouse whatsoever unless you have a federal court attorney pass.
	In which case, you can walk in with a cell phone.
	Now, I happen to not be...
	I never practiced federal law.
	I'm actually applied to get a pass so I can walk in and bypass security.
	But let's get through security, and I'll explain that part to you right now because that's a good lead-in to walking in.
	So when you walk into the courthouse, there's rarely any sort of line in getting into the building.
	What you have is when you walk in, they send you to your right and they have one of those barcode type of things, which you have to scan your phone on it and they send you a questionnaire.
	It's all COVID related questionnaire.
	First question is, are you vaccinated?
	Which I have been answering correctly.
	I've been answering truthfully and I was happy to see that I'm still able to get into the courthouse.
	Then they ask you nine more questions related to have you felt any cough?
	Have you been exposed to people?
	And if you click no, no, no, no, no, no, no, they'll send you a thing that says you're verified on your phone.
	And then you have to hold that up to a camera and...
	Excuse me.
	And they register your phone as someone who's been approved.
	And they also scan you to take your temperature.
	If your temperature is below 100.4, which, frankly, the temperature machines there seem like a joke because every time I come in there, they measure me at 96.1, and I can't believe I'm that low.
	What's the limit, though?
	100.4?
	Yeah.
	You have to be under 100.
	I'm not sure if it's 100.4 if they'll let you in or not, but that's the cutoff.
	It's over 100?
	If I knew anybody had over 100 fever, I'm jettisoning regardless of COVID because that's a low-grade fever as far as I'm concerned.
	So once you get approved, there's this audio thing that...
	You know, sounds out loud approved.
	You also have to wear a mask when you walk into the building.
	Then you stand on a line to go through security.
	The security line, unless you have a pass.
	So if you have a pass, you can bypass security.
	When you stand on the security line, they spend a great deal of time on each person going through.
	So if you have a line of like seven or eight people, it will take you 20 minutes to a half hour to get through that line.
	And they make you put everything in there, including your phones, and they'll take your phones from you and give you a little...
	Tag, you know, metal tag thing so you can retrieve it later on.
	You go through security and they take your laptops, they take your cell phones, they take away your electronics, they take away my matches even.
	I guess that's how afraid they are that I'm going to...
	I guess I could bring two sticks together and whittle them together if I was that interested in trying to burn down the courthouse.
	But yeah, they're very, very meticulous on that and then they basically will suggest to you...
	Which room you might want to check to be open.
	They'll basically wait until a room fills, and when a room fills, they'll send you up to another room.
	With respect to the seating in these viewing rooms.
	So, up front, on the other side of the bar, where attorneys normally sit, because these viewing rooms are actually courtrooms that normally you would have.
	Normally you would have your regular trial in.
	Let me stop you there for one second then.
	So they've converted vacant courtrooms into viewing rooms where in any courtroom you'll have a TV, in any case you'll have whatever.
	So you go into what is otherwise a courtroom and that is a viewing room and they'll expand as many of those empty courtrooms as they have to accommodate the crowd.
	Yes, and there's one loud audio that's coming from the front that's like, you know, it's...
	Mega loud.
	It's really loud.
	It fills up the whole sound in the room.
	And they'll have multiple TVs.
	Some seats will...
	If you manage to sit in the jury box and you get one of those seats, you'll get your own private little TV.
	Otherwise, they have these big screen TVs, like two or three of them, in the front of the room for people who are sitting in the pews and aren't fortunate enough to be sitting in a cushy jury chair.
	And they'll fill up that room, and then once that room fills up, the main one they fill up first is on the first floor, then they send people up to the fifth floor.
	Each of these rooms hold between 30 and 40 people, and then when the fifth floor one fills up, there's two rooms on the ninth floor which are smaller.
	They'll hold like 10, 15 each.
	So I've never seen them get beyond that.
	Now he points as far as the number of people who are watching this trial.
	You have like four people who are viewing it from...
	You know, who got up at 4 o 'clock in the morning.
	And then you have 30 to 40 on the first floor.
	And you'll have another 30 on the fifth floor.
	So that's a total of 70, 75 people.
	And then sometimes we'll get up to filling up rooms on the ninth floor, which that'll be a maximum of 20 to 30 people between those two rooms total.
	So that's what it's like going there.
	You have to bring your pen and your pad.
	There's no food allowed.
	You have to wear a mask the entire time when you're in a courtroom.
	When you're in the lobby, if you want to eat lunch in the lobby, they let you take your...
	Your mask off and eat there.
	And the fifth floor, which is where I frequently end up, is actually right near where there's a room designated for defense counsel.
	So the trial is being held on the third floor in room 318.
	And every time there's a break, which we'll have a break for 10 minutes, 10, 15 minutes in the morning, another one in the afternoon, and then there's a 45-minute lunch that will usually start somewhere between 1230 and 1 o 'clock.
	And so anytime I'm out there for a break...
	You'll always see the defense team going back and forth.
	They're walking right by us.
	And you can engage with them if you want.
	I mean, they're not going to spend a lot of time talking to you, but it gives you an opportunity if you wanted to engage them.
	And, you know, most people who are watching probably aren't familiar with the names of the defense counsel, but these are, you know, pretty hotshot attorneys.
	This is the dream team of the 21st century, some would say.
	And they happen to be very smart attorneys, all of the people involved here.
	Prosecution, defense, very smart attorneys.
	The judge, I would say, is a very bright judge, and she seems to be relatively fair.
	I have some questions about her judicial approach, which I actually wanted to bounce off the three of you about a theory I have as to why certain testimony was excluded.
	I've shared on my channel, but I'd like to confirm your thoughts as to whether you think I read that correctly.
	That's not really part of the answer to your question, so I'll save that for later on in this conversation.
	Viva, you're muted there.
	I could finally swear when I'm muted because I'm an effing idiot.
	Sorry.
	Robert, Robert, Robert, what's the deal with the...
	The Black Book we'll get to in a second.
	Robert Grueler, I saw your stream...
	It's Monday night.
	I don't know what day of the week it is anymore.
	Talking about the objection or whether or not it was going to be filed unredacted.
	What was the outcome?
	The Black Book, Gruler, explain what the Black Book was, what the issue was, the testimony leading up to it, and what the outcome was on the objection.
	Yeah, the Black Book was the telephone book.
	That had all of Jeffrey Epstein and Glenn Maxwell's contacts in it.
	Now, this was the same book that Juan Alessi, the housekeeper for Epstein, was told to put by the side of the bed regularly.
	So they had this household manual that gave a very detailed set of instructions for what all the people who were part of the Epstein estate needed to do.
	Part of that manual was there was this...
	Black book, essentially, this telephone book of all these contacts.
	And because this all took place back in the 90s, we don't have our cell phones.
	We don't have our contact list and all that stuff.
	So as part of the process, they put these black books or these telephone books with all these contacts in there, thousands of names and some pretty big names in there.
	I covered this, I think it was on Monday.
	We talked about Alec Baldwin was in there.
	The full book is available on the internet.
	There's a number of different places you can find it.
	And I've clipped it.
	It's actually in the mind map, which I know you shared the link earlier.
	It's under the evidence section for Black Book.
	You can read the whole thing.
	Huge, huge list of very, very powerful people, very important names.
	And so they're having a debate about this, about whether or not to get this document in and what portions of the document to get in.
	And so there's been...
	If I can stop here, the document itself was originally filed but totally redacted.
	So, you know, it's hard for me to really see exactly what we're talking about specifically because we can't see a lot of this stuff.
	You know, every time I take a look at the court docket, it says all this stuff is being refiled under seal.
	It's all got multiple redactions.
	And so it's really difficult to see exactly what is coming out at trial.
	And in fact, that was a question that I have for Joe.
	You know, and this is part of the reason why our...
	Sort of this symbiotic relationship works so well, I think, is because he's in there and he can interpret and sort of see things, boots on the ground.
	I'm reading all these transcripts and all of the different data that's being dumped out on Twitter and through the mainstream media.
	And we're all trying to sort of cobble together what the final results are.
	As it goes to, it's called Government Exhibit 52, which is that black book.
	The judge issued a final ruling on it that is, as Robert said, is keeping a lot of that out.
	But we're sort of, the government wants some of that in, of course, to show that there was this pattern that F.C. and Maxwell were engaged in.
	They had this book full of people where they would get massages.
	There was a whole section in the book that talks about massages.
	And, you know, this is evidence that they had this whole system in place, this grooming system that they then put these women in this phone book and then use that phone book to sort of just ring up these massages.
	And so, yeah, I mean, the prosecution to some degree wants this in because it...
	It shows that, that they have this Rolodex of massage women, and the defense wants to keep a lot of that out.
	Then you start taking a look at that sort of, you know, that's the main trial issue, but you have this sort of secondary issue, which is all of the other people in that book, you know, and all of the people that might be implicated, which is a big reason that I think a lot of people have so many eyeballs on this case.
	Yeah, I was wondering if Joe could also clarify, because my understanding is there's also basically what you could call as multiple black books, because you've also got flight logs from different...
	And my understanding is, in addition to taking out the names from the telephone list, is that they've also redacted names on almost any other list, whether it's pilot number one, pilot number two, including in particular, my understanding is the second pilot, his flight logs, that that's never been published anywhere.
	And that all of that information, in my understanding, is all of that was also redacted, and that the court has now gone along with keeping it redacted.
	Joe, what's your understanding as to those aspects?
	So, a few answers to that.
	The order of testimony was, the first witness to testify at all in this trial was Larry Vysotsky, who was one of the...
	Who is one of the pilots.
	The two pilots were Larry Vysoski and Mark Rogers.
	Mark Rogers didn't come until almost the very end of the prosecution's case.
	So Vysoski, when he came in there, and both of them, the first thing they got out of the way is what Maxwell's role was in the whole chain of command, just to verify clearly that each of them who worked for 28 years for Epstein identified Maxwell as being the number two in command underneath.
	Epstein directly.
	And with respect to the evidence that everyone wants to see, the only evidence we got from Vysotsky...
	It was really pictures of the different palatial homes that Epstein owned, and that he had been to many times, and they flew there, whether it was Palm Beach, or New York, or New Mexico, Zorro Ranch, or Lolita Island, what everyone calls Lolita Island.
	And in the trial, they referred to as either Little St. James or Little St. Jeffy, depending on who's talking.
	Now, the black book...
	The first issue of the Black Book came in towards the middle of the trial at the end of the first week when Juan Alessi came in.
	And at that point, and the Black Book is really a reference to the phone guide.
	Most of the time, when they're talking about the Black Book, I think they're talking about those names.
	We saw, I've seen at least, and I'm pretty sure during the course of the trial, I've been able to find at least online unredacted versions of it.
	There was a lot of questions with respect to whether or not The black book should be admitted because Juan Alessi testified that he was working for Epstein from 1990 through 2001 or thereabouts.
	The black book that they got in their hands was from 2004.
	Now, there was a lot of similarities, and he identifies being the same type of book that they had.
	There was a huge fight between defense and prosecution about admitting this black book or not.
	And specifically...
	It was Jeff Paliuca who was cross-examining, and they had a whole voir dire about admitting it, and at first the judge sat on it and said she wasn't sure if she was going to admit it.
	And let me stop you there.
	The black book that they're having the voir dire over is not the black book that Alessi claims to have had knowledge of.
