Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 19, 2021 - Viva & Barnes

02:34:06

Ep. 92: Maxwell, Potter, Baldwin, FakeBook, Holmes, Oh Canada and MORE! Viva & Barnes

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good evening.
	That was Winston talking.
	What do you say, Winston?
	Does my breath smell bad?
	Good evening, everyone.
	We are live, and I've done the intro now two weeks in a row.
	The intro was not what I was forgetting.
	I wanted to do the intro this week with Harry the guinea pig, but kids are watching Home Alone, and I didn't want to bother them to come get the guinea pig.
	And bring it back upstairs.
	Okay, down you go.
	How's everyone doing?
	Another Sunday night, another massive week of law, and another infuriating week of politics.
	Garbage.
	It's all garbage.
	Yeah, this is what I was thinking.
	Clown world garbage is what we're living through.
	Where do we start?
	First of all, we'll just start with...
	Standard disclaimers.
	I won't get to all the Super Chats.
	YouTube takes 30% of the Super Chats.
	We are streaming live on Rumble as well.
	Rumble takes 20%, which is better for creators, better for the platform, yada, yada, yada.
	No legal advice, no medical advice, no undermining election fortification advice.
	And I thank everyone in advance for the support and everything.
	But the...
	Super chats are not a right of entry into the conversation.
	I may not bring them up.
	And if I don't, and you're going to be upset about that, don't give it.
	I don't like people feeling upset.
	It is not yet a man bun.
	But I tell you what, it's getting there.
	So here's the deal.
	Without the earphones, it looks...
	Uh-oh, I'm out of focus.
	It looks a little wild.
	With the earphones, I find it takes easily 10 years off of me.
	Maybe.
	Maybe not.
	Marion loves it.
	My father does not love the hair, J.M. M. Barkovich.
	But I love it.
	And it makes...
	It's a funny thing.
	At one point in the last five years, I associated myself...
	I felt like skin fades.
	I liked the look.
	I liked the feel.
	Now, maybe it's a sign of losing it.
	I like this.
	I like this a lot more.
	I feel like a wild dog in the wilderness with hair like this.
	And speaking of wild dogs, first of all, is the volume good?
	The volume should be good, right?
	Let me know if my daddy is right.
	Yeah, you know what?
	And maybe it's a midlife crisis, rebellion against my dad.
	Not.
	I just, I like it.
	I like the way it looks.
	A tennis player.
	Yes.
	A squad.
	I feel free.
	I feel free.
	A wild Winston.
	Yes.
	We've got so much on the menu for tonight.
	I mean, it's nuts that there's just never going to be a quiet week now that the law YouTube-verse has become a thing.
	People are paying attention to what's going on in the world around them, and it's beautiful.
	But it's also sort of discouraging.
	It is somewhat discouraging to see what's going on in the world, and it's somewhat difficult to maintain optimism and to continue thinking that things are ever going to get better.
	I wake up in the night with the dread that this is not the new normal.
	People are just so fatigued, they're just ready to give up and allow this to become the new normal.
	I was thinking, it's a war of attrition.
	And the attrition is of one's will to expect freedom and to expect to go back to the world that we once knew.
	Rock concerts, socializing, fundamental freedoms.
	And people have now been traumatized by two years of fear.
	I'm not equating anything to the common cold.
	And there's no but.
	We have now weaponized hygiene.
	We've weaponized viruses.
	We have weaponized what was otherwise...
	I was just watching old ads.
	You know, old mommy never gets a day off flu commercials.
	Where, you know, like when a mother had a flu, she couldn't take a day off.
	And so they made medicine to treat the symptoms.
	Watching those ads now, it's like, oh.
	If mommy gets a cold, not only does she get a day off, she gets put into quarantine for two weeks, even if it comes back negative for COVID.
	I mean, the government has successfully reprogrammed and reshaped society and social expectations.
	And it took two years to do it, but they did it.
	And it's depressing because I've seen the sharpest minds, most intelligent people.
	Drip, drip, drip, slowly but surely.
	Now all of a sudden, the government in Quebec, for those of you who don't know, coming in as of December 20th.
	Unvaccinated people cannot get into church.
	And it's inhumane.
	It's inhuman.
	It's over the top.
	But it's not even shocking anymore because the callous to humanity...
	Has been built up over time now that it's been one scratch after another and the skin gets thicker and then now you don't even feel the pinpricks.
	Now you can go rock climbing.
	You've got leather on your hands.
	For anybody who's never rock climbed, when you first start rock climbing, your skin's very sensitive.
	It gets all pink and soft because you're rock climbing.
	It's like hard sandpaper on your hands.
	And every time you go rock climbing, it hurts, but it hurts less and less.
	And then eventually it doesn't hurt at all because your hands have become callous to the abrasions of the rock face itself.
	The grainy granite.
	Your hands have become callous to that.
	And that is what has happened to our souls.
	Both in respect of our fundamental freedoms and what we would tolerate in terms of inhumane treatment of others.
	Francois Legault coming in on December 20th saying unvaccinated people can't get into church.
	He may as well have just said specifically ethnic minority Christians you don't get to go to church this year.
	And nobody's up in arms shocked about it and some people are actually justifying it to themselves.
	And it happened so slowly.
	And it happened so gradually that, well, they have to do it because Omicron is here.
	Omicron.
	The new thing that the media is running with, the governments are running with.
	I have no words.
	I'm going to pull up a tweet.
	The rant is not yet over, but let me get to some chats.
	Happy holidays to you in Barnes, wonderful locals community.
	Thank you very much.
	We've got a good shirt that I'm working on.
	I just haven't been able to put it together yet.
	Hey, Viva.
	Sorry, let me see this here.
	Are you interested in the Valor Law lawsuit representing Canadians?
	I cannot represent anybody in court anymore.
	I can't.
	I don't have the stomach for it.
	I don't have the soul for it.
	And it would make for bad representation.
	And I also don't think I would be able to bite my tongue enough anymore.
	I think I've lost my filter.
	But for you, Barnes and Legal Mindset, I would have lost faith long ago.
	Y 'all are the soft white pill, need more short and long hair pics to compare.
	Oh, I'll be posting some more on Locals.
	And speaking of not losing faith, I had a friend come over, a friend from high school.
	He happens to make delicious honey, and he brought me over some of his homemade honey that comes from the roof.
	It comes from the roof.
	That's where the honeys go.
	The bees.
	And we talked.
	And it's so discouraging because these issues have become, I don't want to say litmus tests, but I would say that if anybody says, dares ask me for vaccination status before inviting me over, that might be...
	I won't start a fight, but it might be the end of any cordial relations that we might have had.
	I'm losing my $70,000 a year job at Lowe's next week in New York City because I don't want to be forced, because I understand.
	It's, there is, there...
	I can't say what I have to say because it might run afoul of the rules.
	But I want to bring up one thing.
	I'm going to share this.
	Share a screen.
	Let me make sure I can get the right one.
	Chrome tab.
	And I want to share this.
	So I'm going to go to my Twitter feed.
	Bearing in mind, people, I can't see you now or your chats or your comments.
	And I'm just hoping I can do this properly.
	One very interesting thing that happened today, 100,000 followers, I hate the word, but 100,000 fellow humans joining me on the Twitter-verse, which is, I mean, it's not a number.
	What it is is that when I'm screaming into the abyss, There are people who are hearing.
	And there may be even people who are echoing, or at the very least, connecting with what I'm saying.
	And that is why the number is important, and for no other reason.
	But I have to go down to this.
	Rosemary Barton works for the CBC.
	I believe she works for the CBC.
	Let me just make sure about that.
	Chief Political Correspondent Rosemary Barton Live.
	Okay, maybe she doesn't anymore, but she did at one point.
	I just want to bring up this interview.
	Listen to this.
	Listen to this.
	They're both wearing face masks.
	Socially distanced.
	Listen to this.
	The fact that there is peak tolerance for a shutdown and for more rules in life.
	Omicron doesn't care if we're tired of restrictions.
	It's going to keep doing what it does anyway.
	And we have a choice because we've seen it so many times.
	If we act early and carefully to hold back, to starve Omicron.
	If we, over the next two weeks, don't feed it, don't give it opportunities to spread more than it has to.
	We'll have a much better winter and a way better spring.
	I have to stop.
	I have to stop there.
	How do I get...
	Stop.
	What's going on?
	No.
	Sorry, guys.
	I'll be back in a second when I figure this out.
	So who else just puked in their mouths a little bit?
	Just another two weeks.
	I mean, they treat us like we're idiots.
	They treat us like we're idiots with memories of goldfish.
	And the problem is, I don't know if too many people are.
	Or if too many people have just entered into the realm of the gambler's loss paradox.
	I've lost so much.
	I've given up so much under the promise of freedom.
	I've given up everything.
	And just two more weeks.
	Just two more weeks.
	Just another winter.
	Two years into this nonsense.
	And this clown of a prime minister is saying, we know what works if we get it early.
	Everything this guy has done for the last two years has done nothing.
	And the deaths that occurred, we know where they occurred.
	And by the way, they occurred in long-term healthcare facilities because this dunce gave away our PPE when he knew the pandemic was coming in 2020.
	Gave away the PPE.
	Donated, not all of it, but enough, to China in the early stages.
	And now left them at the time to die.
	And they did.
	70-80% of Canada's deaths are in long-term healthcare facilities.
	And now...
	He's touting everything that we've done has worked when we have record numbers of this new variant, which seems to be, by and large, not lethal at all, which might be nature's vaccine.
	And this guy's coming out and saying, record numbers, but what we've been doing has been working just another two weeks.
	Omicron doesn't care.
	Omicron doesn't care if we starve Omicron.
	Yeah, you can starve Omicron, Trudeau, by starving Canadians.
	That's one way to do it.
	Okay, so that's my rant.
	Oh, it's enraging.
	There's no other word.
	It's enraging.
	And it's tough to continue smiling.
	It's tough to get up every day in this dystopian Groundhog Day where we're two years into this and we've got this guy saying two more weeks.
	Omicron doesn't care.
	Omicron, last I checked, I believe there was one fatality worldwide in the UK.
	Last I checked, maybe it's more now.
	And this guy wants to shut down the country again.
	And you got Francois Legault in the province because of Omicron.
	Telling unvaccinated Christians, tough noogies.
	And then you have other people saying, you can't compare this to 1930s Germany, because you can still practice your religion.
	It's just that if you're unvaccinated, you can't do it in church, so go do it in your basement.
	Well, Mark Twain said, history doesn't repeat, but it tends to rhyme.
	And it is true.
	Nothing in the future will ever be like that which was in the past, but it will certainly smell like it a little bit.
	And there are no two ducks that are identical, but when they look sufficiently the same, you can start calling them ducks.
	Alrighty.
	So on the menu for tonight, people...
	And by the way, sorry, I should be positive in all of this.
	I don't know what the solution is.
	The problem is in Canada, and I say this with respect and love for my Canadian brethren.
	In Canada, I have noticed that more people love the sense...
	Of protection and security.