	It's the more modern, the more recent version, which is similar to the one that Juan Alessi, who worked from 90 to 2002, said he saw.
	So, similar.
	Different black book, not the same one, and the argument is on admissibility of that via the witnesses they had.
	Yes, and the defense tried on voir dire trying to point to all the distinctions between the black book that he was familiar with, and they would have multiple copies of the same black book.
	Around the house, each of them stored by a phone, and they would update it every six months or so and change the information in there as appropriate over time.
	So this was not a book he had ever seen.
	And Pagliuca really did a fairly good job on voir dire here, pointing out all the differences between the black books that Alessi was accustomed to seeing and the black book that was being offered in evidence.
	There was a difference in the font.
	Different size.
	The older black books he described being like two inches thick.
	And this was like a quarter of an inch thick.
	And, you know, Pagliuca was saying, you never saw this before today.
	Before they showed it to you yesterday, you never saw this book before.
	And he said, no, I didn't.
	He recognized commonality in the names that had been in the book.
	He had never seen the book before, and the judge seemed really stuck on whether or not to admit it.
	Ultimately, when there was further testimony that came, I'm trying to remember which witness came on, but provided additional testimony about the black book.
	Oh, yeah, I remember.
	His replacement.
	And you remember what her name was, Robert, off the top of your head?
	His replacement?
	Juan's no.
	Yeah, it was a woman.
	I don't remember her name off the top of my head.
	If I go through my notes, I'll probably find it.
	But when one left, she basically came in.
	And she also testified about the black book and the message pads that they had to take down.
	And they really brought her in for the purpose of bringing in certain messages and confirming that victim whose first name is Carolyn, that's her real first name, no last name given, that she had been calling.
	And messages have been taken from her during the course of the period of time that she said she was in Epstein's part of his service staff, so to speak.
	Yeah, that was Nicole Hesse, right?
	That was a former employee for Palm Beach.
	Thank you.
	Yes, that's correct.
	So when Nicole Hesse came in, they offered the black book again, and she couldn't confirm that particular black book either, but the judge basically ended up bringing in the black book and allowing that, as well as the messages, and there was a big fight over admission of the messages, and really there was a whole double hearsay problem there, which I addressed in a little blurb that I shared with Robert Guler and his viewers, but those messages ended up coming in also.
	So with respect to the Black Book, what I would tell you is that that seems like it's admissible.
	Although then, near the very end of the case in chief, they started focusing on Exhibits 52A, B, C, D, E, F, G. But what are those A, B, C, D, F, G?
	Those are pages from the Black Book?
	Yes, pages from the Black Book.
	And the question really that comes to mind is...
	Are they really only going to leave in some names rather than all of the names, all the pages of the Black Book?
	And that might be part of the prosecution's aim to keep out general information and limit it to only the pages that they felt are necessary.
	So that's the deal with the Black Book.
	But then we come to the whole manifest issue, which is the flight logs.
	And that really only came in when Mark Rogers took the stand.
	Who's Mark Rogers?
	He's the second pilot to testify in this case.
	And he also flew from 1990 through, he said, 2018, 2019 or so.
	I think until Epstein died, he was considered an employee of his.
	And what Mark Rogers was saying was that he kept his own flight logs.
	They had a set schedule manifest, which was referenced by Vysosky, the first pilot, and he kept his own logs.
	It was dates and where from, where to, all by your typical airport codes.
	And then he had a big section there where he put in the names of the people who flew.
	And they wanted to get this in.
	Now this is obviously for people who are following the case because they're interested in the big names.
	This is really the...
	This is really the...
	This is the gauntlet.
	This is what everyone wants to see.
	But Joe, if I can stop you there.
	Yeah, go ahead.
	If you Google it, you'll get pages from the Black Book.
	I mean, when I posted something, I did a video the night before last, Viva on the Street, and I only published it yesterday morning.
	And I, what did I do?
	I retweeted three times, because the first time, I tweeted the entire page, and it had names and numbers.
	Then I deleted, because I said, yeah, you're right, I didn't mean to dox anybody, although this is on the internet.
	Then I put in Alec Baldwin's name, and it had his numbers.
	Now, these numbers are 20, 30 years old, 20 years old.
	Someone said, okay, someone else might have gotten those numbers, so don't do that.
	I deleted, retweeted, blacked out everything except for Alec Baldwin.
	But these books are on the internet, so people can go find the names if they want to know who's in the black book.
	What more could come out during the trial that is not already publicly available for anyone with Google search?
	Actually, you're setting up the next section here, because when the state admitted the flight logs that were taken by Mark Rogers, you see all the flights and dates and flight numbers and where from and where to, and the big thick section, which had the names of the people on it, was a big black ink spot.
	No names can be seen at all.
	When they flashed it up on the screen for us, I actually was sitting there in one of the jury chairs, and I just went, boo!
	And the whole room laughed, because we all were waiting to see the names.
	We all want to see who's on which flight going where, and they purposefully blacked it out.
	Now, at the lunch break, which is when...
	Judge Nathan addressed this issue.
	So she called Comey specifically to task on this, saying, I don't understand why you blacked out the entire names of everyone who ever flew on the plane.
	And she said, well, we want to protect the victims from, you know, their names.
	And she's like, OK, so you could have just blacked out their individual names instead of a big black spot blacking out all names.
	And she's like, well, we didn't have time.
	I guess they're understaffed in the DA's office.
	They don't have someone in the mailroom that they could say to them, hey, if you see names ABC black, those.
	They need a few more billion dollars is what they need.
	Pretty much.
	What do you expect?
	They're a small little government.
	They weren't able to do it.
	The judge did not accept that.
	That said bullshit, by the way.
	Bullcrap.
	Bullplop.
	So the judge did not accept that, said I want you to fix it.
	They specifically asked to have through the extended weekend, because we all knew this break was coming up, to modify the redactions and edit them down to only black out the names.
	And that's what's supposed to be submitted tomorrow.
	And it's supposed to be uploaded and available.
	Tomorrow, the modified ones.
	I will caution those of you who are looking forward to seeing the names on that.
	And this should be different than the regular flight logs we were seeing because this was kept personally by Mark Rogers, not the official manifest that was maintained by Epstein's company.
	And so I don't know if the...
	It might be exactly identical information, but it's written by a different person.
	And what I would caution you is it's very possible that much as they limited...
	Individual pages that were relevant with the Black Book or maybe limiting that.
	Similarly, one would imagine that if you have pages which don't have names of victims on them, it's just got names that no one really cares about.
	It's like Perlman, Bill Clinton, things like that.
	Those flights, if it wasn't the same day that Jane flew or that Kate flew.
	Those flights may not be lists.
	Those pages may be admitted altogether.
	It might be like six or seven pages, which will just have the dates and the pages reflecting the dates that the victims flew, rather than having the entire log that was taken by Mark Rogers.
	So that's yet to be seen, and you guys will probably see it before I will, because I'm not going to be able to see it until I leave the courtroom tomorrow.
	Well, there's essentially three problems.
	One is that the black book that's on the internet has not been authenticated, as I know, is in court.
	So it will constantly be denied as it being fake.
	Bill Clinton has said it's fake.
	So the problem is that's not a reliable source.
	So we needed the document fully authenticated, admitted into court proceedings, part of the public record, so then we could all know what's accurate, what isn't accurate.
	Alec Baldwin has denied involvement.
	So all these people have said, this is a fake black book.
	That's just something you're reading on the internet.
	That's not real.
	So that's problem one.
	Problem two is the same with the flight logs.
	Clinton has denied flying on this plane the number of times he's listed on the flight log.
	So that, too, I wanted to see fully admitted, fully authenticated, so we could finally come to some factual clarification as to what happened.
	And as Joe notes, Mark Rogers' flight logs have never been published by anybody.
	Ask yourself why he was keeping separate flight logs.
	Keeping his own flight logs.
	You can do some inferences there, but I don't know how common that is of every pilot keeping, okay, this guy was on this flight with this girl, this guy was on this flight.
	My understanding, Joe, is he used often initials, something only he would know.
	Somebody else gets it.
	They can't do anything with it.
	Okay, well, yes and no.
	He can put one and two together to equal three.
	Yes, yes and no.
	Like, for example, Jeffrey Epstein is identified by J.E., Glenn Maxwell by G.M. I think Virginia Roberts was on there enough that eventually she became VR, but initially she was Virginia Roberts.
	That's one thing in life you don't want, to ever be so well-known by the Epstein pilot that you're known by the initials.
	Well, so I have seen Bill Clinton's name written out.
	I'll say former president and then I'll say plus 10 secret service.
	If they didn't know the names, they would just identify a gender.
	They also put in approximate weight because that's something they're supposed to be maintaining as well, although that's not really helpful information for the public at large.
	Sorry, if I may stop you there.
	Why would weight be relevant ever if not for the most nefarious reflection?
	The airline?
	They're only supposed to have so much weight on the plane.
	Okay, but are we dealing with the quantities where weight of passengers would actually be an issue?
	I think they're supposed to always keep that because they match it up with the luggage.
	There's some great drug dealer stories where they had to either throw people from the plane or drugs.
	If we're at those levels of weighing the bodies, fine.
	I've learned that's very interesting.
	I have immediate bad thoughts, but okay.
	Well, the first plane they had was a Hawker, which is a relatively small plane.
	Then in 1994, he upgraded to a G2B Gulfstream, which is a nicer plane.
	And then in 2001, he outfitted a Boeing 727, like the type of plane many of us have all flown on in the past, and outfitted that specifically for Epstein's unique needs.
	So they spent several...
	He has own massage tables, own little bedroom, right?
	Well, I didn't see a massage table in the pictures.
	I don't remember there being testimony about a massage table.
	They had this circle room in there which had a couch surrounding.
	It was basically a room that looks like a big circle with a couch all along the exterior portion of it.
	So it basically looked like Versace's shower?
	Basically an orgy room?
	I haven't seen that.
	I will say this.
	The pilots were all very adamant.
	Both of them were very adamant that...
	And this is probably a CYA moment.
	They didn't see nothing and they don't know nothing.
	They thought that 14-year-old looked 23. Definitely.
	Everyone who came on the flight who was unaccompanied by their own parent.
	Do those 14-year-olds look 23?
	You've seen some of the photos of when they're that age.
	How do you confuse some of those girls as 23?
	Robert, you bring up a good point.
	Joe, I know there's still something not a publication ban.
	Don't disclose anything that is not...
	Allowed to be disclosed publicly.
	But when you buy alcohol in Canada, for example, if you don't look 35, they ask you for ID.
	But in this circumstance, they look close enough to limit so that no one asks any questions.
	But some of these did not.
	They look like 12-year-olds.
	As far as what's been admitted into court in terms of photos of them at that age?
	There have been several photos.
	They're blocked out from being seen by us.
	The process that they'll do in the courtroom is they will publish it.
	They will question the witness about it.
	And once they get sufficient foundation and or admit it as evidence, they'll publish it to the jury.
	Then they have a redacted version of it that they will publish to the public at large is what they're planning to have for the unsealed portion of the records.
	And that's what they share with us, which is why when we're looking at the manifest, You know, that was taken by Mark Rogers.
	We only saw the blacked out version.
	The jury presumably saw all the names in full, including the victims, because they need to see it.