	And Americans love the sense of freedom.
	And there's a lot of...
	I mean, this is not a hard and fast rule because there's a ton of people in the States who are really on board with all of this.
	You got...
	Oh, that dude there posting his booster shot.
	I mean, you got everyone in the...
	You know, you got your people in the States on board with all of these measures.
	They want more of them.
	And you have people in Canada who are fighting tooth and nail against them.
	But I don't know what the solution is, but it has to be a political one.
	But at some point, you cannot save people who do not want to save themselves.
	And then at that point, you just have to say, I'm going to save the people who want to save themselves.
	Oh, hails to the great Viva Fro, Nobile Barnes, Scalch.
	Thank you very much.
	All right, now hold on.
	I'm going to try to get some super chats before Barnes gets in, and then we're going to go to the menu of the evening.
	Oh, I forgot to put slow mode on.
	I told you people.
	I knew I was forgetting something.
	Doesn't matter.
	Send 16,000 pounds to China after China bought up the market.
	We Canadians failed the history exam and are doomed to repeat it.
	He donated.
	And his excuse?
	It was going to go bad.
	It was expiring in a month or two.
	As if face masks expire.
	As if expired face masks are not still somehow better than no face masks.
	And I was getting calls.
	I mean, I've lived this now.
	I was getting calls from people who had family in LTHCs, long-term healthcare.
	I was getting calls from the facilities saying, we have nothing.
	We want to sue.
	I want to sue for access to my family.
	At the time, they knew what was going on.
	Two weeks to stop the big O. There's an old saying in Tennessee in Texan, fool me once, fool me.
	I won't get fooled again.
	I like that.
	I think old GW has messed that one up a couple of times.
	Fellow Montrealer here, your streams are literally keeping me sane.
	Thank you so much, Mr. Toast.
	It used to be La Belle Provence, and now it is under the torment of Supreme Leader François Legault, and it's unbelievable.
	Okay.
	Learn from your southern brethren, slip across the border, collect boomsticks, and push back up against the oppressors.
	You know what the funny thing is?
	I studied the history of Quebec in Canada, and I did it twice because I failed it the first time in high school and had to do it in the summer, and I got the best grade in the class when I did it the second time in the summer.
	But I've forgotten a lot about it, and I should really go back and revisit it, because Kierkegaard, life can only make sense backwards, but has to be lived forwards.
	Or life can only be understood backwards, but must be lived forwards.
	It's a beautiful expression.
	Jeffrey Chase says, can't be doing this every four to eight years.
	We need to change as citizens first before changing our vote, closely coming to a point of no return in regards to an actual separation, divorce, and not just division as we currently have.
	No, this is, you know, someone was floating the argument as to why the unvaccinated should be denied or given, you know, not be given.
	Let me see if something is happening here.
	Um...
	Thank you.
	Okay, sorry, I don't know what that is, but I'll have to look at that afterwards.
	Someone had said, you know, the unvaccinated should be given secondary treatment if there's a shortage of hospital beds.
	And I said, that's good.
	Where do you stop with that?
	Like, okay, well, an overweight person who's in the hospital because of their life decisions, someone who drinks too much, someone who smokes, treat them secondary if other people are in there for, you know, if there's a shortage of beds.
	I say, well, that's not contagious.
	It doesn't matter why that bed is not available once you're in there and you need it.
	And if you're going to start getting into a world where you're going to decide who gets the treatment based on their life decisions, whether or not you agree with them, I mean, it's next-level stuff.
	Omicron stands for moronic, true.
	And Delta Omicron literally spells media control.
	And someone called me a conspiracy theorist for noting that.
	And I said, if you notice that and you don't think it's amazingly ironic, whatever, you're the conspiracy theorist because you are so scared of...
	These types of connections that you actually think they mean something.
	I just think it's a great, hilarious, actual thing.
	Delta, Omicron, all of those letters spell media control.
	We've heard what you have to say about it, Viva, but what are you doing to do about it?
	The government doesn't fear citizens who only talk.
	So, G-Man, other than running for federal office, which I did, what do you want me to do?
	I mean, is this saying, unless I...
	Start breaking windows?
	I'm not doing enough?
	Is this you holding me to your standards of what you think should be done?
	I'll do what I'll do.
	You do you.
	And I don't ever suggest anyone break the law, break windows, get violent, full stop.
	Because the second you do that, by the way, other than being immoral in my humble opinion, it's also impractical because that's exactly what they're waiting for so they can come in with the boots on the ground and use that out...
	What's the word I'm looking for?
	Oh, lashing out as an excuse to say, these people don't even know that we're doing this for their own good.
	So I've run for office.
	I put out the word.
	I share exposure.
	I do what I can.
	But I know what I'm comfortable with doing, and I know where my limits are.
	So if that's not enough for you, I mean, maybe I'm being very defensive about this.
	Maybe you just meant this, what am I going to do?
	But yeah, that's what I've done.
	Other people might think it's not enough.
	More power to them if they want to do more.
	I see Barnes in the back.
	Let me just, um, finish ranting.
	I actually think my blood pressure, you know, my heartbeat is very, very healthy, but, um, all right, let me see here.
	We got her.
	Dear loyal people, the color of the sky always has been.
	I don't know what that means, and I hope it doesn't mean anything that I'm, that's not supposed to mean.
	Okay, so on the menu for tonight, people.
	Ghislaine Maxwell trial, because I've got questions.
	Kim Potter trial, because I've got questions.
	Um, Elizabeth Holmes.
	I'm not as interested in that, but we're going to talk about it.
	We're going to talk about Alec Baldwin.
	We're going to talk about...
	Fakebook is what they need to be called now.
	The Facebook admitting that their fact checks are protected opinion and not actual facts.
	You can't make this poo-poo up if you tried, but you could and no one would believe you.
	Alright, I will take a deep breath.
	Barnes will come in and Barnes will be...
	Robert, how are you doing?
	Good, good.
	Can you...
	Everyone, tell me if the audio doesn't match up and I'll fix it.
	But, Robert, are you able to say anything to calm me down?
	No.
	No, boy.
	All right, Robert.
	Merry Christmas to everybody out there.
	It's Christmas week.
	Yes, Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to everybody.
	Robert and I are discussing what we do this Wednesday.
	We might...
	Reach out to the community and ask everyone to submit what they think are the best highlights of our interviews of the sidebars over the last year, and we'll do the top 10. If Robert's not available, I'll maybe just do the live stream on Wednesday and talk, take questions, and go over the top 10 highlights of our interviews of the last year, because there's been some doozies.
	Robert, before we get started, book recommendation for the week and what's in your mouth?
	So that's The French Quarter by Herbert Asbury, The History of the Underworld of New Orleans, which is a fun little book.
	And this is Romeo y Julieta.
	Okay, very nice.
	When you smoke a cigar, you don't have to spit in between drags on the cigar, do you?
	What do you mean?
	Like physically spit so you don't swallow the saliva that has gathered all the smoke and...
	And nicotine?
	No, I don't think so.
	Well, maybe I've not been smoking cigars properly.
	Okay, and they don't make you nauseous or dizzy?
	No.
	Okay, interesting.
	For some people it does, and for some people it depends on the individual as well as how they're smoking the cigar and the type of cigar it is.
	Some people don't handle strong cigars.
	They're better off with lighter cigars, like David Off or a Monte Cristo Cuban cigar.
	And I did forget, we are also going to talk about Davey Menzies.
	That's my other Twitter that's in the backdrop waiting to be pulled up.
	All right, Robert.
	So, yeah, by the way, I don't smoke cigars because they always make me nauseous, but I don't know if it was...
	Whatever.
	It's not something I'm going to get into at this stage in my life.
	Robert, okay, so what do we start with?
	I think we have to start with Ghislaine Maxwell because it's been fascinating to watch this.
	The trial...
	Is over.
	It's closed, and they're going to make closing arguments on Monday, correct?
	Nothing more is coming?
	Yep, that's correct.
	I have two questions, and I don't want to sound like the conspiracy theorist, because I'm just a conspiracy analyst now.
	I was thoroughly convinced it was going to be a slam dunk of a conviction before it started, and now I'm actually, if I were betting, and the odds were, if I would ever bet on something like this, and the odds were there, I think I would bet on an acquittal now because I saw the prosecution.
	At least I saw what we could see from reports.
	At the end of the day, Robert, they called four witnesses who were alleged victims, and only two of those four were even alleged victims in the sense that would be required for the accusations against Ghislaine Maxwell.
	No more than that.
	In defense, they called up the memory expert who, I believe...
	I believe she confirmed, if she did testify, that these memories can be falsified over time.
	I think stuff that we can all agree with.
	Cited some examples of one of the alleged victims changing a very material aspect of a memory as to whether or not she saw some play or some musical and she saw the movie, not the musical.
	And basically, fudging the line as to whether or not Glenn Maxwell was the mastermind perpetrator or just...
	Infused by false memory from the only two witnesses that they had into the Epstein scheme.
	So you've seen it now.
	We'll get into some objections that were maintained in terms of inadmissibility of evidence, which I think is a big problem.
	We'll get there in a sec.
	But what's your feeling now?
	Evidence is in and closed.
	What do you have to say about it?
	I'd say 85. Foul setting odds, 85% chance she's convicted.
	I mean, I just think that the...
	Emotional narrative, the moral narrative, they didn't do enough to give an alternative storyline about this.
	I mean, the effect of the defense, the defense talked about calling 35 witnesses.
	They ultimately only called a few.
	Ghislaine Maxwell herself did not take the stand.
	Their experts were okay, but not spectacular.
	It probably didn't help that her lead expert was also a lead expert for Harvey Weinstein.
	I would not have used a Harvey Weinstein expert, but, you know, just saying.
	And if I were in Ghislaine Maxwell's shoes.
	I mean, I think she thinks she has a fair chance at acquittal, but at the end of the day, does the jury believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, either of the two women's stories?
	That are the identified victims for criminal prosecution purposes.
	And I think they likely did.
	And they didn't do enough to impeach their testimony.
	I mean, they presented doubts about their memory recalls to certain events, but not as to the dramatic and traumatic events.
	And I think that's their problem.
	And so I don't think these kind of accusations rarely do you get acquittals unless there's real serious doubts about...
	The core of the accusations themselves, not just some doubts on the exterior.
	But the prosecution created undue risk of an acquittal because of their choice to focus on covering up other people's criminal activities and creating a fake narrative about what happened.
	I don't believe the prosecution's story, which is that Ghislaine Maxwell was down on her luck and was desperate for money, and so she befriended Jeffrey Epstein as a means to get some money.
	And became his madam for those purposes.
	I don't think that's what happened at all.
	But because that was their script and they had to stick to it, they left 100-plus victims' testimony out of the trial and left the bigger, broader story out of the trial, which was that this was something that was more coordinated for the benefit of more people than...
	Jeffrey Epstein, that you wouldn't even have to go the intel route.
	You could just say that this was a blackmail extortion rink, which included Epstein as a beneficiary, but that they were doing this and their real source of the money was to be able to blackmail and extort prominent and powerful people by setting them up with underage girls.