	They need to identify that.
	Joe, I got a question for you on that.
	So do you see the same exhibits that, like, we see on the show?
	So, like, I cover, you know, I went through Epstein's multiple properties, you know, the photographs of the kitchen, the bedroom, the bathroom, all of that stuff.
	When you're observing this, you're seeing that?
	But you're just not seeing the redactions, right?
	No, that's what I want to make clear.
	We are seeing the redacted versions that you're seeing.
	They only let us in the viewing rooms see precisely what you see.
	In fact, what they have is these special books.
	They don't even air it in the courtroom itself.
	The jurors and the witness have books that have been created by the prosecution and defense, and they'll say, okay, please turn to page LB63, and that's where you'll see this particular...
	And that's really material evidence, in my view.
	Because, for example, if you believe that they look a certain age...
	Or they don't look a certain age, that's pertinent to your belief in the credibility of some of the witnesses' testimony, your belief in some of Maxwell's defenses, your belief whether this was...
	For example, let's say this was...
	The other thing I wanted to get into is the broader thematics.
	That one storyline here is that this is...
	That this was a blackmail extortion ring and that that's where a lot of Epstein's money came from.
	Somebody earlier said it was insider trading and the rest.
	There's no evidence he was a genius trader at all.
	There's none.
	People have looked at it.
	There's zilch.
	That's just a lie that he propagated.
	It was a cover story.
	Eric Weinstein, who does actual real work with Peter Thiel in terms of the markets and knows this area very well, says there's just zero evidence.
	Nobody has ever heard of Epstein being a big successful trader, ever.
	Robert, there would be documented paper shows for trading companies.
	You'd be able to piece that together.
	It doesn't exist.
	So the one narrative was this was part of an entrapment, extortion, bribery scheme, blackmail scheme, the Lolita Express, setting up powerful politicians and public figures and others with money and substantial resources, and to some degree just servicing the needs of a very corrupt, perverse subclass of elite individuals.
	Thus, it's not a coincidence Epstein's connections to certain people.
	It's not a coincidence Ghislaine Maxwell's family history.
	The other narrative was, this was just a billionaire who was a genius trader, who magically came into a bunch of money, who has weird connections that are just one big coincidence.
	If you listen to David Frum, it's all just coincidental that's being propagated as conspiracy, that Ghislaine Maxwell was a down on her luck.
	A daughter of a prominent publisher who had gone bankrupt and was desperate to restore her wealth and money and success.
	So she befriended and became the lover of Jeffrey Epstein and went along with all of his perversions just for their personal satisfaction.
	And those are two very different narratives.
	And I think both the government and the defense and the court have interest in only promoting the latter narrative.
	Because for the defense, if it comes in that Maxwell's part of a broader extort, that's not a defense she can manage.
	Then she's guilty even quicker and hung even faster from a jury perspective.
	From the prosecution, Maureen Comey, one of the lead prosecutors in this case, daughter of James Comey, it's in their interest to cover this up because of who it implicates.
	CIA, MI6, Mossad, prominent politicians, prominent public figures.
	And there's long been allegations with Robert Mueller dating back to his ties to Asimov's son in the Bay Area that he has...
	If you wanted to be a J. Edgar Hoover of the modern era and Mueller idolized J. Edgar Hoover, you would want those same kind of dream files.
	And how do you get those dream files?
	You cut deals, sweetheart deals, with the Epsteins of the world who feed you that information as part of their deal.
	And it wouldn't interest the court.
	Who has a lot of prominent politicians saying, we'll give you this nice carrot of being on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals if you play ball and tell this latter narrative.
	And as we were talking about before the trial started, the prediction was they're going to push this latter narrative and not the former narrative and look for them to exclude certain evidence and develop evidence in a certain way that does this.
	But it seems like, and this was the first part of the question I wanted to ask you guys related to this, just your comments on that theory and those theories in general, but also...
	Excluding evidence from the public.
	Not allowing the public to call in and listen to these proceedings.
	Not publicly...
	I mean, as Joe's pointing out, they are video broadcasting these proceedings.
	It's just limited if you clear and get inside the courthouse.
	That also would be part of...
	If you were trying to cover it up, that's what you would try to do.
	You wouldn't expose evidence to the broad public that could lead to a lot more questioning, saying, why can't we see this?
	Why don't we know that?
	Why aren't they asking this?
	How is this credible?
	Why isn't this witness testifying?
	Why are only two victims testifying?
	So what do you guys think about that?
	I'll go to you first.
	All right, so I got a lot to say on that.
	Mr. Barnes there, I think that you're onto something.
	I think that something definitely smells fishy here.
	I think that the government here, and basically everybody who's involved in this thing, whether it's the official government, whether it's Comey and Co, or whether this is just kind of the power structure generally, you know, that extends to Bill Clinton and Kevin Spacey and all of the other, that echelon of society, they would want nothing more than to wrap this thing up and just put a bow on it and just say, we're done with this.
	You know, Glenn Maxwell was the extent of this.
	Jeffrey Epstein's dead.
	Glenn Maxwell is now going to be prosecuted and we're done.
	Nothing else to see here.
	All those flight logs, all these black books, all these mind maps of lunatic YouTubers orchestrating and permeating and connecting all the dots.
	That's not what they want to see.
	They want to just close this thing up and get it over with.
	And that's been a big criticism that I've had with this prosecution.
	I mean, on our channel, we went through and we did a little bit of a compare and contrast.
	And we analyze this, and so we know that this was two weeks of trial that the government presented.
	First day was opening arguments.
	We had a sick day on a Thursday.
	The jurors were late most of the time.
	They were getting there 9, 9.30, as far as I could tell, on several days.
	And how long was the trial called for for prosecution?
	Initially, it was supposed to be four weeks, or four to six weeks.
	That's what we were told it was going to be.
	Four to six weeks.
	I mean, it took them two years to get to trial.
	Two years to get to trial.
	The only reason it takes you that long is it's supposed to be unusually complex debts.
	I mean, I've been ordered to trial in 10 months by federal courts in tax cases that have 10,000 financial transactions at issue over 15 years of issues, right?
	So their excuse for this being so long is that this was so complicated.
	This was so dense.
	This covered such a long time period.
	This covered so many people that, you know, they had to keep her locked up for the length of time they kept her because they just couldn't get to trial any sooner.
	And they get to trial.
	And they wrap up in less than 10 trial days.
	We get eight days of trial.
	I did a compare and contrast with a couple of other cases.
	On Derek Chauvin, the prosecution, they took 11 days.
	Okay, that was one victim.
	Look at the Potter case.
	They're still going on that thing.
	They're still going.
	Derek Chauvin was one incident, one victim, one officer, one location.
	Videoed.
	Videoed.
	We all knew exactly what happened.
	11 days.
	11 days.
	They did this one in eight.
	So you're coming, come on, guys, what's going on here?
	And then I did another compare and contrast with Bill Cosby.
	Bill Cosby, of course, has gone through this a couple times.
	His second trial only had one victim, and the prosecution took five days for that one.
	So we've got four victims.
	I mean, if you want to use the Cosby standard, they should have been going for 20 days, which still seems short to me.
	So, I mean, it's not even in the same realm of, not in the same universe.
	I've got a...
	What's it called when you have the right to pass on someone else's property?
	I've forgotten the word now.
	A servitude lawsuit coming up.
	Seven days.
	It didn't make sense and that they called it short.
	It's not that they asked for more time after having waited two years to get to trial.
	They called it short because, well, shit, we've done it.
	Case closed, babies.
	Let's move on to...
	Nuts.
	I think it's a different word than servitude.
	People are involved in involuntary servitude in Canada.
	In Canada, it's called servitude when you have the right to access and use a portion of a property.
	Wow, you got some interesting definitions.
	We call it here a prescription or an easement.
	Yeah, easement.
	Easement is in the common law.
	In the provincial stuff, it's called a servitude.
	You have the right To use the land of the Servitude land.
	I feel like I'm getting cancelled and I don't know what I just did.
	I want to chime in on Robert's theory there.
	And I just want to...
	Addy adds, who just sent a super chat, he's actually someone I've met.
	I actually did an interview with him also.
	He's one of the photojournalists who's got boots on the ground, sits in on the trial also.
	So you guys might want to check him out as well.
	He correctly said it's David Rogers, not Mark Rogers.
	I keep making that mistake.
	So, with respect to your theory, I was...
	I hear a lot of people who want to talk to me about all their different theories about Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell and Robert Maxwell being associated with Mossad.
	And I've really tried avoiding it and fixating on the trial.
	And the reason that I've been doing that is because I feel as if, look, was there something bizarre that happened in 2008 in a closed room deal between Alex Acosta and Dershowitz as Epstein's attorney in that this guy...
	Obviously had committed such incredibly awful things to hundreds of little girls and now is getting a sentence of a year and a half where he didn't have to spend his days in prison.
	He literally was able to walk out, go to a building that he built and hang out there all day and then come back at night and sleep in the prison.
	It's El Chapo.
	It's El Chapo.
	And not only is that his service, but he gets an immunity plea, an immunity deal for all the five women who are working underneath him, including Ghislaine Maxwell.
	And how it is that this deal came together in these closed-door meetings is obviously incredibly suspicious and raises a lot of red flags and has fueled speculation.
	That he's Mossad, CIA, FBI, MI6, KGB, I don't know.
	And my point that I have, and why I'm avoiding this, trying to go down these rabbit holes, which are everywhere, I mean, this is a field which is littered with little molehills or little rabbit holes, is because I don't think we're ever going to know, we peons who are not in that circle, it could certainly be that he got this deal because he was part of some intelligent agency.
	It also could be that he's blackmailing and that they're terrified of him opening his mouth, or that he's extorting people, or that he's really good friends with people, or it could be what Robert just suggested, which I never even thought of, which is this guy was a big pervert doing all sorts of perverted things, and when he got busted, the government saw an opportunity to take his footage, take the information that he had, and use that for their intelligence agencies, even if he had nothing to do with any of these intelligence agencies.
	Before he was arrested.
	And I don't know that we're ever going to know the answer to this, but I will say, no matter how you slice it, this smells, in my personal opinion, to be like corruption on a multitude of levels within the government.
	Is it fair to say that this trial has not explored any of that?
	That this trial, the narrative the government has pushed, that the defense is okay with...
	I'm trying to rebut, but okay with it broadly, is that this is just about the prosecution's narrative.
	This is just Maxwell and Epstein being bad.
	Not that they are part of any broader extortion, blackmail, any other scheme.
	Is it fair to say the prosecution has not pursued the narrative of a broader extortion narrative and has limited itself to just these guys being bad?
	And before either Robert or Joe answers that question, Robert, I'll push back and I'll say...
	Why would that be relevant, Robert?
	It's only Ghislaine Maxwell who's on trial and not...
	Why is Ghislaine Maxwell guilty?
	There's one narrative Ghislaine Maxwell is guilty because Ghislaine Maxwell is part of a broader bribery-extortion scheme that reflected what her father inherited, that she came in and helped tutored and developed Epstein in this direction, that he already had, say, some nascent abilities that she expanded on, and that's why she's doing what she's doing.
	She's getting enriched and empowered by it, but her motivation is to be part of a broader extortion scheme.
	That makes her actions arguably...
	Why does she want underage girls?
	She wants underage girls because that's what is blackmailable.