	The only way it works for blackmail or extortion purposes is if they are and look like.
	Underage girls.
	And that's what she was skilled at doing.
	You get into the history of her father and other things that would have reinforced that narrative.
	They chose to hide all of that.
	Chose to run away from all of that.
	As came out again at trial, apparently people were wondering what about the stuff they got from Epstein's safe in New York.
	I mean, the computer towers in Florida never showed up.
	And then the records from the Virgin Islands never showed up.
	And apparently the various DVDs, whatever was on those DVDs and other images from Epstein's safe, also never showed up.
	The FBI said they lost it.
	So, I mean, if this case was a crock and a cover-up case at its core, they've created risk of acquittal because of it, but I would still be shocked at any acquittal because of the nature of the allegations, the compelling emotional testimony of those who did testify, and Glenn Maxwell not offering a compelling alternative narrative.
	There were two things there.
	What the FBI said they lost, they said they found again afterwards, correct?
	My understanding is they didn't find it.
	My understanding is what came out of trial was certain things were lost and never recovered.
	They're not just corrupt.
	They're the most incompetent bureau out there.
	They systematically failed to stop...
	People who are on their watch list, they systematically seem to partake more majoritarily in the plots that they do foil, and they lose evidence coming from the most prolific trafficker out there, and I don't mean in the driving of a car.
	It's not even laughable anymore.
	It's in your face.
	We're going to lie to you, and you know that we're lying to you.
	We know that you know that we're lying to you.
	We're going to do it, and there's nothing you can do about it.
	Robert, I did not want to believe it was a sham prosecution.
	I was wet behind the ears.
	I'm not changing my mind because I'm being warped.
	I'm changing my mind because I'm acquiring more information.
	The prosecution seems like a deliberately targeted prosecution, and I appreciate they're only going after Ghislaine now.
	But there were people, if Ghislaine is guilty of doing what she's doing, there were people guilty of accepting the services, thus committing crimes, and it's inconceivable that none of them have ever been charged.
	Is there any logical, rational way to explain away that thought?
	That if Ghislaine and Epstein are guilty of what they are accused by the prosecution of having done, that no one else should have been charged for partaking in those services?
	It was what we predicted it would be.
	That it would be a cover-up trial, not a true trial.
	And their goal is to just re-narrate the story.
	This was just the story of...
	Downer Luck, once heiress of a fortune and a billionaire, in feeding his perversions.
	And that's it.
	That's all there was to the story.
	There were only a few victims, really, according to this story.
	I mean, it's a ludicrous story, but it's the one they stuck to and went to great, great lengths.
	To stick to at trial.
	I mean, it was extraordinary.
	This was more of a show trial than it was a real trial.
	It doesn't make Maxwell any less guilty, but it creates a risk of acquittal that wouldn't have existed otherwise.
	Well, actually, and getting to the risk of acquittal.
	Well, first of all, the show trial, in as much as we got to see that was not heavily redacted of the trial that was not broadcast, despite having the capabilities of doing so, it's a federal case, whatever.
	Creating the risk of acquittal, or in my mind, A successful appeal.
	Can you explain, or are you able to explain, the judge ruled on not admitting certain evidence or certain testimony on the last day, which basically forced the defense to say, well, we're closed because we can't call these witnesses.
	What was the nature of what the judge effectively refused to allow as evidence?
	I mean, I know in Canada, when you refuse evidence...
	It creates a much stronger or more compelling argument for an appeal than when you allow the evidence.
	So what did the judge dismiss by way of evidence or not allow, and what exposure does that create for an appeal, even if there's a conviction?
	I don't think that...
	I mean, they were planning on pursuing a theory of a lot of mistakes made by the prosecutors and investigators in previously investigating the case, is my understanding.
	That evidence is almost never allowed in.
	So you have to find really creative means to get that kind of evidence in, because it just doesn't relate, generally speaking, to the truth of the guilt of the defendant very often.
	So, you know, unique circumstances and entrapment, usually the best way to get that in is to try to set up a credibility trap where the witness testifies, and that's how you get it in.
	But otherwise, that's very hard evidence to get in.
	I don't even know why exactly they thought they were going to be successful in getting it in.
	So I don't think it creates much robust appeal risk.
	And I haven't seen much robust appeal risk other than the plea issue.
	You know, to what degree did the plea bar the case, the plea that Epstein cut before?
	Yeah.
	But so it's interesting because that was the issue, that allegedly one of the prosecutors had contacted allegedly, or apparently it's papered, had contacted one of the civil attorneys for one of the alleged victims.
	Allegedly, I sound like the allegedly kid, asking her or suggesting she change her story.
	And so the argument is that this is prosecutorial misconduct, and they were not allowed to adduce this as evidence.
	And that's not usually allowed in for the jury trial.
	I mean, you can make a pretrial motion to dismiss on those grounds, things like that, but that's not normally a trial issue.
	Okay.
	So interesting.
	And then they basically said, well, if we can't do that, we don't need a lot more witnesses, and we've got nothing further to add.
	Case closed, or case rested, and they're going to have closing arguments.
	I mean, yeah, it's just like, you see this now.
	Knowing some of the names on that book, on that list, knowing who's there, knowing who's prosecuting, seeing it is a pinprick, precise prosecution.
	No broader, and everything was done to...
	Keep it less broad.
	I don't know how anybody can feel any different after having seen it and knowing the details now, but what's next?
	We'll have closing arguments, presumably a conviction or a verdict within the week?
	We're going to have three massive cases go to the jury right before Christmas.
	In my experience, those juries don't want to come back after Christmas.
	So that they will convict or quit, whichever way they go, but that they'll make their decision before Christmas Eve or by Christmas Eve.
	I just don't see it.
	Because the Potter trial, it goes to the jury this week, closing arguments as well.
	The Elizabeth Holmes Theranos trial, closing arguments wrapped this week, goes to the, as I guess already going to the jury effectively, but the jury will really start fully deliberating on Monday is my understanding.
	So I think, you know, If I was a defense, I wouldn't necessarily want that timing, but it is what it is.
	So I think that it's...
	Elizabeth Holmes.
	Ghislaine Maxwell probably really needed to testify to have any shot.
	And the problem was she would not hold up well on a cross.
	That would be one of the prime examples where the defendant testifying would probably be the worst thing ever.
	In Rittenhouse, we feared it would be the worst thing ever.
	He did well.
	This would not have worked out.
	And then in the Kim Potter trial, I think her testifying was necessary and effective.
	There are certain cases where that's the case.
	And in Rittenhouse, he didn't need to testify because of all the video testimony.
	He did anyway.
	It didn't turn out to cause him much harm.
	But in Maxwell's case, like Potter's case, like probably Holmes' case, they had to testify in all likelihood.
	Because there was no other way to tell their story but through that testimony.
	There was no video evidence to a certain degree.
	There was in Potter's case, but not enough to really humanize the situation.
	And it was from different angles.
	And in fact, there were certain testimonial aspects really could only come in if she testified.
	And so I think that Maxwell probably had to testify to have any shot at all, however remote it was.
	While usually you don't want your defendant to testify, in some cases it's the only option.
	And I think the fact she didn't testify pretty much dooms her.
	Okay, interesting.
	And I'm going to bring this one up here.
	These headphones have lost their...
	The padding on the ear so it's not all that comfortable, which I might just take them off.
	Viva, do you understand that the evidence against the various Johns has been privately leveraged against said Johns for their cooperation with future FBI-CIA schemes?
	Robert, I don't venture out of my...
	Sorry, hold on.
	That's how that happens.
	The whole goal was to make sure that the case...
	Not just that it was limited, but that it was a fake narrative.
	It would have been one point if they had limited to this, but still said that the reason was part of a blackmail extortion scheme.
	They stayed away from all that.
	They wanted to say that this was just two perverted people and one getting rich off of the other person's perversion.
	It's just not an accurate story of what happened, in my view.
	But they had to tell that story in order to avoid the alternative, which was to implicate third parties.
	Well, it's a big black pill.
	This trial has been a black pill because I know you have discussions with people who don't know anything.
	They're not dumb.
	They're not mean.
	They're not willfully ignorant.
	They're just ignorantly ignorant.
	They don't even know that they don't know what's out there to know.
	And I end up talking and I end up saying, my goodness, if I heard someone talking like this to me...
	I would be scared and I would be backing away slowly.
	But listening to this trial, I've watched it through Inner City Press, Joe Nierman, Robert Gruller.
	I know enough now to know that this is a big black pill of a trial because she may or may not get convicted.
	I was thoroughly convinced she was going to get convicted with no questions asked.
	But having seen the choices made by the prosecution, I can now reasonably envision how I would understand an acquittal because they really didn't do very much in this trial.
	Whereas they could have otherwise done exponentially more.
	And then to try to appreciate why they didn't do the exponentially more that a vigorous prosecutor, binger, had this been a Rittenhouse?
	And had the prosecutor been a binger?
	Well, holy crap, he wouldn't have needed to lie and rely on evidence fairies because they would have had it all.
	It's a big black pill because I now see what's going on.
	And there's nothing, like the chat just said, nothing we can do about it.
	Except watch and hopefully raise awareness, and maybe over time things change, but maybe things have always been like this since the dawn of man.
	But then speaking of, unless there's more on this, Robert, speaking of a trial in which testifying as the defendant was an absolute must, and I think it couldn't have gone any better, Kim Potter.
	So I've been watching this through Ricada, who's been covering it and doing his best to make it interesting, but that prosecution could have put an insomniac to sleep.
	The prosecution...
	Okay, everybody knows Kim Potter is the one who pulled out her real firearm thinking it was a taser when an individual with a crime record an inch thick was resisting arrest, getting into a car, driving off, pulled out what she thought was her taser, it was her gun, said taser, taser, taser, shot the guy.
	He ended up crashing and dying.
	She, afterwards, sobbing, I'm going to jail, I'm going to jail, I meant to pull my gun, yada, yada.
	She's standing trial now.
	And, you know...
	That's the case for the prosecution, but they belabored the prosecution for days on end.
	Defense comes up.
	They call an expert who, from what I understand, I didn't watch the expert testimony, but Robert, did you see the expert testimony?
	No, but Andrew Branca described him as the Chuck Norris of self-defense experts.
	And Branca has been on Rakeda.
	They've been covering it.
	Apparently, he was so good and so effective and so decisive compared to the prosecution's meandering...
	Expert.
	Amazing.
	But then Kim Potter comes up and testifies, and I've seen highlights.
	Sincere, honest woman who, unblemished record, trusted by her colleagues, was put in a situation where she feared for the lives of her colleagues, tried to go with a less lethal or a non-lethal method of detainment, and just effed up.
	F'd up in the heat of the moment, the way it could happen to anybody, the way you pour salt into your coffee instead of sugar.
	It was believable and credible.
	How do you feel about the trial?
	How do you feel that it went, and what's your prediction for the outcome?
	About as well as it could have gone for the defense.