	That's what's extortionate.
	You're on tape being a 20-year-old?
	Who cares?
	Maybe you're married.
	Maybe it matters a little bit, but how much does it really matter?
	You're on tape being a 14-year-old?
	Different story.
	That's where the other aspect is this.
	That's where their pictures matter.
	In other words, I think if I was pursuing the case, that's the angle I would have pursued, because I think it's actually the truth, but I think it makes her much more darker to the jury's perspective.
	This isn't just a girlfriend trying to please the perversions of her rich boyfriend.
	This is somebody nefarious that comes from a long history of finding young girls to exploit for the purposes of further exploitation of powerful privileged people to enrich and empower herself.
	And that latter narrative makes her even more guilty of even more crimes.
	And for that, you can put 100 people on the stand that they victimized.
	But if your narrative is this is just about her wanting to please and get bailed out financially by her rich, perverted boyfriend, then you have to put on none of that evidence.
	You have to keep all that evidence out.
	You have to keep a lot of the evidence out about who else was on those planes with young girls going to either Jeffrey Epstein Lodge, the worst-named lodge maybe in the history of musical schools, or Little Epstein Island, or any of those other places.
	And you have to keep victims off the stand who might go elsewhere, right?
	You need victims who only talk about Epstein and Maxwell.
	Don't talk about any of those other big names.
	And hence, it goes from 100 potential victims to two.
	Hence, it comes from we have to redact other people's names on the list.
	Hence, it comes from a financial focus that's solely here.
	And that's the point.
	If it was the case that this other narrative could never have relevance to her case, then I would understand the prosecution may have just made a practical decision.
	But they actually made their case weaker by not pursuing this other narrative.
	And that suggests to me there's other motives in play.
	And now, Robert, we're going to Gruler because I can see he won't say it, but I got to bring this chat up right here.
	This one.
	Desperate girlfriends don't speak at the UN.
	No more to add to that than that.
	But Grueler, you have something to say because you have something to say.
	Yeah, I think your distinction there is spot on.
	And it's sort of a battle of who is winning the definition game.
	And so the way that I've been framing this has been villain or victim.
	Is Galen Maxwell a villain?
	Is she sort of the yin and the yang to Jeffrey Epstein?
	Was she somebody who was, you know, conspiracy?
	In a conspiracy with him, was she actually part of the grooming process?
	And the government has been doing a lot to try to show that.
	We went through on one day, we talked a lot.
	I mean, I probably went through 25, 30 different photographs of Epstein and Galen roaming around the countryside.
	He's got his hand on her belly.
	They're horseback riding and frolicking.
	It's like a pharmaceutical commercial or something like that.
	These two people are little peas in a pod, and they are synergistic.
	So she is a villain in that scenario, right?
	She's not the victim, whereas, you know, a lot of the other, part of the defense has been about that.
	Their opening theme was money, memory, and manipulation.
	That, you know, all of this is being manipulated, and Galen Maxwell is just this scapegoat.
	You know, Jeffrey Epstein was really the villain, the bad guy.
	Galen Maxwell was a victim.
	She was along for the ride, yeah, and she was, you know, a part of this.
	But there was a 2007 non-prosecution agreement that named four other people.
	They're in the mind map.
	And they all got excluded.
	They were named as co-conspirators that were not going to be prosecuted.
	And so a big question, of course, was why was Galen Maxwell not included in that?
	I think that brings up a whole appealable issue down the road.
	But the point that they're trying to make is that she is the scapegoat.
	Epstein was really the problem.
	The government botched that case up so badly.
	Prison guards asleep at the wheel.
	Cameras were off.
	Whatever happened.
	Epstein's now dead.
	And so the government has this big mess on their hands.
	They've got allegations of international trafficking involving underage people.
	And they've got a lot of pissed off Americans who want something done about it.
	So they just pick up Ghislaine Maxwell.
	She's this convenient little scapegoat.
	They're going to put all of this disgustingness on her.
	Put a bow on it.
	Wrap it up.
	She's a villain, and we're not going to think twice about it.
	There were no other co-conspirators.
	This doesn't go out beyond that.
	And I think that's an obvious lie, right?
	It's obvious.
	We can see that this goes way beyond that, but they're not going to dig into it.
	Why?
	If I question, and I don't know who answers this question better, between Robert, Joe, and Robert.
	Isn't the best guess that intelligence confiscated his blackmail, or his or hers?
	Like one drug dealer stealing drugs from another.
	My view is because of Ghislaine Maxwell's name popped up, my view was this started way long time ago.
	This was an intel operation, deep state operation, whatever you want to label it, from the moment she walked in that door.
	I think Epstein was connected to some freaky underworld people in New York dating back to the early 70s.
	Dating back to, you know, well, there was a particular headmaster at a particular school who wrote some very odd books, whose little baby son, who liked to play with his little cello, became Attorney General of the United States, who was Attorney General of the United States, while Epstein Epstein himself.
	Eternal truth, number two, Epstein didn't kill.
	That's a popular ornament, by the way, for your Christmas tree.
	You put a little picture of Epstein and it says, this ornament didn't hang itself.
	Don't put Epstein on your Christmas tree.
	That's bad juju right there.
	Galen agrees with you.
	Galen agrees with you there, Robert.
	She also thinks that he didn't kill himself.
	Her brother Ian did a podcast over at The Spectator and he said, well, you know, I'm kind of a conspiracy.
	I'm sorry.
	He said a word that I can't repeat there.
	They use it in Britain.
	But he said sort of a mess-up word.
	And he's not that.
	He says, I believe that this was just a mistake.
	Galen, though, thinks that he was murdered.
	And by the way, her father, when her father got into trouble, rumor was he was going to start, I mean, for people who don't know, Robert Maxwell managed to escape Ukraine under interesting circumstances.
	Ends up connected right up to World War II.
	Ends up connected to almost all intelligence, major intelligence operatives across the world.
	Say the word Mossad so that everyone can stop accusing you of nothing.
	Deeply embedded with Mossad, but even, frankly, more deeply embedded with the KGB and MI6, and even ties with the CIA.
	Ran a major publishing operation, stole from his own employees, got caught.
	Just was robbing from the pension fund like mad.
	The rumor was he was going to out some key people if they didn't come to his protection.
	The tabloids in Britain have been part of conspiracies to extort and bribe and everything else for forever.
	They're infamous for it.
	And that was his M.O. He was in deep trouble.
	He needed powerful politicians to come to his aid.
	So he went on his boat named Ghislaine and he magically Epstein'd himself.
	He just fell off the boat and died.
	Just magically.
	So if you're Ghislaine Maxwell and you see this happen to Epstein, you can say 1 plus 1 equals 2. The question is, what idiot told her to stay in the States?
	But that's another story.
	Clearly, the prosecution has done a masterful job of re-narrating this story such that 10 years from now, some media person will say it's fake news, that all these conspiracy theories about Epstein and conspiracy theories about Maxwell, that they were just a couple of perverts who got caught.
	That's all.
	And that's how they've orchestrated this.
	And Maureen Comey is following in her dad's.
	Honorable tradition in that respect, if you want to call it honorable, of mastering cover-ups.
	I mean, this is the guy who, as soon as they're about to figure out that D.B. Cooper was a CIA rogue pilot, all of a sudden Comey shut down the whole investigation, just like that.
	That's his history.
	Comey's magically sitting on big bank boards at the same HSBC.
	When HSBC gets exposed as the number one money launderer for people like, such as?
	I mean, it's not a coincidence, but they've done a great cover-up job.
	But despite that cover-up job, do you guys think there's any chance Ghislaine Maxwell is acquitted?
	Because I just can't see it.
	So I'll just point out that the case against her from the government has really not fixated on their relationship as much as it's fixated on money.
	They brought forward an executive from JP Morgan who showed that there was an $18.3 million transfer from Epstein's controlled corporations to Maxwell's controlled corporations in 1999.
	Two additional transfers, one for $5 million, another for $7.4 million.
	It was immediately spent on a helicopter.
	It's not clear.
	And that was part of some family trust that Maxwell held.
	It's unclear whether that was really Epstein hiding under her name for one reason or another or whether that was actually given to Maxwell.
	But the focus, even though they've shown dozens of pictures, like four dozen pictures of the two of them canoodling like the honeymooners over the course of several years from pictures that were seized from his townhouse, The storyline has been, this has been about money.
	And I don't know, I was a little confused why it matters to the jury whether her motivation was money or love.
	But yes, it's definitely been a fixation exclusively on the two of them.
	There's been nothing put out there to suggest that this relates to anyone beyond Maxwell and Epstein.
	And that's definitely clear of the message.
	And I would agree with what you just said, Robert, that part of this is that when we look back on this in the future, Everyone will feel as if there was no conspiracy.
	It ended with these two freaks and that was the end of it.
	What I will point out, though, is for those of you who think that he was under the thumb of Ghislaine Maxwell, okay, that's possible.
	I would ask you, why is she ditching him in 2004?
	And it's not part of her still undercover operative mission.
	And then turns it over to Sarah Kellen, who all of a sudden steps up.
	And she fills in that role.
	So is Sarah Kellen also an agent?
	Question, question.
	Joe, what the hell are you talking about right now?
	What happened in 2004, for those who don't know?
	She basically disassociated with him.
	She was dating him from 1990.
	And then in the 2000s, Juan Alessi was basically saying that they had grown apart.
	She started seeing other people and that...
	And by 2004, she's not there with him at all.
	So the question to those of you who think that Maxwell was the mastermind and part of this big operation, this is years before Epstein is indicted for the first time.
	So she ends up ditching off and Sarah Kellan basically steps into her shoes and running things for Ghislaine Maxwell.
	So my question would be to you, okay, so what happened that her operation ended?
	Unless you say that some new person came in and she just, it's a little strange to me to look at it from that perspective.
	And that's the question I have.
	I'm not saying you're wrong, but this is a whole I have, you know, this is a question I have about that theory.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Why does she exit?
	Why does she exit?
	When she exits?
	All of that, like all of this was stuff that we wanted to see put on trial to figure out.
	And what it is, they're suppressing all of it such that, and even basic evidentiary leads, so that we're going to be left speculating forever.
	And there's a range of theories that could explain that.
	Once I think he got on people's radar, some people started cutting ties with him for a period of time.
	I think the investigation started as early as 2005.
	But there was so much effort to derail and etc.
	But basically, we'll never know the whole story.
	Because Epstein's dead.
	In Maxwell's story, they've managed to really cabin and limit a different version of events.
	Can I ask you three to...
	You can go Viva.
	Mine's a little long.
	So if you have a quick one, certainly.
	It's your show.
	I just want to get Gruller's opinion on this.
	Joe, you've been doing the God's work on the ground for the last two weeks.
	But I know that Robert Gruller has been covering this for...
	When I was saying, oh, Gruller's getting demonetized.
	Well, of course you are.
	You're covering Ghislaine Maxwell.
	But Gruller and Joe, help him out if he doesn't know the answer.
	Two infamous pictures.
	One is of Prince Andrew.
	With his arm around the waist of a 16-year-old...
	Virginia Roberts.
	Virginia Roberts.
	And the second one is, I believe, Bill Clinton getting a back massage while traveling from Virginia Roberts.
	Am I mistaken about that?
	Is that Virginia Roberts?
	It's a different gal.
	I have it in the mind map.
	Yeah, it's in the mind map.
	My two questions are this.
	Have those two...
	Pictures have been adduced as evidence in this trial.
	No.
	No.
	And I'll tell you this.
	When I looked at the flight logs, frankly, I haven't seen, maybe Robert's seen otherwise from the flight logs that are available online.
	I haven't seen flight logs that show him in Clinton flying specifically to little St. Jeffy.
	They show him jetting around one location to another in Southeast Asia where that type of activity is common.
	It was after he stepped down from office.
	That's why I wanted all the logs from everybody because it's people on the ground who have said they've seen Bill Clinton on the island.
	To my understanding, those people also have not testified at the trial.
	There's been no reference about Prince Andrew or anybody.
	Other than Vysoski referencing, I think he might reference Prince Andrew being on the plane, and that was day one.
	He said that he'd flown Clinton multiple times, that he flew Trump.
	He identified one time.
	He was asked about members of Trump's family.
	He said he didn't remember ever seeing any of them.
	And he referenced Prince Andrew.
	He referenced, I believe, Dershowitz, Itzhak Perlman.
	Kevin Spacey, Chris Turner.
	And those are the names that...
	I mean, this was, like I said, day one of trial.
	That's my best recollection of the time I had of the names that came out of the South.
	And Joe, can you clarify one point?
	There were stories out there that Trump had flown like four or five times.
	My understanding is the only evidence is that he flew once to New Jersey.
	Yeah, that's...
	That's all I've seen.
	Trump, I believe, explains that his flight had been cancelled.
	He needed to go from Florida to New Jersey.
	He asked him for a ride the same way I would have asked Viva.
	Robert might say, hey, I've been demonetized.
	Can I come on your channel and talk about a particular issue?
	That's basically what it is with Trump going to Epstein and flying from Florida to New Jersey.
	One addendum.
	Am I correct that the only prominent person to be repeatedly mentioned by the prosecution has been the name of Donald Trump?
	Correct.
	Correct.
	I mean, there are pictures that are...
	When they talk about pictures that were found in the Palm Beach residence, they talk about pictures of Ghislaine and Epstein with the Pope, with Trump, and then with Fidel Castro, which...
	Did you see that photo?
	Did you?
	Did you see it?
	No.
	I don't remember that.
	I'm pretty sure those pictures did not come in.
	That was total news to me because that was the first time I'd heard of a Castro-Epstein connection.
	Yeah.
	I mean, this guy, he got around.
	He knew he was a player.
	He got around.
	I guess we have billions of dollars.
	We can't fathom how much $1 billion is.
	It's so hard for us to understand.
	And for people to remember, Epstein was a guy that has no...
	Plausible explanation for how he became a billionaire.
	There's no documented record of it.
	That's correct.
	Definitely correct.
	There has been talk about his connection with Les Wexner from Ohio.
	Les Wexner now hates him.
	And he's the owner of Victoria's Secret.
	He's a billionaire himself.
	If I may stop you there, everyone hates Jeffrey Epstein right now.
	Even Dershowitz.
	And I noticed a couple of comments earlier tonight about Dershowitz and his connections too.
	I believe that I grilled Dershowitz in as much as anybody can be grilled when he came on the channel for a live stream.
	The same way I grilled Chris Pawlowski from Rumble.
	I heard Epstein, not Epstein, Dershowitz's explanation about his visit to the island one time back in the 90s.
	But I forget where I was going with this.
	The idea was that there's going to be a lot of names and there's going to be a lot of people.
	But the question is this.
	How did he get his money?
	And some people are going to say it was either blackmail or it was Ghislaine Maxwell whose father swindled $400 million.
	The alternative narrative is that he stole it from Wexner.
	The question is, how does Wexner not know it's stolen?
	His explanation is like, golly gee, I woke up and hundreds of millions were gone.
	I had no idea.
	Or Epstein has leverage over him to some degree.
	He has something on him that he can't talk about, that he can't admit.
	What would it look like if the Victoria's Secret founder ended up being an underage pervert?
	What would that do to Victoria's Secret brand?
	Not be good.
	You'd give up $100 million.
	You'd give up $100 million over to Epstein to save that.
	Sorry, I'm not bringing up...
	Bringing up comments does not mean endorsement, but...
	Can we talk about the law of minors?
	Because this is something that I have a question for you guys.
	There's a theory I had, and I wanted to ask you this.
	Now, she's charged under 18 U.S.C.
	2422 and 18 U.S.C.
	2423.
	That's referenced in the Mann Act.
	Now, the interesting thing that we've seen at this trial is that in the indictment charges, what they do is they list off the charges, and then they say, with respect to victim one, this is what they did.
	to support the charge.
	With respect to victim two, they did these acts, victim three, these acts, victim four, these acts.
	Then they'll move on to charge number two Now we get to a trial, and there's four victims who testify, and before two of them, specifically the one who goes under the pseudonym Kate and the one who is properly identified as Annie Farmer.
	Before they take the stand, Judge Nathan instructs the jury, That the court anticipates that you are about to hear testimony regarding sexual activity between the witness and Jeffrey Epstein and or the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell.
	You are hereby instructed that you should not consider...
	Any of these acts that are described herein to be illegal.
	They do not support a charge for conviction on any of the charges and that they should also not be taken to be a reflection of the moral character of the defendant.
	Now, the question that I have is this.
	If you're able to pull up 18 U.S.C.
	2423 specifically, and that's titled Transporting a Minor Across State Lines, for the edification of your viewers, We're in federal courts, so you can't just have something that's intrastate.
	You need to have interstate in order to have this qualify as a federal crime, which is why instead of just being, well, he's a rapist or whatever, or he committed prostitution, you have to have the whole crossing state lines or mail from across different state lines.
	You have to have this whole interstate element to it.
	What was the section of USC?
	It was 18 USC 2422 and 2423.
	What?
	22?
	2422.
	Yeah, and 2423.
	2422.
	I pulled up one that was clearly not what I was looking for.
	18 USC.
	Yeah, 18 USC 2422.
	The one I had that had to do with cattle, which was ironic, but not what I was looking for.
	Okay.
	Am I misremembering the number here?
	Is that not the right...
	Are you going to make me pull this up?
	Let me just...
	I'm going to close this.
	18 U.S. code, 24...
	Coercion and enticement.
	Yes.
	That's it.
	Okay.
	Let me just make sure that I can do this.
	But this has already been demonetized, and I don't care about that.
	I just want to make sure I don't get outright banished.
	I'm going to go to this window.
	I'm going to put this in here.
	Bingo, bango, bongo.
	I'm going to close that.
	I'm going to go to share screen.
	This is the crunch time of nervousness.
	Chrome tab?
	Robert?
	Just briefly to a question in the chat.
	You can look up Technofog, who was able to document that Epstein was listed as an informant for Robert Mueller.
	So that's not just...
	That part's not speculation.
	Can you guys see this right now?
	Yeah, we can.
	Although, if you hold down control and then roll your mouse wheel up, it'll get a little larger.
	It's always interesting to see which ads pop up on Viva's show.
	On Viva's web.
	Really, to be fair...
	I see Lederbach, and what else?
	What else we got here?
	Crabapples.
	Okay, I'll just read it very quickly, and then I'm going to close this before I get my own self-canceled.
	It's really 24-23 that I'd like to analyze with you, because this is the one that I think...
	Yeah, you just roll up, you can go to the next one.
	Yeah, right there.
	See who says previous, next?
	Ah, there we go.
	Under coercion and enticement to the right, it'll say previous, next.
	Okay, boom, shakalaka.
	23. Sorry.
	Next.
	Next.
	Come on, people.
	Do this.
	Do this.
	I don't see what's going on.
	There we go.
	We got to the boomerisms.
	Now, if you look at section A herein, okay?
	So, understand.
	We can't convict for any activity that was involved with Kate or Annie Farmer.
	Now, Kate's story in brief synopsis is she was...
	Found by Ghislaine, groomed by Ghislaine, had almost nothing to do with Epstein other than Ghislaine literally threw in a room with her and said, give him a massage.
	And when she comes out after getting the full Epstein special, Ghislaine giddily greets her.
	She's like, wasn't that fun?
	Didn't you have a great time?
	And she's like disgusted with herself.
	And that she formed a relationship with them because she wanted to be like Ghislaine, nothing to do with Epstein.
	So there's real genuine grooming there.
	But she's 17 years old.
	And she's flown from England to New York.
	In New York, the age of consent for sexual consent is 17. So, similarly with Annie Farmer, she's transported from Arizona to New Mexico.
	And when she's 16, minimum age of consent in New Mexico is 16. So, what the defense clearly argued was, hey...
	Look, when they're transporting to a place that they have passed the age of minimum consent, this cannot be a violation.
	But if you pull up, my question I had was this.
	If you pull up 18 U.S.C.
	2423, if you have anyone under the age of 18 flown across, you know, transferred across state lines who's involved in prostitution or illegal sexual conduct.
	That that would be considered a violation and can lead to a conviction for a minimum of 10 years in prison.
	And the question that was really bothering me here is, why is the jury not permitted to consider that Kate, at 17, was under 18, flown interstate?
	For the purposes of prostitution.
	Forget about her being illegally a minor.
	Forget about whether she's above the age of consent in New York.
	She's under 18 and she's flown across state lines for the purpose of engaging in prostitution.
	And accordingly, that could be possible for the jury to find that she was brought there for prostitution and accordingly it leads to a conviction.
	And the theory I have, which I really want to ask you three if this makes sense to you, is that...
	The reason that we have an issue of statute of limitations, meaning all these crimes took place in 1994, 1997, before the Mann Act initially was for 10 years.
	And in or around 2003, Congress passed the Protect Act.
	And the Protect Act said, if you have a child who is abused in this type of manner, that the statute of limitations will be extended from 10 years through...
	The life of the victim.
	And what I suspect happened here is that, and that applies to Section 2423.
	So what I suspect happened here in a sidebar that nobody heard was that when it came to Kate and it came to Annie Farmer, the defense went to a sidebar with the judge and they said, look, if you want to apply this unlimited statute of limitations,
	To abuse of a minor under Section 2423, well, since the Protect Act is supposed to protect minors, that's what it's really supposed to be about, so then 2423 really can have an unlimited statute of limitations with respect to the parts that are talking about a minor.
	But with respect to the parts that are talking about prostitution...
	Which, she's not legally a minor engaged in prostitution if she's 17 in New York, that that should not have the extended statute of limitations under the Protect Act, and that the judge agreed with this argument, and that's the only thing that makes sense to me as to why it is that these charges made it all the way through trial, were not knocked out on summary judgment, and yet we're hearing that the jury is not permitted to convict.
	On the basis of what happened to Kate alone or what happened to Annie alone, you cannot convict on that.
	Even though it might be prostitution of a girl who was transported under the age of 18, they can't convict on that.
	And the only logical thing to me is that Judge Nathan split that one statute into saying there's an extended statute of limitations under Protect Act for abuse of minors, but there is no extension of that for someone who is engaged in prostitution, which is a really interesting way to take one statute and basically apply two different statute of limitations to it.
	That's the only theory I have as an attorney as to how we come to this situation at trial where their testimony is not allowed to lead toward a conviction, and it wasn't knocked out earlier before we got here.