	There's still an open-ended question about whether the judge makes clear to the jury what criminal recklessness is.
	That it requires a subjective element.
	It's not purely objective.
	It's not clear whether she'll make that clear.
	Essentially, what the state proved was maybe a negligence case, but the problem with even that aspect is that there was testimony from the state's own witnesses that lethal force could have been used under these circumstances.
	So it's like, okay, she chose to not use her gun, but she was legally entitled to use her gun.
	Then it's not even a negligence case.
	It's not negligent if you choose to use a less lethal method of force when you could have used a fully lethal method of force.
	And that was pointed out by some defense lawyers prior to the case beginning, that they thought this case was very weak because there was evidence from the state's own witnesses, as it turned out, that in fact several police officers' lives were at risk if she didn't use force.
	And that means she could have used lethal force.
	And so that's part one.
	It's like it's not even a negligence case.
	And then part two is even if you assume that somehow she couldn't use lethal force, she clearly could have used non-lethal force.
	And then it's just a question of, was it criminal recklessness to pull the gun instead of a taser?
	But I think it comes down, the evidence was overwhelming that she had no bad history.
	She came across as, I think from most people's perspective, as sympathetic, that the defense expert was much, much, much better than the...
	Prosecutions expert, this defense expert, will be in high demand after this case.
	Apparently, he does all his criminal cases pro bono.
	He only charges for civil cases, has a ridiculous history, wrote the rules in a lot of cases.
	And so that nobody accuses you, Robert, or I of having a double standard.
	At one point, we did say, you know, experts testifying for free could cause you to question the motivations.
	They might be so emotionally attached that they are no longer credible.
	This expert's explanation for why he does all cases for free.
	That's the big difference.
	If you are just doing pro bono in this case, that raises red flags.
	If you always do pro bono in criminal cases, then okay, that's interesting.
	And that just means you pick your cases that you agree with and that you are willing to be an expert in.
	Because, I mean, my guess is they may have approached him for Chauvin and he turned it down.
	So this one was one that basically all the police officers who testified don't think she should be getting prosecuted.
	They think that she saved their lives, the ones that were at risk.
	The ones that newer all vouch for.
	No history of complaints of any kind.
	So this is not unlike Chauvin, who had a long history of resorting to excessive force when he was in a state of fear or worry.
	She had just the opposite.
	No history of that at all.
	Only positive compliments and the rest.
	And so the only question to me was the same question as from the beginning of the case, which is, can you find an impartial jury in the Twin Cities?
	Because I don't know if you can.
	This case will show it.
	If she gets convicted, it means it's not possible for a police officer to get an impartial jury in the Twin Cities right now.
	It is.
	Well, and also just to point out one thing that was very clear from the trial, which is why prosecution went on forever about this.
	They brought in an expert.
	Let me just make sure everyone sees that.
	An expert, a video expert.
	He wasn't even supposed to be an expert.
	It was the dude who investigated the case, who watched the videos.
	And they were asking this individual.
	Where are the police officers positioned now in respect of the car?
	Because they wanted this guy, who did nothing more than watch the videos, to testify as to where the police officers were in respect of the car that Daunte Wright, with his criminal history, which was not admitted into evidence as far as I understood.
	I'll ask you about that in a second.
	They wanted to show that these cops were not in any immediate harm.
	As of when Daunte Wright was getting into his car, resisting arrest, and driving off with doors open.
	They're like, oh, your shoulders weren't in the car.
	They went on for a day with this.
	Your shoulders were not in the car.
	Can you see that from the video, monsieur, whomever?
	And they were trying to prove that in that nano...
	It's the same binger idiocy.
	Like, in that nano split second of a freeze frame of a video that you are looking at that you weren't there for, their shoulders weren't in the car, therefore they weren't at risk of getting dragged off.
	So even using the taser wouldn't have been...
	It was...
	It lacked credibility as far as a proposition went, but they went on for it for so long, I think it turned everybody off with half a brain.
	Like you say, what went into jury selection?
	They had a very thorough jury selection in this case, right?
	Like two weeks?
	They did, but I think in a case like this, you need to pull the jury pool in advance and see whether they're capable of being impartial.
	And to my knowledge, that was never done.
	And so that's why I think that it's not as bad as the Chauvin case in the sense of pretrial publicity and prejudice, but it's still the Twin Cities.
	And this happened during the middle of Chauvin deliberations, this incident.
	So I just think it's a problem, potentially.
	Well, we'll find out because most of the lawyers who have observed it think it's definitely even, you know, a range of criminal defense lawyers that don't have any political affiliation of any kind, didn't have any preconceptions about the case, have said on a wide range of legal shows that they think she should get acquitted.
	So only a bad jury or the impossibility of getting a good jury in the Twin Cities, in my view, results in anything other than an acquittal.
	My guess is the media will, if there's an acquittal, the media will probably try to pretend it didn't happen because they misled people about this case.
	Well, speaking of being misled, actually, Robert, and again, I had no idea as to how bad Daunte Wright's criminal history was.
	And this is one of those cases where it, again, perfectly illustrates the relevance of the criminal history.
	In Rittenhouse, the criminal histories of JoJo, the P word, We're not relevant to Rittenhouse because he didn't know.
	So it didn't factor into his assessment like, oh, this dude has a very disgusting, violent criminal history.
	I should approach it with more caution.
	He just knew the guy was behaving wacky.
	What was the other one where it did matter?
	Oh, well, in this case, for example, the cops did know about this individual's violent criminal history and apparently a long rap sheet.
	Repeat attempts at resisting arrest.
	In fact, I believe he had a warrant out for resisting arrest.
	They knew his criminal history at the time they were doing this, which factors into their decision-making at the time compared to Rittenhouse.
	Where I say Rittenhouse still was relevant for general consumption was that it would change people's perspective as to how they digest all of this if they know JoJo's history versus him and Huber being painted as saints and religious-like figures.
	Same thing in this case.
	Above and beyond being relevant to the decision-making at the time, it would have been relevant to society digesting this story properly.
	But Daunte Wright's criminal history, unless I'm mistaken, was not allowed in as evidence in this trial?
	Not all of it, but a sufficient part of it.
	In other words, the fact they had an outstanding warrant for gun issues.
	Did come in, and they all highlighted the nature of the stop, the location of the stop, and his proven history that they knew of, just that aspect, made him a very high-risk arrest and a high-risk individual.
	So that's why they were very tense in the whole thing and knew there were going to be major problems.
	And in truth, the cop had been more aggressive in exercising force and physically arresting him.
	He's alive.
	Because they were exercising the least possible force, That things escalated the way they did because that allowed them to escape.
	It's almost like the indirect curse or the indirect negative results of putting too much pressure on cops not to use the force they think is warranted because you'll go after them.
	And something tells me, Robert, we'll never know, but had she used the lethal force intentionally, as justified as it might have been, would probably still be standing trial regardless.
	Yes.
	But people need to appreciate that.
	In Rittenhouse, criminal history was not relevant for his actions that night.
	In this case, it was because they knew and it affected the way they approached him.
	But from a public opinion perspective, had the media reported on Daunte Wright's criminal history just so that people could understand what the cops were dealing with?
	It was not an angelic, innocent victim.
	You know, the dad's visiting him in the hospital.
	Daddy, why they do this?
	But they don't.
	And so the general public, myself included, says, okay, you know, I thought it was...
	I'm negligent to have made the mistake.
	Then I saw that the taser and the firearm looked uncomfortably similar.
	And then I get to know what the cops knew at the time, that this guy had a violent criminal history, which might explain why they reacted the way they did.
	But media doesn't report that, so people are misinformed or ill-informed.
	Okay, so you're predicting all things go the way you think they should acquittal in Potter.
	Yeah.
	I mean, an honest jury definitely acquits.
	I just don't know whether that's possible in Minneapolis.
	All right.
	My prediction, so everyone's out there, I think she should get acquitted as well.
	I think she will get acquitted.
	I'm not going to weigh my words there.
	If I wanted to look smart based on the unlikelihood of the decision, I would say that I'm not so confident anymore in Maxwell, but I believe she should get convicted, but I believe a lot of other people should as well.
	It's not going to happen.
	What was the third one of the week?
	So Potter, sorry, actually, Potter has gone to jury for...
	Are they in deliberation?
	I believe closing arguments are Monday.
	Okay, that'll be interesting.
	Watch that on Rakeda, people.
	Rakeda has been doing an amazing job making it as interesting and watchable as possible.
	And I pop in every now and again, but the last week of my life has been probably as...
	It's going to be the same as the next three weeks of my life because...
	Canada.
	Okay, Potter.
	Maxwell.
	Third trial of the week.
	I have not been following it from a hole in the wall.
	Elizabeth Holmes, the Theranos fraudster who at one point wanted to plead criminal insanity was not allowed.
	I haven't been following anything in that trial, Robert.
	Let the world know what's going on with it.
	So she's accused of a conspiracy to defraud both investors and patients by saying that she had this revolutionary technology that could early identify disease.
	And in fact, she did not have such technology.
	The prosecution came up with a smart theory in closing, which was that she faced a choice, be a failure or fraud.
	She could either be a failure, admit she was a failure, or commit fraud to pretend she wasn't and convince people she wasn't.
	And she chose fraud rather than failure.
	That was important because the defense's key theme is that she was a true believer.
	She always believed in it.
	She was under stress because of this bad relationship and this abusive relationship she was in with another COO of the company.
	And so that may have led her to make some mistakes.
	But she didn't do anything out of an intent to defraud anyone, always believed in it.
	And the best evidence of that is she never sold any stock and pocketed any penny from the so-called fraud.
	So that's where the prosecution effectively anticipated that.
	And rebutted it by saying the issue isn't about money.
	It's about not being perceived as a failure.
	And that being a driving, obsessive objective of her.
	And that's what led her to make the statement she made.
	And they've shown that the statements were not true.
	And how well they've shown that she knew those statements were not true might be a bit of doubt.
	But my guess is, unless they know something about the jury pool, then I do.
	I think she gets convicted across the board.
	But that goes to the jury this week.
	Okay, I mean, she has to.
	I see.
	My impression is that she has to.
	I don't know everything about the trial or even enough, but I know about Theranos.
	I know about the overt fraud and the tactics that she used in the beginning.
	First of all, Robert, 10,000 on the nose.
	Oh, I got it.
	Look at that.
	I got it.
	It's 10,000 on the nose.
	First of all, everyone, once we hit 10,000, Make sure that you thumbs up this thingy.
	I don't play the drinking games, but if anybody knows what Monkey47 is, I do have this bottle downstairs, which I could probably sip from.
	Oh, we just dipped under 10,000 now.
	I jinxed it.
	She tried to raise criminal insanity, Robert.
	Now, for everyone out there, explain.
	A psychopath can still be criminally responsible in the criminal sense.
	Can you elucidate the distinction between...
	Being a psychopath and being criminally not responsible.
	I mean, she's not alleging insanity as a defense or diminished capacity as a defense.
	She's just saying that she did not have the intent to defraud because of the stress that she was under by this abusive relationship.