	And my question to you three gentlemen is, Do you agree with my conclusion that that's what Judge Nathan must have done in some sidebar, or do you think that there's a different explanation you can provide?
	Don't ask me a darn question on this, because I don't know what you just said, but I'm going to ask the two lawyers.
	Who do we start with, Gruhler or Barnes?
	Gruhler, you haven't talked in a while.
	I can jump on this one, yeah.
	So, it's a great question, Joe, and let me just...
	Explain statute of limitations real quickly for people who are not familiar with this.
	A statute of limitations means you have to bring the criminal charges essentially before a certain time period expires.
	In Arizona, if you get charged with a DUI, let's say you're arrested, you're prosecuted, you're brought into the jail facility, blood's drawn, all of that stuff, but maybe they don't actually file criminal charges against you because they're waiting for the blood to be tested.
	Well, if they don't bring that blood result back and file those charges within one year in Arizona, They lose the opportunity to do that.
	They can't do that anymore.
	For a felony, it's seven years, right?
	And for certain sexual assault crimes, it's a lot longer than the seven years.
	And so what I think Joe is talking about is sort of splitting those two things.
	He's saying we've got this bucket of women, minors, who were under the age of consent at the time, and so there's going to be one statute of limitations for that.
	If you're going to be bringing charges, criminal charges against somebody for abusing that bucket of victims, you have to identify what that statute, what that time...
	So that you don't miss it.
	Now, Joe's also identifying a separate bucket of people, Kate and I believe it was Annie, where there's a question about their age of consent, right?
	And the judge is issuing some rulings and things like that.
	And so one possible reason for that is because the judge is trying to identify sort of a separate bucket or a separate statute of limitations that would allow some of these claims to either go forward or be denied, right?
	And so it's a very technical thing that's happening.
	And I think it's interesting.
	I don't know why the prosecutors would have charged it one way or the other, but I can tell you, Joe, if you're asking sort of why Annie is not, or why the prosecution is not now maybe taking Annie or taking Kate and saying, well, why don't we just charge Glenn Maxwell for prostitution as to these women, right?
	And it's pretty simple.
	It's because that's just not in the indictment.
	They didn't indict it that way.
	And here, what we're seeing, if you actually pull up the indictment, It's only minor.
	They didn't talk about that.
	And during the entire pretrial process, there was a lot of back and forth about birth certificates and about stipulations.
	They fought about this a lot, really.
	And I don't recall what the actual final stipulation was, but if they agreed that one of these women was over the age of consent, then really the only usefulness that you get out of their testimony at trial is for the conspiracy, it's for the grooming, it's for the manufacturing of the scheme here.
	Not the actual physical contact.
	And so I'm with you.
	And Joe, I think that this was very interesting.
	This may have been a ruling that the prosecution was not expecting because they may have thought that Kate, her birth certificate, her age of consent, or Annie, that all of those were going to come in and that we were going to hear about all of the abuse that went on those women.
	And they were expecting they needed another week or two weeks to make it the full four weeks.
	But when they got those bad rulings and...
	We didn't get to hear about any of that stuff because it was not illegal because they were over the age of consent in New Mexico.
	Then that testimony becomes irrelevant.
	They're not allowed to talk about that.
	So then they have to shut the trial down early because they can't explore that area.
	Because they've only picked four witnesses to begin with where they could have otherwise had however many by going after whomever was serviced by those witnesses.
	But Robert, people were saying your wheels are spinning right there.
	They do look like they are.
	What are they spinning about?
	You can answer this question pretty quickly by looking up the definition under the Protect Act for whether that's a federal definition or state definition.
	My understanding is that the Protect Act defines minors federally for the purposes of that criminal statute of prostitution under the age of 18, interstate transport, federally.
	In other words, it doesn't matter what the age of consent is by state.
	So and this goes.
	So my view is, yes, they could have charged underage prostitution in this case.
	And they chose, as Robert mentioned, they chose not to do so in the indictment.
	And that's why it's being they can't pursue it.
	I think they didn't want to ever pursue the prostitution angle, strategically and tactically.
	Not because it makes sense, because your point is...
	Right, Joe.
	It doesn't really make sense.
	This is clear interstate transport for underage being defined federally under the age of 18, minor being defined federally under the age of 18, prostitution, which has no statute of limitations.
	If you're under the age of 18 federally and you're a victim, that's it.
	And it would shock me if the Protect Act subjected the definition of underage or age of majority to local state governments or foreign governments.
	By the way, just a little tangent.
	One reason why it was very interesting, Clinton and Epstein in Southeast Asia and parts of Africa is because some of those countries have very low ages of consent.
	That was one of my questions.
	I don't know what everyone's seeing right now.
	I'm going to bring out this window because I don't know what happens when I do that.
	But that was one of my questions.
	It may be a preconceived notion, but when I hear people taking trips to certain countries, that's my first thought.
	Hey, Elon Musk even got away with libeling somebody just saying the guy was probably there for that.
	But of course, you know, Lin Wood was that guy's lawyer.
	So what else can you say?
	So my view is they absolutely could have charged this.
	In fact, they could have brought hundreds and hundreds of charges on this.
	And they deliberately chose not to because they don't want to imply this was prostitution.
	Because they don't want to imply where else that leads.
	They don't want to go down that path.
	They want to say this is just underage abuse of a few freaks.
	Not international prostitution that gets to maybe some other places they don't want to go.
	Because we all know of Epstein's alleged insatiable appetite, but as if the book of massage options to the general public, whoever was in that black book, as if it was just limited.
	It was limited to Epstein and his appetite and not...
	The people that they were servicing.
	And now I understand.
	I'm thoroughly blackpilled.
	Suppository and eye injection as to what this was about.
	I see it now, Robert.
	Yeah.
	Gruul, you look like you have something to say.
	No, I'm with you.
	There's a lot of stuff going on here.
	And a lot of it just doesn't make sense sort of instinctually.
	I think that's what a lot of people are...
	We as a society will kill each other over Kyle Rittenhouse, over Derek Chauvin.
	We take a look at any of these major public media stories.
	And this is kind of one of the biggest ones of all of them.
	I mean, really, a lot of people have their eyeballs on this because of the allegations and because of the people who were involved.
	You know, I want to see a functional government.
	I'm not sure that we're ever going to see that, you know, anytime soon.
	But, you know, I want to see a prosecution that really does go after the bad guys.
	And I'm a criminal defense lawyer.
	You know, I say that all the time.
	But the people that we represent here at my office in Scottsdale are good people.
	You know, they're people just like you and I who kind of get caught up in a bad situation.
	We've all been there.
	I say this all the time that, you know, we've all probably broken the law, probably, you know, somewhat seriously at one point in time, but we just didn't get caught.
	And sometimes people get caught.
	It doesn't make them bad people.
	But then when we see our Justice Department going after people where there are some really horrendous allegations, and there's a lot of smoke here, and we've been seeing this sort of percolating over in the Justice Department for like two decades now, and then we all finally see it.
	What we can't see, most of it we can't.
	Guys like Joe are out there doing the hard work, but the rest of us are just trying to piece this all together, and it feels very disconcerting when your own government is sort of playing patty cake.
	With the real bad guys.
	I was going to ask you, Robert.
	I, in principle, agree with Dershowitz about a defense lawyer should be a cab driver and take whoever operates in the cab, in principle.
	However, Dershowitz also agrees that you should follow whatever is best suited for you as a lawyer individually.
	I wouldn't represent any...
	People ask me whether I'd represent Glenn Maxwell.
	I was like, no, no.
	Not even if she offered all the files, because then I'd be Epstein the next day.
	I'd say, yeah, you can send me the files.
	Send them courtesy of Viva in Canada.
	Send them the nearman down there.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Exactly, exactly.
	But what do you think?
	I choose not to represent people accused of any of these kind of things unless I am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that they've been completely falsely accused.
	And I've never defended any of these kind of cases.
	What is your take on that?
	Yeah, it's a great question.
	It's a common question.
	My own mother doesn't really like this answer, but it's how I operate.
	I don't have any problems with really any kind of case that I've come across.
	I've represented people who have done very horrendous things involving people younger than 14, 12, 9, and things like that.
	And my experience with that has always been that I'm a...
	And I don't say this to sort of say that you don't believe in this, but, you know, I sort of will tip the scale towards the presumption of innocence, right?
	I'm always going to fight for that, even if it's pretty clear the person did it.
	And when I'm representing these types of cases, I'm also thinking sort of beyond that criminal defendant.
	One situation that I can recall was a father and a son, I'm sorry, a father and a daughter type of a situation, older father, very young daughter.
	I mean, absolutely a horrendous type of a situation.
	Makes everybody's skin kind of crawl a little bit.
	That was, or a lot of it, that was a situation that was like a nuclear bomb that went off.
	So that defendant was in a very difficult position based on the facts and the evidence, but the case exploded to his family.
	It exploded to his wife, his daughter, everybody at his office, and nobody really knew anything about this.
	And so a big part of our role there was to help that, to help deal with that nuclear bomb that went off and help.
	Put the pieces back together in this family.
	And, you know, that works for me.
	But we have other lawyers at our firm, my business partner.
	He's got kids.
	He's got two kids, right?
	He's got a three-year-old and a five-year-old.
	And so those types of cases, that's not his first thing that he wants to do in the morning.
	But there are other attorneys that, you know, will take those cases.
	I think what Dershowitz, what he was explaining is that, you know, you just...
	You work the cases that I think you can deliver your best work on and you can be passionate about.
	And that's not the same for everybody.
	And so everybody's going to find what works for them.
	So what you do is you shift to your passion about the presumption of innocence and fighting for that.
	And thus are able to fight.
	I could, there's a certain defendants.
	I'm like Shatner's character in Boston Legal.
	Doesn't want to represent somebody.
	So he knows he, the way judge orders him to represent him.
	So he shoots the guy and thus creates a conflict of interest.
	He shoots.
	That would be my natural inclination, unfortunately.
	So I realize I can't.
	Even if I agree with the principle of what you're talking about and what Dershowitz talks about, it just doesn't translate for me personally what it is.
	Can I vent on this?
	Go ahead.
	Go ahead, Joe.
	And I mean the ultimate respect to Robert Gruller.
	Certainly, I worship the guy.
	Seriously.
	Well, not genuinely worship, but you understand.
	Utmost respect.
	That's who you're praying to at 7 in the morning?
	That explains it.
	Robert, after Mossad, I'm just going to say that.
	We've got to get our Mossad check.
	I heard Dershowitz on your channel give this whole nobility explanation for the defendants that he represents.
	And how this is what the American judicial system is all about.
	And this is how he'd rather let 100 guilty men go free than let one innocent man go to jail.
	And that he is basically the prince of protecting us.
	And that this is, without people like him, that that's exactly what would happen.
	And my perspective on that is, that's the biggest piece of self-serving crap I've ever heard.
	And here's why.
	Because at the end of the day, what he's really doing is, he's testing the strength of our judicial system.
	This is not a test.
	It's not a morality test.
	First of all, I don't agree with the general principle of set 100 guilty men free just to save one man.
	Because if I asked you, just think about this for a second.
	First, the number of crimes those 100 guilty men are going to do, and compared to that one person spending his life in prison, I'm sorry, at the end of the day, they could literally kill or hurt, rape...