	And so that's a different dynamic.
	It's basically a good faith defense.
	In the federal fraud charges, if you have a good faith belief that what you're doing is honest or true, then even if it turns out you're wrong...
	It's a complete defense to federal fraud charges.
	So it's a good faith defense, which is very robust, often applied in both fraud and tax cases.
	In tax cases, it can be even broader.
	If you believe what you're doing is legal, even if you're wrong, it's a complete defense.
	Even if your belief is irrational or ridiculous, it's a defense.
	So she has a version of that.
	And the version of that is, look, here's these collateral issues that were impacting my statements at the time.
	But I was not trying to defraud anybody.
	I truly believed in it.
	I believe this would be the greatest solution ever.
	And I continue to believe in it all the way through.
	And the best evidence of that is I never sold a single stock.
	And if my goal was, if I really thought I was just scamming people and this was never going to work, why didn't I sell any stock?
	And the government's explanation is because you're more paranoid of fraud than you were driven by money.
	Failure than you were driven by money.
	But what was her...
	I mean, I don't know what her salary was.
	She was taking a remuneration as CEO or whatever her position was, I presume?
	She still made some money.
	I just don't know what the scale of it was.
	And I think there's still issues implicated.
	I mean, I don't think that's...
	The problem is she needed to be able to show that the statement she made...
	We're true at the time, or she had a really strong basis to believe they were true, and that part I was not satisfied with.
	Though, again, this was a federal case, not broadcast, so all we get is secondhand versions of what took place, so we're kind of limited.
	But both closings appeared to be effective from the PR, from the media's...
	You know, interpretation of them.
	But I just think the prosecution is stronger because the facts are on their side.
	And it was a very good theme.
	Federal prosecutors do a much, much better job than state prosecutors.
	If you've watched either the Chauvin case or the Potter case or the Rittenhouse case.
	Federal prosecutors are at a whole different level.
	In Maxwell, they're plenty sophisticated and very good at what they're doing.
	They have a different objective than what I think the truth would lead to.
	But in Theranos, they did such a good job of...
	She was on the stand seven days.
	Gives you an idea for how federal fraud trials work.
	I think it was a three-month long trial, something like that.
	It was a very long trial.
	No, that's unbelievable.
	There was a case in Canada called Castor Holdings, which went on for years.
	And they had one expert.
	I think it was six months.
	Someone can correct me.
	It might have even been longer.
	Six months on the stand.
	The trial went on for years.
	I do want to bring this up because I don't want to be unfair and I don't want anybody being angry at G-Man because I think it's important.
	I was not talking about violence, Vivo.
	I mean, protests, which I participated at and documented.
	Lawsuits, which I will not be representing anyone in, although I might be a plaintiff one of these days.
	I was prepared to get arrested today.
	Today, I took the kids tobogganing.
	And I said, so help me God.
	If they ask me for a passport at a toboggan hill, I will object.
	And if I get arrested, I will get arrested.
	That was my line today.
	It might happen in the winter, people.
	Stay tuned.
	And so I don't want to be unfair with G-Men.
	Had a couple of drinks tonight, so I'm feeling rowdy.
	Don't worry.
	And I also have to be very careful, G-Men.
	That nobody out there thinks I'm suggesting, promoting, or passively tolerating anybody who is promoting violence because I do not and will not and will not ever.
	I will not become the monster that I am fighting.
	So, G-Man, thank you very much, and I didn't mean to put you on the spot there.
	And everyone who said I'm a glowy...
	Sorry, sorry.
	I didn't see that.
	G-Man, we are good now.
	This is like Tim Pool and Rugged hugging after the outburst.
	Although I think I might have been Rugged Man and you might have been Tim Pool, but thank you very much.
	Robert, okay, so that is Holmes.
	And this might be a good segue.
	Robert, I'm going to split the screen again.
	And if I mess this up, forgive me, people.
	I know I have nothing embarrassing on my computer because I have nothing embarrassing on my computer, but I planned this out.
	Share screen.
	We've got to watch this.
	Twitter.
	Here we go.
	Share.
	We're going to watch this, people.
	I'm going to expand this.
	The backdrop is not my picture.
	I think this deserves to be flagged.
	I don't know who Dean Blundell is.
	He's got a blue checkmark, so I'm already suspicious.
	But his tweet was, When I read this, I took this as being someone gloating in a reporter being physically assaulted by RCMP officers.
	If I'm wrong, Blundell.
	And it was a blunder.
	I apologize.
	If you meant this sarcastically, as in to draw attention to how egregiously over the top this assault is, I will publicly apologize to you.
	But if not, I think that deserves to be flagged, and I think you are actually actively promoting violence against reporters, which I think is a very, very serious thing.
	But for those of you who don't know, David Menzies got assaulted by Justin Trudeau's...
	Secret police.
	They're not so secret.
	Police.
	Check this out, guys.
	I don't like the music in the background.
	Get off me!
	Hey, I can...
	Hey, this is assault.
	I'm on a sidewalk.
	What is this?
	I'm on a sidewalk.
	I'm on a sidewalk.
	What is this?
	You cannot touch me.
	No, but it's not working.
	You see me?
	Come on.
	Come on.
	Are you kidding?
	Just remember that.
	I'm going to come back to that.
	What is this?
	You can't.
	Am I under arrest?
	Because otherwise you have no right.
	Alright, we'll skip ahead.
	The music is a bad choice.
	Give me your name and your badge.
	Get your hands off!
	You have no right to put your hands on me on a public sidewalk!
	Am I under arrest?
	Am I under arrest?
	Why are you yelling?
	Why are you yelling?
	Let me just now bring it back.
	I hope I didn't just shut everyone down here.
	I guess that's a Canadian version of a beating.
	Yeah, I mean, it's improper treatment, I believe, and so on and so forth.
	But I was just expecting, you know, I'm used to American-style beatings.
	Well, Robert, the good thing is, well, I won't even give our cops a pass.
	Our cops, especially in Quebec, have a bad reputation for being a little trigger-happy, a little bit too easy on the pepper spray triggers.
	Do they carry guns in Canada?
	Because I know, like, in Britain, they don't, right?
	No, the cops carry guns, and they use them, and there's been a number of incidents where they've used them prematurely, to put it mildly.
	So it's a beating, okay, first of all, getting his ass kicked, that's an exaggeration, but this is, for anybody who doesn't know, this is David Menzies of Rebel News.
	David Menzies and Rebel News, like them or hate them, love them or hate them, they're identifiable, they're recognizable, they're not like...
	Paparazzi, some dude jumping up in the Prime Minister's face who is unaccredited or unknown to everyone in media.
	They're known and they're hated by most because they tell the truth, I think, more often than not, and they are not on the government dole.
	But it wasn't in that video, but Rebel News did a longer video where Menzies is walking and he makes a joke to these Secret Service guys about getting hit by the car.
	And I didn't know that he was talking about Trudeau's motorcade.
	I think he was.
	But he says to them, oh, you'd like it if I got hit by the card.
	LOL, joking, joking.
	And I think at one point, he said, I'm on the sidewalk.
	And they said, well, that's your opinion.
	But I watched this, and this was bully police officers for Justin Trudeau, who knew damn well who David Menzies was.
	And this is not a guy who's going to do anything stupid, dangerous, or risky.
	They knew who he is, and was.
	I mean, guys, he looks old.
	Well, he's not young.
	He's not young, and he is, look.
	I'll be very objective.
	He is annoying.
	He is in your face.
	He is provocative for a journalist, but that's kind of, you know, journalists ought to be that in general, not just government mouthpieces.
	Well, imagine if Trump's Secret Service had done this to anyone in the media.
	Trump cleared a park and people flipped out.
	They didn't beat journalists or slam them up against a brick wall.
	And people reveling in this.
	It wasn't just him.
	You had another guy reveling in this, saying, go look up all the times David Menzies gets arrested.
	This is the absolute state of Canada, is that you have the media.
	He was not arrested, Robert.
	He was not charged.
	After they roughed him up, they went on with their evenings and refused to identify themselves while being recorded.
	It's preposterous and over the top.
	It has to be highlighted.
	It has to be highlighted because no one in the mainstream media is going to talk.
	Rosemary Barton is not going to ask Trudeau about David Menzies getting assaulted because, A, They're competing with Rebel News, and Rebel News is kicking their butts by any objective metrics except for government corruption.
	They won't talk about it because they're not worried for themselves right now.
	So long as they keep sucking at that government teat, they will not get the government boot for now.
	But the boot comes a boot every now and again.
	Had to bring that up.
	It's over the top.
	The music drives me nuts.
	That did not need music to be shocking.
	That actually, I want, that needed silence to be shocking, but that is an editorial decision.
	That is not mine.
	So, yeah.
	Hold on a second.
	Yay.
	Thanks, Viva.
	I showed this to you.
	Gold Schick.
	I got it from a number of sources, but I will credit anyone who sends me this stuff because I do my best to get to it all.
	Robert.
	Fry is not that guy.
	Okay.
	What do we move on to now?
	Well, I mean, I guess there's a lot of international news.
	So there was a doctor who was contesting in the UK.
	They took away a doctor's medical license because of his speech questioning COVID intervention policies.
	And fortunately, the court that reviewed it, while it didn't get to the substance, said that they violated his due process rights in the process and they had to reexamine the whole thing and reinstate it.
	You mentioned the Dutch politician who was subject to censorship sanctions as well.
	I want people to appreciate this.
	I do not invoke my religion or other people's religions unless we're having a heartfelt discussion and I want to understand your history and family life.
	So I'm not going to say as a blank.
	I'm just going to say outlawing comparison.
	The judge, this is in Dutch, this is in the Netherlands, a Dutch court.
	They sanctioned a politician for comparing current COVID restrictions to things that were done by the soldiers of the Germans in the 1930s.
	And they said, the judge literally, I didn't read the decision, but I read the translation of a quotation, said, unnecessarily offending Holocaust survivors and their families.
	I mean, and I don't want to say the as a, because it doesn't, my opinion on this is no more or less valid because of my...
	History.
	It's shocking on his face because the judge literally said, you have offended people and therefore you're not allowed to say what you said because it's offensive.
	But I've got to say, I don't know the judge's intentions and I don't want to read into them.
	I'm just going to hypothesize.
	The judge is not protecting the feelings of the victims, the alleged victims.
	The judge is protecting the politicians because they're basically saying you can't criticize them this way.
	Criticize them in a way that's less shocking, that's less provocative, and that's less jarring for the public, so that it's less shocking, less provocative, and less jarring, and therefore less effective criticism.
	But hopefully it gets overturned.
	The judge basically said, this guy, you have to delete your posts.
	You cannot post images of the Holocaust in the context of debates over COVID measures.
	And if you do, it's 25,000 euros a day penalty.
	Robert, can you imagine anything of that nature happening in the United States?
	Well, it's being threatened.
	So they're using licensure power to do it.
	So there's doctors and nurses and others who received licensure threat letters, basically on grounds that they are spreading misinformation about medical matters.
	And so misinformation is being defined as anything the government disagrees with.
	The current government disagrees with.
	The Biden administration disagrees.
	So it's frightening and it's disturbing.
	But on the white pill side internationally, a lower court in Germany said the vaccine passport did not conform to the human rights standards required in Germany.
	So we'll see where that case goes ultimately.
	But that was at least a breach in the dam of some of these sort of tyrannical restrictions and deprivations in the name of public safety that's taking place.
	So, but, you know, that's probably a good transition into all the vaccine mandates.
	Robert, update us on the lawsuits in the United States, the vaccine mandates.
	First of all, I heard the news coming out of the Court of Appeal, but I don't actually, I didn't follow it enough.
	What's the latest of the Court of Appeals?
	What's being set up for the Supreme Court?
	So, the OSHA mandate was initially stayed by a unanimous Fifth Circuit.
	The 11th Circuit, in a two-to-one split decision with Lagoa dissenting, said that they would affirm the OSHA mandate.
	Then it was ultimately assigned the OSHA mandate.
	I'm sorry, that was the Medicare mandate the 11th Circuit said they would affirm.
	Then the OSHA mandate went to just one circuit by a lottery, went to the Sixth Circuit.
	The first decision was whether to take the case en banc.
	There are 16 judges in the Sixth Circuit.
	And five voted to not take it up en banc and to let a panel of three judges take the case instead.
	Eight judges said, no, we should take it up now because it's clearly illegal what this is.
	The assumption was that the three judges who did not vote were on the panel.
	It turns out, so then the panel comes in and an Obama judge writes the opinion.
	A George W. Bush judge joins the opinion.
	And a Trump appointee dissents.
	The Obama judge says vaccine mandates are just fine in whatever form they come about, basically.
	And this has been pretty typical.
	I believe every Obama appointee has approved of vaccine mandates, no matter the context.
	There was a chief judge of the 11th Circuit, a Clinton appointee, who agreed with two other...
	Judges in the 11th Circuit that the OSHA mandate, no, I'm sorry, the federal contractor mandate, should stay enjoined pending further briefing.
	But the W appointees have kind of split on this.
	Trump appointees have been mostly good, but not all.
	But so far, I looked it up, there have been 25 federal appellate judges who published an opinion in one way, shape, or form about the OSHA mandate or the Medicare mandate.
	And 20 of the 25 have said it's illegal.
	However, due to the peculiarities of the situation, you have a situation where the 11th Circuit has said the Medicare mandate's okay, but the contractor mandate's not.
	The 5th Circuit has said the Medicare mandate is not okay, but only applied it to those states.
	The 8th Circuit has said the Medicare mandate is not okay.
	The 6th Circuit came in on the OSHA mandate, and the panel decided all of them are okay.
	So the question then became, does it go to the court en banc?
	It looked like there was now a ninth vote for saying the OSHA mandate was unconstitutional.
	However, it turned out that the third judge on the case, basically there's a missing judge out of the Sixth Circuit.
	There was a judge who did not vote on the original en banc petition.
	And also somehow ended up not on the panel.
	And the assumption, it appears maybe he was subbed out.
	It's not clear.
	So it's very peculiar what has happened.
	This judge didn't vote initially.
	So my view is that there's enough votes to a majority to overturn, substantively on Bach, the OSHA mandate based on the eight judges, plus this one last judge, wherever he's at right now.
	Kidnap?
	What happened to him?
	But it looks like the state, the attorney generals have decided that all of this needs to go to the SCOTUS anyway.
	So they've decided to take it right up to the Supreme Court and see if the Supreme Court will get involved before they go back on bonk, because maybe they don't need to go back on bonk.
	And the Medicare mandate was already heading to the Supremes.
	The contractor mandate was already heading to the Supremes.
	And so this would just join with the OSHA mandate.
	The Biden administration has now imposed a mandate.
	on Head Start programs that is not only going to require everybody be vaccinated, connected to it, but require that they mask two-year-olds even when they're outdoors.
	And that a parent cannot drop off or pick up their kid unless they're masked.
	So it's both a vaccine mandate and a mask mandate using Head Start funding now, which overwhelmingly discriminates against poor kids in America.
	And so the state of Texas has filed suit challenging that mandate.
	My guess is that given how much noise has developed, that the Supreme Court will be very hard-pressed to ignore this, like they've ignored the private mandates and the state-level mandates.
	There's already three justices that have voiced problems with the vaccine mandates in general, so it's almost a lock that Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas will say all these Biden mandates are beyond his power to issue.
	If they had courage, they would say it's beyond the power of the federal government, period.
	Definitely the executive branch by itself, but it's beyond, frankly, the power of the federal government.
	And the question will be, where do Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett come down?
	And so two of Trump's appointees are going to be key in this.
	Now, there's a unique issue with all of these Biden mandates for Roberts, which is that Roberts has long been a critic of the Interstate Commerce Clause.
	When he saved Obamacare, he did so by claiming it was a tax.
	He did so in part because he wanted a majority opinion signing off on limiting the effect of the Interstate Commerce Clause, which is what gives the federal government the power to mandate anything for a person.
	And unless it relates to Interstate Commerce, it isn't there.
	And the problem is...
	This clearly doesn't relate to interstate commerce.
	Beyond the issues of non-delegation doctrine, excessive deference under Chevron, executive branch usurping legislative duties, misuse and misappropriation of the spending clause, the anti-commandeering clause, which the left used to go after Trump on sanctuary cities.
	All of those are additional constitutional problems with what Biden is doing.
	The administration is so...
	Crazy on this.
	So expansive, extensive, invasive.
	They're using everything somebody has said, saying you can't give the federal government this power because that's how they'll abuse it down the road.
	And media and academics wrote that off as conspiracy theories.
	We're now seeing in live time.
	So all of a sudden, the right to regulate workplace safety involved in interstate commerce means the right to mandate vaccines.
	All of a sudden, helping kids get an early start in education means the right to mandate vaccines and masks.
	All of a sudden, having any contract with the federal government means vaccine mandates.
	Working for the federal government means vaccine mandates.
	These are things that people said, don't worry, this will never happen.
	Those are just conspiracy theories.
	You must have been listening to Alex Jones too much.
	But these days, Alex Jones looks a lot more like Nostradamus.
	And so I think the Supreme Court will take it.
	My guess is that between Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, that there will be two votes to overturn the vaccine mandates.
	It wouldn't surprise me if it's 6-3 in the end.
	And so I think that all these mandates are going down, but we're going to find out pretty soon because the Supreme Court's going to be on the clock.
	I'm going to bring this up just because I was not being glib.
	In Quebec, I called it out at the time.
	They literally said, vaccines are our passport to freedom.
	Which, Pfizer macht frei, which the old expression was Arbeit, what was it?
	Arbeit macht frei, work will set you free.
	Except it wasn't.
	But Robert, this is like...
	I always forgot.
	Is Pfizer a German word?
	Pfizer?
	I don't know what Pfizer means, but if I had to guess...
	I wonder if it is a German word.
	I'll be using that.
	It's like Tyson Foods.
	Sounds a lot like Tyson, the Nazi-supporting defense contractor.
	It may just be a coincidence, but just point that out now.
	I only think Mike Tyson when I hear Tyson.
	I do not think Nazi contractor.
	But, Robert, history rhyming but not repeating.
	We've seen all of these laws, these Jim Crow laws, laws that penalize the poor, penalize ethnic minorities that were passed under the Guides of Benevolence.
	And we say, how could they have done this?
	They should have known better.
	We're literally seeing it right now where these mandates, these mask mandates, these vaccine mandates, who are they going to penalize, Robert, if you have to awaken someone who is not yet awakened?
	Typically speaking, who is going to be most affected by these mandates, by the loss of employment?
	And by the masking up.
	Well, I mean, it's going to be working class people and ethnic minorities.
	It's who.
	And so, I mean, I think that there have been so many appellate judges weigh in opposing these mandates, at least at the Biden gubernatorial level, governor level, or presidential level, and the federal government level.
	That it's going to put a lot of pressure on Kavanaugh, Roberts, and Barrett to say that the federal government does not have this power.
	And the question is, what happens then?
	Because just the original stay of the OSHA mandate and then the Medicare mandate led to a bunch of big employers, including big hospital chains, including Boeing, suddenly say, we're not going to go through with this vaccine mandate after all.
	So I think that a lot of the vaccine mandate logic will fall.
	If these various mandates fall through.
	Now, as of right now, the OSHA mandate is now back in force, but OSHA came out and said, don't worry, you don't have to comply until February.
	They're probably trying to buy time with the Supreme Court to wait on hearing that one.
	The Medicare mandate is currently enjoined in most of the country, but not all of it.
	Because the Fifth Circuit said not to do a nationwide injunction, only do it to the applicable states.
	The Fifth Circuit and the Eighth Circuit have said no Medicare mandate in their states.
	The Eleventh Circuit said it's fine in a two-to-one split decision.
	That, the state of Florida, I believe, is taking up en banc and may already be up at the U.S. Supreme Court as well.
	The federal contractor mandate's been stopped across the country.
	The 11th Circuit affirmed that in a decision that included a Clinton judge that said the government wouldn't suffer any irreparable injury from staying this until full appellate briefing takes place.
	And the federal employee mandate has not yet been enjoined, but is also up in the appellate food chain.
	Now, there's been some interesting actions on various governments.
	The school districts in L.A. were trying to impose a vaccine mandate on children, and their suit was brought, supported by Bobby Kennedy, and they folded because under California state law, that has to be a state action that has to meet certain restrictions.
	Can't be done by the local government level.
	And so L.A. folded.
	I think it's LA that folded.
	One of the school districts already folded on that.
	Now, the San Diego case is now going up before the Supreme Court as well, the San Diego school district vaccine mandate.
	And there are other suits pending throughout California on that for anybody that's trying to impose them at the school level.
	Probably the city of New York, one of the city of New York's vaccine mandates was stopped, at least for one police officer.
	It's not clear whether it applies to every beyond that.
	And there's several vaccine passports because the city of New York, city of Philadelphia, I believe the city of New Orleans is either considering it or doing it, are issuing vaccine passports.
	And those are being contested and fought out in the courts as well.
	But probably the craziest action of them all was the city of Beverly Hills imposed a vaccine mandate on anybody connected to health or safety work at all.
	Decided to deny a bunch of firemen their religious objections, religious exemptions, put them under mass interrogations, and then came up with pretext to deny it.
	And it appears under their provision, you can go to jail for not going forward with the vaccine, that they've made it a misdemeanor crime.
	In the city of Beverly Hills.
	That too, of course, is now being fought out and contested in the courts.
	I think now there's something like 4,000 plus lawsuits or legal actions somewhere across the country concerning vaccine mandates, mask mandates, or vaccine passports.
	It's an industry.
	A legal, economic...
	A pharmaceutical industry.
	COVID went from being a pandemic to being an industry.
	And the government's not going to let it go and neither are the Pfizer's.
	The French comment that I brought up said Pfizer was started by two brothers in New York in 1849.