	The worst possible villains, thousands of people could be impacted by that, so we save one person.
	When in our society do we ever say that exposing thousands, tens of thousands of people to mortal peril, to the worst type of abuses known to man, to psychopaths, that that's better than putting one man in jail?
	I don't even understand that conceptually when you break it down that way.
	One innocent man in jail, Joe.
	And I'm going to tell you right off the bat.
	That's what I'm saying.
	I disagree with what you're saying right now, but I'm going to listen to you and then formulate my thoughts.
	Okay, I appreciate that.
	Yeah, so fine.
	Let me ask you this.
	If we had a situation, instead of being our judicial system, where it's like, if one person dies, we'll save 10,000 lives.
	Everyone would take that every day of the week.
	But if instead of that, it's one person going to jail or 10,000 people die, then that's...
	No, we can't do that.
	That's a crazy...
	That's a crazy structure to believe in.
	I don't even understand that conceptually.
	But here's the point I want to make to each of you, and that is this: we all know our judicial system is flawed.
	We know there are problems with it.
	There are countless problems.
	More so, we could write a library of books about the problems of our judicial system.
	So to say that, oh, okay, if you can poke a hole in how the judicial system applied in this one case, now that is preserving American justice.
	That is expressing such arrogance in the perfection of the way our laws are written that it's mind-boggling.
	pretending as if there aren't crazy loopholes and flaws in the laws as codified by the American Jewish You're not testing out the police whether they did things right or wrong.
	You're essentially testing out how well-drafted our laws are.
	And I, for one, have seen enough of our laws to know that many of them are very, very poorly drafted.
	So it's not saving an innocent man.
	It's not that type of nobility.
	It's actually, I'm clever enough to find a basis as to why under the way the law is written, I can...
	Reinterpret it.
	Reapply it in a way to get my clients to go free.
	And that way I'm saving an innocent man that I might, in my heart of hearts, know literally killed 100 nuns or small children.
	Literally.
	I'm saying it doesn't matter.
	There's no difference.
	There's no difference whether they killed one person or 100 nuns.
	It doesn't matter.
	We're going to let them go free.
	It's not hypothetical.
	It's not hypothetical.
	Because I'm not saying if they killed 100 nuns.
	You don't care if they killed 100 nuns or if they didn't or who their victims are.
	You're applying this to all categories.
	I'm going to say this, and Robert, you'll chime in afterwards.
	Your hypothetical is interesting, but now you say the ambiguous laws allow for ambiguous defenses.
	Having seen the way ambiguous laws are weaponized to prosecute innocent people, I am now under the impression that I will allow 99 guilty people to go free.
	To make sure one innocent person does not get railroaded a la Roger Stone, Michael Flynn.
	How many others do we need right now?
	And I'll defend myself and my family at the front door of my house, but not beyond that.
	And when you say that the ambiguous laws allow for defenses, yes, the flip side to that is ambiguous laws allow for ambiguous prosecutions.
	And that is how stuff goes haywire.
	And I've seen it in real time in the United States in my YouTube career.
	Career.
	That was a lofty way.
	But who goes first?
	Grueler.
	Respond to Joe.
	I don't even know where the corners are anymore.
	Respond to Joe, because I know you have something to say.
	Well, I have a lot to say.
	And first of all, like Joe said, I absolutely respect his opinion.
	And I think that a lot of people agree with him.
	When I first told my mom I was going to be a defense attorney, she's like, how could you possibly do something like that, Robert?
	And because it's that idea.
	It's that idea that you're representing.
	Bad people who are going to get out there and do bad things.
	We could talk all day.
	When Joe was speaking, I was squirming out of my chair, if you could see that.
	But there's a lot that we could dive into.
	When I think about this issue fundamentally, I try to go back to my position on the function and the role of government.
	Really, what are we asking government to do?
	Are they people who should be concocting rules in society to manage?
	Should they be like global organizers and bureaucrats that say that certain, you know, basically optimize for harm?
	You know, are we trying to optimize for the amount of crime?
	Or is the proper role, is the proper function of government to, you know, preserve liberty?
	Is it to sort of step out of the way and let other people just live their lives?
	And I kind of, you know, I kind of go in that camp that I don't want the government to sort of manage harm in society.
	You know, they're going to say, because their definitions are always...
	They're always changing.
	And so my thing, I think the most liberty for the most people involves less government, less decisions from bureaucrats.
	And I think that the fundamental role is to preserve that liberty.
	And so the idea that one innocent person might be sacrificed for the greater good, it's just antithetical to sort of my core, but I understand it.
	I understand there's a big contingency out there of people that just say, We need to manage the harm and manage the effects of criminality.
	And they have concerns about a defense attorney saying, yeah, I'm going to fight to the end of the world to get this person off because the government violated his constitutional rights.
	I understand that disconnect deeply.
	I would segregate it between a philosophical level and a practical level.
	Philosophically, I agree with Joe that I would not pick...
	A society that lets 100 murderers go free to keep one person from suffering wrongful punishment.
	I so distrust the state that I do apply that rule when it comes to the state.
	Because down deep, what I'm really saying is I think the state will prosecute a whole bunch of innocent people.
	And so because I don't like the state's power to determine guilt and distrust its ability to actually accurately ascertain guilt.
	Is such that I would rather have a system that says let 100 guilty men go free from the state's power of prosecution than let one innocent person get wrongfully prosecuted.
	And my solution is, privately, we can take the bad people Louisiana swamping and thus solve the solution in one way.
	Is that Dexter?
	That's a Dexter solution?
	Hey, I'm from Tennessee.
	That's the solution.
	You don't let the government do it.
	You take out the trash the old-fashioned way.
	Also, just to clarify, wrongly prosecuted, I can live with.
	It's wrongly convicted.
	If they want to prosecute, make sure they've got their ducks in order so that they're not setting up a wrongful prosecution or a wrongful prosecution a la Ghislaine Maxwell.
	I genuinely believe at this point in time...
	Call me whatever name you want on earth.
	I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
	I'm a conspiracy analyst.
	I do believe that this prosecution of Glenn Maxwell, Robert, we've been talking about it for two years now.
	I believe that something feels lacking in it.
	And when you come after waiting two years for trial and bring four witnesses, yeah, you get your wrongful prosecutions, and then you get your wrongful prosecutions, which is, let me just do the best I can to get the minimum I want and then walk away.
	I was going to ask a question for Joe.
	What would your dad say about that philosophical question?
	I think my father would...
	I think he's disgusted by criminal defense attorneys.
	My view basically is that criminal defense attorneys sold their soul for a fat annual salary and 10 points of IQ.
	Because they tend to be really bright.
	They tend to be bright people and the ones who are good at it make a ton of money and...
	At the end of the day, look, I'm not looking for abusive prosecution either.
	I only want people who commit crimes to go to jail.
	I think keeping society safe from genuine criminals is the higher level of nobility.
	I like how you split the baby there.
	That was very King Solomon-esque there, Barnes, by going philosophical versus practical.
	I appreciate the cleverness of that answer.
	It's really insightful.
	My philosophy honors degree, my thesis was called deontological consequentialism.
	I think I mentioned it way back in the day.
	But it was not a question of maximizing the good.
	It was a question of maximizing the ethical good.
	And so, yes, you let guilty people go free if the state does not prove its case because you don't want the state weaponizing its...
	Prosecutorial abilities to convict the innocent.
	And we're seeing it with the January 6th.
	I think Michael Flynn was the tip of the iceberg of my black pill.
	Jan 6th is now the full base of the iceberg, either oral or anal suppository.
	That's where I realized, holy crap, this is what happens when they can get away with it.
	And they can get away with it in plain sight.
	Can I bring this home here?
	Right here, Ghislaine Maxwell case.
	Yes.
	So right here, not a hypothetical, right here in the Glenn Maxwell case, we're not able to consider what happened with Kate because they successfully argued that the law should be interpreted that way rather than this way, or because that successful argument by these very intelligent defense attorneys in theory now means that whatever crimes are committed against Kate are no longer deemed crimes because we're instead of looking as under 18,
	we're looking as over 17. Under the statute under which they prosecuted.
	And that's a very big distinction.
	Because then I'll flip the blame right back to the prosecution, not to the defense.
	But let's put it this way.
	If they worded it differently and they said prostitution, the acts that were taken by Ghislaine Jeffrey Epstein don't change.
	They didn't act in accordance to trying to comply with the statute and that was their concern.
	It's a matter of how are we reinterpreting this to decide whether or not Ghislaine Maxwell deserves punishment for what she did to Kate.
	And I think that that's not saving an innocent person.
	That's finding a nice legal loophole to say, this is not upholding the Constitution.
	You're finding a nice legal loophole to say, you see, in New York, it's 17. So let's ignore the fact that the statute says under 18 transport that prostitution wasn't there.
	Or you can say that they didn't say prostitution, even though they referenced this statute, and you're defending from this charge of this statute.
	But since they didn't reference specifically prostitution, they said minors.
	So now, all of a sudden now, we...
	We should let her go free, and that's the more noble road.
	I don't buy that that's nobility.
	I don't understand how it's nobility.
	Let me ask a question that would be my philosopher brother's question.
	He's got a new book out that's good for folks if they want to give a Christmas gift.
	Other than one of the best Christmas gifts, of course, you can buy is the gift that gives back, and that's a subscription at vivobarneslaw.locals.com.
	Second best gift, what's your brother's book's title?
	I'm momentarily blanking on the title.
	Just look up Gordon P. Barnes.
	You'll find the book, Philosophy.
	But here would be the kind of exam question he would ask.
	Would you be willing to give up your own life as an innocent individual, accept wrongful prosecution, conviction, and punishment?
	If, in return, it would guarantee 100 Maxwells are put in prison, locked away, and kept from harming anyone.
	Joe?
	No.
	Touche.
	No hesitation.
	No.
	Touche.
	Prove the guilt.
	Would you say yes or no, Joe?
	No, I'm saying touche.
	I don't feel that...
	Because I might actually say yes, depending on the circumstances.
	I don't think I would because I don't feel that sufficiently vested in my belief in our American judicial system.
	I have so many problems with the American judicial system that for me to say that I'm willing to give my life in order to fix the judicial system, that's garbage.
	I'm like, no, you know what?
	I care about taking care of my six kids before I take care of fixing our...
	That's my job to fix the American judicial system.
	That makes personal the practical philosophical...
	And it's a great question.
	It's a great question.
	And people have accused Robert of saying, you know, Robert, we've discussed in Ahmaud Arbery specifically, let the guy steal, let him get away, take pictures, and let the cops do their thing.
	And it was like, oh, go steal from Robert and Barnes.
	Or Robert, go steal from Barnes and Viva.
	I was like, okay, you probably could do that.
	And that's a philosophical question.
	Would I rather not murder someone or not kill someone to allow them to steal my goods?
	99 times out of 100.
	Unless I feel at risk, I would prefer to let someone steal from me than be forced to kill them for it.
	Well, it's a classic choice.
	It's like the Texas porch case.
	In parts of Texas, you jump on my porch and force me off my porch.
	Screw you.
	You signed your Darwin Award winner death warrant.
	Other people find it insane that somebody jumps on your porch and you can shoot them for it.
	But in Texas...
	I mean, Peep and Tom's have been shot and executed, and they said that was just fine right on the site.