	There was a wiki entry there.
	Maybe their name is originally German.
	Definitely German.
	Ah, good.
	I'll be using that.
	Speaking of which, Pfizer finally produced a little bit of documentation in the Freedom of Information Act request, and the FDA concerning Pfizer produced a little bit of documentation, but then they said they needed not 55 years, but 75 years to get through the rest of it.
	Robert, can you explain?
	I mean, first of all, all vaxxers should be your option.
	Sting cool.
	You meet the definition of an anti-vaxxer these days.
	I say that tongue-in-cheek because it sort of goes without saying.
	And typically...
	Can't even finish my sentence because that might get us in trouble.
	Although we've been demonetized, but I've requested manual review because thus far we've said nothing that could justify Yellow Light except for names of Ghislaine Maxwell and the man who did not take his own life.
	But Robert, so, oh yeah, sorry, explain that.
	I have yet to fathom, comprehend how that means.
	What does that mean they need 75 years to release the data?
	Does that mean they don't have it yet or they have so much of it?
	They've got to siphon through it.
	I mean, usually they use trade secrets as their excuse.
	They try to buy time on...
	But here's the problem.
	This is the data they claim to have thoroughly and completely reviewed and affirming and authorizing these drugs in the first place.
	So, you know, it raises questions about what they really did and what they're really hiding and what they're really masking.
	Some of the excuse is trade secrets, but that can't explain the scope and scale of what they're doing.
	And so I think it raises continuous questions about the lack of transparency, just like the lack of accountability, is a continuous and consistent problem with these particular drugs and the mandates related there, too.
	Empower them, immunize them, and give them endless government contracts.
	And then, lo and behold...
	And then hide their documents, hide their information, hide their reports, hide the evidence.
	They're doing everything that shows a telltale sign of something and someone not to trust.
	So if you want to trust it, go have at it.
	Linda Veliker, which I think is also German if I had to guess.
	Pfizer, established in 1849, a multinational pharmaceutical company founded in the U.S. by German immigrants in the 19th century.
	Pfizer Animal Health, established in 1956, a former division focused on veterinary pharmacology that was spun off in 2012.
	And I want to bring this one up because this is interesting.
	Pip Chanoir, which is Pip the Black Cat, late here and a few minutes behind, getting a lot of press about Trump being taken to court in New York regarding fraud.
	When you have a moment, may you please discuss?
	Yeah, so I mean, that covers most of the vaccine mandate updates at the time.
	Basically, it's heading to the Supremes, and we're going to find out one way or the other what the big direction is going to be.
	And we'll see if Trump appointees hold up or capitulate.
	Because they will be the deciding votes, Barrett and Kavanaugh.
	If those two go on board, we're good to go.
	And it would be great to see a broad affirmation that vaccine mandates...
	The federal government never has the power to force that on any individual, period.
	That any power that might so exist, exist at the state and local level.
	Even that has to be constricted by constitutional restrictions.
	Someone said, how many vax lawsuits in Canada?
	I can't find my answer.
	How many vax lawsuits in Canada?
	As far as I know, I could think of a dozen if I'm being generous.
	There's Rocco Galati, who's filed a couple.
	We are a different society.
	We are deferential to authority, government authority, and we prefer the semblance of security over the risks of freedom, if I'm generalizing.
	Sorry.
	That's a good summary.
	New York City's been busy these days.
	So while busy covering up in the Ghislaine Maxwell case with a straw man show trial rather than a real trial.
	Covering up, Robert.
	They prosecuted covering up.
	It's an opinion.
	There's no better way to do it.
	The best prosecutions politically are actual cover-up trials where they're making sure that the true guilty parties and participants and true guilty modus operandi is.
	hidden and buried in the public record.
	And that's what the Ghislaine Maxwell trial has been a classic, classic example of.
	But, it's But otherwise, when New York is not busy passing new mandates on two-year-olds and passports for eight-year-olds, the other thing it's been busy doing is trying to drum up some excuse to criminally prosecute and punish one Donald John Trump.
	I mean, I'm following it.
	Just loosely, I have no interest in it because it's just...
	It's Banana Republic politics.
	This is do everything you can to criminally...
	Fabricate the January 6th events.
	Not the events, but fabricate the narrative.
	Jan 6th occurred.
	It was what we all saw on TV.
	Who was responsible for it?
	Who was responsible for allowing it to happen?
	Who were any...
	Agent provocateurs in the crowd.
	Who gets prosecuted?
	Who doesn't?
	Who are the unindicted co-conspirators?
	But the fact that the media needs to turn that into...
	The fact that they analogize it to 9-11 is offensive to...
	It should be offensive and shocking to anyone with half a brain and half a soul.
	They try to because they need it to be what it wasn't so they can try to provoke what it wasn't.
	But I actually...
	Well, that was attempt number one.
	Mostly has failed.
	So attempt number, well, really it's attempt number 237 probably.
	But the, is that in New York, first they try to look at them for taxes.
	Apparently that went nowhere.
	So instead they're trying to come up with a bank fraud theory.
	And their bank fraud theory appears to be that Trump's notorious reputation for hyperbole.
	Somehow constitutes material misrepresentation of the value of his assets and bank applications.
	And that's their new angle.
	Now, there'd be statute of limitations of problems right out of the gate that one could highlight.
	But the other is it's extremely unlikely that there's anything on there they can call a material misrepresentation of fact because Trump did nothing like that without it being vetted, reviewed, validated by a long litany.
	of accountants and lawyers.
	So it's mostly much ado over the company Can we come up with some bogus charges in our politicized prosecution, in our politicized jurisdiction, in our politicized jury pool that could possibly railroad Trump to try to prevent him as punishment for him ever running and winning and also as an attempt to deter him from being able to run and win again?
	And it will be seen as exactly that.
	And it would be, in my view, politically, it would backfire badly.
	That the same Justice Department that's busy covering up for Joe Biden and acting as his personal Stassi and going after Project Veritas for knowing about what, by the way, by the New York Times and other reporting, there's now no doubt that was an authentic Ashley Biden diary that raised serious questions that the media knew about, about the severe, dangerous misconduct.
	Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein kind of conduct between Joe Biden and his own daughter.
	And it has been published.
	I think it was called National Files.
	Ultimately, the irony, it wasn't published by Project Veritas.
	I think it was called National Files.
	I know that Harmeet Dillon mentioned it.
	Did she mention it?
	Someone mentioned it, where it was in fact published, not by Project Veritas.
	So it's out there if anybody wants to read it.
	I did not read it.
	Nor will I, but I know the gist of what's in it.
	Very questionable stuff in there.
	Weaponizing Secret Service, weaponizing the president's own prosecutorial force, police force, yada yada.
	And they're going to try to keep going after Trump to punish...
	They went after his supporters on January 6th.
	Whether or not they allowed that to happen so that they could do it, whether or not it was instigated so that it could happen, whether or not it was just a legitimate, rowdy protest that got violent.
	There's no trouble.
	There's no way there's a materially false statement that impacted any bank on any of those applications.
	There's just not.
	And not at least in fraud cases and in federal court.
	Or at the state level as well.
	You have a complete good faith and reliance defense.
	It's more robust in the tax context than it is anywhere else.
	But what that means is if you in good faith believe your statement is true, you can't go to jail for it.
	And it means if you relied upon competent professionals for what took place, you can't go to jail for it.
	Actually, you can rely on professionals, period.
	They don't always have to be competent.
	So there's just no way he's ever submitted a bank application that wasn't reviewed by 100 people.
	And so that's the problem with trying to claim that.
	It was the same problem with them trying to go fishing on tax charges.
	There was just no way they could breach the good faith and reliance defense.
	So what they need is a whole bunch of accountants and a whole bunch of attorneys to line up and say that Trump fooled them on something material and significant.
	The likelihood of that is next to nil.
	So Trump didn't need to.
	He had more than enough.
	And then further, you get to a subjective definition of the value of his brand.
	Things like that are just very subjective.
	That's not really subject to an objective review kind of analysis.
	What collateral value a bank wants to give to it is up to them.
	But in none of Trump's financial deals was it based on his bragging or anything else.
	Trump's financial deals were done tight.
	Anyone that knows how we operate in the real estate world, this was not a marginal operator.
	This was a very careful and smart operator, especially after he went through what he did in the 90s with the casinos and bankruptcy.
	And he has been subject to more scrutiny than anything.
	Anything prejudicial has already been leaked.
	This is just, it's just more, well, first of all, it's just a distraction, actually.
	Someone said, did everyone see VP's meltdown when Charlemagne Tha God asked her who's really president?
	And I was going to do a breakdown of it.
	It's ironic that it's the one time she does not resort to her, I'm not saying cackle in any judgmental way, her annoying laugh.
	She has a habit.
	When she feels uncomfortable and she wants to deflect, she gets into that cackly laugh.
	It was funny that she went right beyond that.
	She went to anger.
	So this touched a nerve that was beyond her reflexive, distracting, cackling laugh.
	It was, how dare you, Charlamagne Tha God?
	And I don't want to play the race card that Joe Biden played, but someone could say, you're questioning Joe Biden.
	Are you even of a certain community, Charlamagne Tha God?
	This is just more of the same.
	They've got to keep pushing that lie.
	They've got to keep pushing the demonizing.
	Go from Trump to his supporters.
	Back to Trump.
	Do whatever you can to try to make it unappealing.
	To support him.
	To associate with him.
	To be him.
	Coming to 2024.
	But whatever they've been doing has not been working except...
	What they did in 2020, which we can't talk about here.
	I mean, they got the ability for the January 6th committee to subpoena a bunch of his papers, but that also is going up to the Supreme Court, so we'll see if they take it or not.
	On top of that, the D.C. Circuit is so prejudiced on these matters that they cannot be impartial on January 6th-related cases or, frankly, on Trump-related cases, as they were not impartial in the General Flynn case.
	And they said that Congress can go after Trump's tax records when he's no longer president.
	What's the excuse now?
	The official excuse originally was for legislation impacting their oversight duties concerning the existing president.
	He's no longer president.
	What's the excuse now to look at his tax records?
	And we know what they'll do with him.
	They'll do what Schiff did with some of the records he got from Mark Meadows, which is he'll actually doctor some of it and illicitly leak it in ways that create false impressions that are actually untrue.
	When they say lock people up, and I don't generally support locking up political adversaries even once you've defeated them.
	How Schiff is not in jail, it does not make sense to me, because Schiff is among the worst of the worst, if not the worst of the worst, in that he was making untruthful public statements, knowing that they could not be contradicted without the person contradicting them violating the law by disclosing that which they're not allowed to disclose.
	I don't understand how he's not just still in office, but not actually before a disciplinary judiciary committee or behind bars.
	But with that said, I want to bring this one up.
	Is it inconsistent to be anti-doxing and support the investigation of the Biden diary and laptop?
	I've been trying to square that circle to no avail.
	Here, nothing inconsistent in that.
	People become public figures through circumstances beyond their own control, but because it becomes newsworthy items.
	This is not about doxing it.