	So, you know, they just got different standards.
	So you have different cultural standards in different places, and I think that reflect their own unique histories and cultures and what have you.
	But I think it's a fascinating debate when you get into the levels of philosophy and moral issues compounded with the practical policy impacts in the day and age we actually live it.
	But I guess to sort of kind of wrap it up.
	Do you guys think that Delane Maxwell will be convicted of all counts?
	Joe on the ground, then to Grueler on the top.
	This is the actual filtration system of the information.
	It goes from Joe, and then it goes up to Grueler, and then it goes out to the rest of the world.
	Joe, what do you say first?
	I think that if the jury hates...
	What I've heard from people inside the courtroom is that the jury hates the defense team.
	That they're frowning at them on cross-examination and basically shaking their heads when the victims are being cross-examined.
	And if there's enough that's been presented to convict, I will say that 35 witnesses, which are scheduled to be called for the defense, gives a lot of time for the jury to forget about the powerfulness of Carolyn's testimony or how they felt about Jane or their anger towards the defense team.
	And that can go on for two, three, four weeks if you have 35 witnesses.
	That can go on for a long time.
	The jury think back about how angry they were about cross-examinations of Carolyn.
	So I think there's enough there to convict.
	Personally, whether or not they legally should be convicted, whether there's no reasonable doubt here, I don't know.
	It's like Robert always says, it's lizard brain.
	If they don't like Ghislaine, there's definitely enough here to convict.
	If they want to approach it from a purely judicial standard, I think they probably should say that there's reasonable doubt here.
	Because there are questions, and I think that after hearing from 35 witnesses, many of them experts, testify about all this, I cannot confidently predict that there will be a conviction other than the word I've heard from third parties who have been sitting in the courtroom and just say that the jury seems to really dislike the defense.
	So my answer is...
	I think there will be some convictions, not as much as morally there probably should be.
	Gru, what do you say?
	That's fair.
	I think that's very fair.
	The one thing that I have absolutely been missing and totally lacking on this is any of the personal touch.
	Joe is seeing it.
	I'm not.
	I'm reading transcripts on Twitter.
	And like Joe said, there's a lot.
	Robert, you know this.
	When you go to CLEs and stuff for trial practice, they teach you that most conversation is...
	Nonverbal.
	You know, it's body language.
	It's how people are moving around.
	It's facial expressions and things like that.
	And we can't see any of that.
	Joe can.
	So it's hard to guess.
	But I am of the mindset that there is a ton of reasonable doubt here that they have not overcome.
	I mean, and I think we're just getting started on it.
	Today on our channel, we covered two new documents that came out.
	The defense is now.
	They submitted a motion.
	They're trying to call.
	I believe it's Jane and Carolyn's lawyers to come in and testify specifically, saying that none of their conversations with any of these victims were protected by attorney-client privilege, and they're going to get into some juicy stuff with them.
	In particular, Jane, apparently there was a prosecutor in this case.
	Jane was the person, and I know we're sort of running out of time here, but Jane was the victim who had that problem remembering whether she went to the Lion King, the movie, or Lion King, the Broadway show.
	The defense says that there was a prosecutor, not a part of this current case, but prior, who emailed Jane or emailed Jane's lawyer, I think it was Robert Glassman at the time, and said that's a problem for them because it's a difference of three years.
	The movie came out in 94 or sometime around that time, and then the Broadway play came out, I think, several years later in 1997.
	And so if she's remembering that she went to the Broadway play, that makes her three years older than what they thought.
	And so that would make her no longer a very good victim.
	And so the defense is saying, no, we want to call Robert Glassman and have conversations about this because they're saying that the prosecutors sent him an email that said, maybe you should just go and talk to your victim about this.
	And maybe she could just happen to remember that she was talking about the movie and not the Broadway play.
	And so, you know, that just goes right back into this theme of the memory, manipulation and money.
	She also got, I think, five million dollars.
	Her lawyer went back out and demanded twenty five million.
	Right.
	And so if any of that stuff comes out.
	I think as emotional as it is having the victims get out there and sob on the stand, I think that the juries are really going to take a look and sort of see through that.
	So I think that there's plenty of reasonable doubt.
	My other prediction has always been if she is convicted that it's thrown out on appeal.
	I think that the non-prosecution agreement from 2007 is going to be very curious.
	And that Joe mentioned this earlier in the stream that Galen Maxwell...
	You know, there were four other named co-conspirators that were immune from any prosecution out of this ridiculous deal.
	I've never seen anything like it that came out in 2007.
	Why is Galen Maxwell, if she should have been covered by that, why is she being prosecuted here?
	I think that she was, in fact, covered by that.
	I think it was a ridiculous non-prosecution agreement.
	I don't know how that got drafted.
	But on appeal, I think she's got some pretty good appealable issues.
	And so, you know, I'm not sure that there's going to be a slam dunk here one way or the other.
	And it might be the Cosby routine.
	You know, Cosby gets convicted.
	Everybody does cartwheels.
	Can I point this out to you?
	Look, Jane is the strongest basis for conviction when you look at the statute, and she's the most likely one to lead toward conviction.
	The one thing that Ghislaine's really going to struggle with is this.
	The flight logs from David Rogers, the second pod to testify, clearly show that Jane That a person by the same first name as Jane flew on November 11, 1996, at which time our victim, Jane, was 16 years old.
	He further testified that when asked on cross-examination, weren't there two different Janes who were involved?
	People had the same first name as Jane.
	It was her and then a personal assistant who came on there.
	Couldn't have been her.
	Couldn't have been her.
	And he was like, and then he thought about it.
	He's like, no, it couldn't have been her because the second Jane I didn't meet until 2003.
	And on redirect, he was asked, how many Janes ever flew on your plane?
	He said two, just those two, the 2003 personal assistants and 1996, our Jane here.
	So that is very compelling evidence, documented evidence that has been admitted to and is really compelling to say she was not 17 the first time she flew from Palm Beach to New Jersey.
	Because the flight wasn't Teterboro, New Jersey, that the first time she flew was when she was actually 16 years old, documented by a birth certificate and flight logs, and the pilot's testimony that she's the only Jane who ever flew on her plane before 2003.
	So that's strong.
	That's compelling to me.
	I'm going to bring this up because I want to end the evening on this.
	I will not let David Frum go for this tweet.
	Across the United States, well-meaning citizens are raising awareness about this stuff, which is very bad stuff.
	We've already been demonetized, but maybe, maybe YouTube will think about, we've been good.
	We've been good, people.
	An epidemic that doesn't exist.
	Kate Tiffany unpacks how an internet conspiracy theory birthed a 21st century moral panic on The Atlantic.
	I sit next to her in court.
	The author, the one who's following the trial for The Atlantic, I sit next to her on a regular...
	I've sat next to her like three different days so far.
	Anybody who's watching our streams for long enough knows my initial reaction is, what does her perfume smell like?
	Because I have an immediate visceral olfactory response to people who I dislike.
	And between David Frum and whoever Kate Tiffany is, I have an olfactory responsive reflexive response in my brain.
	But forget that.
	The people who spread these rumors are impervious to fact and reason, but still, here are facts and reason.
	And that is the confession through projection upon which we shall end this stream because Frum should not be forgiven for that because he posted that the week of Ghislaine Maxwell.
	He posted that the week of the senior editor at CNN being guilty of very bad stuff.
	The same week of stuff.
	That everyone can see with their own plain effing eyes.
	And the question is, who are you going to believe me or your eyes?
	And Frum wants you to believe him and not your eyes.
	What's the next step?
	I don't know who fields it between Nierman and Gruller.
	What's the next step?
	The trial restarts tomorrow.
	Tomorrow at 9 a.m. we reopen beginning with the defense.
	The defense will start his case at 9 a.m.
	If the jury shows up at its normal time, 9.30 a.m.
	And I'll be dropping for you my first report, God willing, tomorrow at lunch as to what testimony the defense opens with.
	And then each day of the trial, whether this goes for another week or month, however long the defense goes on, I will be in court, God willing, every day they let me in there, and I will be dropping one to two.
	videos per day, wrapping up what I saw during the previous three to four hours.
	And then at night, Sunday to Thursday, I do a nightly live stream, fleshing that out, 10pm to midnight Eastern.
	And I urge you, if you want to know what's going on in the Glenn Maxwell trial, from one of only two or three attorneys who are in there watching it, please make sure.
	Check out Good Logic.
	I gotta highlight that, because at one point, GoodLogic was saying, the only lawyer, but now we know that Matthew Russell Lee is a lawyer.
	Yeah, but is he a litigator?
	Is he a litigator?
	I sent you a super chat.
	You were talking to him.
	I sent you a super chat saying, is he a litigator?
	Ask him if he's a litigator.
	And you know what?
	All the super chats you read, just that one, you just right on by it.
	I just wanted to know, is he a litigator?
	Joe is blocked on my channel.
	He's blocked.
	All right, Joe, I didn't mean to ignore it.
	You're doing the God's work on this and Godspeed and God bless.
	Gruler, you're also doing the God's work on this.
	Godspeed and God bless.
	Your mind map that you did not want to share with the legal community, you selfish bastard.
	I also have, by the way, oh yeah, I also have a mind map.
	It looks a lot like one you may have seen.
	It's got one or two extra nodes on it, so you might want to check that out.
	That's fair use.
	That's definitely fair use.
	Yeah, you made a few changes.
	Okay, this is phenomenal.
	So, Gruler...
	Nierman, everyone knows where Robert Barnes and I can find us.
	Barnes, where can they find us?
	At vivabarneslaw.locals.com, where you can give the gift that keeps on giving to all your commie friends to wake them up to the real world.
	Oh, fantastic.
	Grueler, where can we find you?
	So I'm over at Robert Grueler ESQ on YouTube.
	All the good work that Joe's doing and the guys who are there, boots on the ground.
	I take all of their data.
	I sort of...
	I cobble it all together from Twitter and some of the mainstream media sources.
	I go through the federal court dockets.
	We take a look at all the exhibits.
	I assemble it.
	We try to do a recap on the show every day.
	And so, you know, we're very grateful to Joe.
	We're very grateful for everybody who's interested in it.
	We have a whole mind map that details everything.
	So please feel free to share that as well.
	We drop that in the link here on Viva's channel.
	And Viva, thanks for having us, man.
	It was a lot of fun.
	I appreciate it.
	Thank you very much.
	And good logic.
	Check me on YouTube.
	Where can we find YouTube?
	If you're going to subscribe to me on my channel, I'm going to urge you to hit the bell because I lose like 200 or 300 subscribers a day that just get shaved off because I am somewhat passionate about my beliefs and Susan doesn't really share many of my beliefs.
	You can also check me on goodlogic.locals.com where I'm able to give the nitty-gritty details that I cannot describe on YouTube.
	That's the right way to say good logic.
	Can you say that one more time?
	Good logic.
	That is true New Yorker.
	He's good logic.
	L-A-W-G-I-C.
	It's coffee.
	It's coffee.
	K-A-W-F-E-E.
	I will put the links in the pinned comment.
	Gentlemen, stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.
	The child who's been bothering me from behind can now come.
	Enjoy the evening.
	I've got my pirate hat.
	Gentlemen, stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.
	And everyone else in the chat, thank you very much.
	Share away, spread the word, and we shall see everyone on the interwebs.

▲