	You abandon the property.
	Legally, if you abandon property...
	People don't understand this.
	Anything you put in the trash, I can go up...
	And look through it and pick it apart and say, ooh, that's kind of interesting.
	Look at that.
	In fact, it's one of the most common investigative tactics at the governmental level and private investigative level.
	It's amazing.
	People, shredders are good.
	Shredders are a good thing.
	Just a little word to the wise.
	You wouldn't believe what people throw away in the trash.
	All kinds of interesting things.
	But if you abandon property, and that's what Ashley Biden did.
	She abandoned something in a place that she was no longer at.
	That's no longer yours.
	Legally, it's whoever obtains it.
	It's not like she was sitting in a bus station and she went up to get to the bathroom and somebody grabbed it or somebody stole it literally from her.
	All the evidence is from the New York Times story.
	This was not stolen.
	This was abandoned.
	There's just no basis at all for the federal investigation of Project Veritas.
	None.
	And you say abandoned, but this is your thought and not mine, so I'm not stealing your wisdom.
	Some might even suggest willfully Willfully relinquished so that people couldn't...
	Can you imagine?
	What's the likelihood that both kids keep leaving behind incriminating information about their father?
	Is that really a coincidence?
	Or is that a call out for help?
	Someone said it's entirely plausible she's thinking about writing a book, so keeping a diary, yada, yada, yada.
	But can you imagine if this were a novel, if this were that frustrating moment in the movie where the victim of abuse wants to get it out there, but...
	You know, the powers of the abuser, like, hey, they come in and they suffocate the outreach.
	If she says, I want to leave this out there, I want people to know I need help, but then daddy's secret police come in and get it back, prosecute whoever did it, put it, you know, do it, and she's like, oh my goodness, I can't even escape when I try to give them the means to allow me to escape.
	If it were a book, I could read it that way.
	Not my idea.
	It's yours, Robert, so I can't steal that genius, but it's quite insightful.
	Go for it.
	January 6th committee.
	Technically, the way the law works is courts don't allow you to sue if Congress sends you a subpoena for your information and records.
	You have to assert the fifth or object to the proceedings or make them bring a contempt proceeding against you like Steve Bannon did and contest it that way.
	There is an exception to that.
	If they subpoena a third party for your records, that third party has no interest and incentive in going through a contempt proceeding.
	So in that context, the Supreme Court has said you can file an action in court to stop that.
	The January 6th committee is now facing lawsuits all over the place.
	I don't know why everybody's suing the District of Columbia.
	You could sue elsewhere, as some smart people did in New Jersey, because technically this is actually trying to stop Verizon from giving it to Congress, not stopping the committee itself.
	And that allows a broader range of venues, and people should think about that rather than being stuck in D.C., particularly given the biases and prejudices of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
	But there are multiple actions pending in D.C., John Eastman, Ali Alexander, some others, and there's a bunch of people who filed suit in New Jersey, where Verizon is located, because the January 6th committee is just going completely off the rails.
	The January 6th committee is now subpoenaing people's phone records for phone records of reporters, investigators, vendors.
	But Robert, Liz Cheney, a Republican, is on the committee, so it can't possibly be...
	It's a bipartisan committee!
	Yeah, that's Darth Vader's daughter.
	No surprise where she's heading.
	And not the Princess Leia kind.
	So the whole...
	They're going so far so fast that they're creating the best arguments for courts to get involved.
	Because one, they don't have, in my view, a legislative purpose.
	You're subpoenaing a photojournalist telephone logs that don't even relate to January 6th for three months prior to January 6th when she wasn't even connected to anybody connected to January 6th for a legislative purpose?
	What's the legislative purpose?
	I mean, they're doing the same to vendors who actually cooperated and provided all information that was actually relevant to January 6th.
	They want to know, and as was well described in one of these subpoena challenges, they're trying to build out a map.
	Of all of their opponents, all of their opponents' connections, all of their opponents.
	So that's part one, that they want a map of everybody that they think is a problem for them.
	And the second thing they're doing is looking for a massing fishing expedition, hoping something comes up they can use as potential blackmail, effectively, against people.
	And that includes, again, even photojournalists and vendors, and attorneys for attorney-client privilege communication, like John Eastman, the president's attorney.
	And they're asking for things that are clearly...
	So first, they didn't have a proper legislative purpose in the first part, but they have to show a nexus between the subpoena and the legislative purpose.
	They can't show that.
	Secondly, the very operating committee, the very operating bill that allows this committee to be formed, required that they appoint people with the consultation of the minority leader and have a ranking minority member to review any subpoena before it goes out.
	They never consulted with them.
	They don't have a ranking minority member.
	So it doesn't even conform to the limits that Congress itself imposed on it and creating it.
	So that's the second major problem with these institutional problems with these subpoenas.
	And then the third, of course, is just on their face.
	They're overbroad.
	They're asking for way too much information.
	They're seeking information that's either protected under journalist privilege, protected under attorney-client privilege.
	Or protected by other issues, First or Fifth Amendment rights, because this implicates associational rights, speech rights, press rights, as well as due process rights.
	So there's going to be very robust challenges that have already been filed, and if the courts are going to discipline this Congress at all, they need to step in, because some of these, again, are left-wing journalists who are being subpoenaed, who are saying this is insane.
	Saying that you're asking for my personal text from three months ago?
	You're asking for every contact I ever had?
	Robert, they should be thankful they're not busting down their door at six in the morning like they did with James O 'Keefe and then seizing their cell phones.
	And by the way, whoever said I'm distracted, I am always distracted, but never distracted.
	No, I sent an email because someone made a comment in the chat and I want to see if everything's okay with someone.
	Yeah, it's nuts.
	People are saying kangaroo court, Robert, but there's no other word for it.
	It's a kangaroo of Congress, and the only question is whether we're going to have a real court step in to stop it.
	But I think, I mean, in these cases also, probably like the other January 6th committee subpoenas, some of them at least are going to head to the Supremes, and we'll see what they do.
	They haven't ruled on this issue in a long time.
	But it's long overdue they start to discipline Congress.
	When Congress is violating its own rules, violating the constitutional limits on its activities, it doesn't have enforcement power, doesn't have executive power, and yet it's clearly using this to do precisely that.
	And they prove that without a doubt.
	When Mark Meadows produced some text, they not only leak them for the purpose of political embarrassment.
	What legislative purpose did that serve?
	What legislative purpose?
	And then on top of that, they shift.
	Modified it to create a false narrative so that he's creating sort of fake news in the process.
	He's doctoring evidence that if he did it in court, he could go to prison for it.
	So if the courts don't impose some constraint on this excess of Congress, just like if they don't impose some constraint on the excesses of the executive branch, then we're in very perilous times.
	But these cases present an excellent opportunity for those limits to be imposed.
	And I think some court at some stage...
	We'll, in fact, rebuke what Congress is trying to do with these ridiculous committees that are on life support anyway, because they're going to be DOA come next January, because Democrats don't stand a prayer of holding the House.
	I'm going to read this.
	Like this video.
	There should be 10,818 thumbs up on this video, but I just got a text, which is a text.
	I have to double-check that it's actually from the government of Canada.
	It says, Assume you have Omicron and self-isolate.
	Ottawa Public Health.
	This is what my life is.
	Eight hours a day is not even that much because that doesn't include my computer time.
	Like the video, people.
	That's one thing.
	Speaking of COVID-related issues.
	Which one were you going to?
	I was going to go to Facebook or Facebook.
	We'll go to that second.
	Speaking of COVID-related issues, the hit piece of all hit pieces came out this week, went global around the world.
	An Associated Press reporter spent months coming up with this hit piece because of the success of Robert Kennedy's book about Anthony Fauci, about the entire COVID madness.
	Extraordinarily well-cited, documented, and supported.
	You can get it digitally for like $2.99.
	Bobby Kennedy is donating all of the profits from the book to fighting vaccine mandates and these other related issues.
	None of this is going into his pocket, as the AP reporter had to begrudgingly admit.
	But in the piece, AP made about at least five.
	Obvious lies about basic facts concerning Bobby Kennedy and Children's Health Defense and subjected themselves to a potentially monster libel suit for this smear campaign.
	They probably thought they could get away with it because of what Instagram and other people had done before, because Kennedy had been reluctant to bring suit on these cases for a range of reasons a lot of people don't like.
	If you're a public figure...
	It's often a waste of time to try to get involved in the courts.
	But this was such egregious lies.
	And to give just one illustration, the AP report said that Children's Health Defense and Bobby Kennedy had falsely stated that the biologic licensed, fully approved COVID vaccine was not available in the United States back in August.
	It's still not available in the United States.
	Not only was that not a lie, that was the absolute truth that courts have repeatedly confirmed.
	We brought suit related to it, and the court admitted it was true.
	There is no biologic-licensed, FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccine available in the United States, as Pfizer itself has repeatedly stated.
	There is just the emergency use authorized ones available.
	And they sat there and lied, and this story went around the world.
	They libeled Bobby Kennedy and Children's Health Defense across the entire globe.
	And I think that they may find themselves mistaken in assuming there will be no blowback.
	You know, the reporter can be sued individually.
	She lives in Rhode Island.
	She might want to be checking their insurance policies at the moment.
	And the Associated Press.
	Can be sued.
	Uniquely strong legal claims because they couldn't help themselves.
	The smart ones smear by innuendo, by carefully structured statements that they can label opinion down the road.
	These made specific factual claims repeatedly that are obviously and clearly false just because they can't handle Bobby Kennedy.
	being a leader against vaccine mandates.
	It drives them nuts that the famous son, the famous scion of the most famous pro-civil liberties political family in American history is saying vaccine mandates are a threat to Americans.
	And I want everyone out there to appreciate that Robert is writing poetry in real time.
	The way he framed that discussion links us perfectly into the next discussion, which is framing...
	What is a matter of fact as a matter of opinion or a matter of opinion as a matter of fact?
	Which brings us into the fake book, Facebook fact-checking lawsuit, which was...
	I mean, Robert, I love it.
	And I saw it happening in real time.
	John Stossel, the reporter.
	ABC.
	I think people started hating him when he went on Fox News.
	Maybe they hated him before.
	Someone in our locals community said that they didn't like Stossel because back in the 80s or the 90s...
	He called pro wrestling fake and then a wrestler slapped him on the face and said, is that fake?
	And then he sued them for assault.
	And I said, locals community, what you just described, it sounds like assault to me.
	And if someone did that to me, I don't blame him.
	But I will also forgive him for any indiscretions that are 30 years old.
	But Stossel sued Facebook because they are using their third party fact checkers.
	I'm not even sure if I did that on purpose anymore.
	They called two of his stories factually incorrect, misleading or missing context.
	They had to do with the forest fires in California.
	They said it was factually incorrect, missing context, yada yada.
	Labeled it.
	He sued them for defamation, including their third party fact checker.
	Facebook filed, it was a motion to dismiss.
	Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and under anti-slap legislation in whatever state it was.
	California.
	And they said, Or fact checkers, in addition to all the other arguments, they are, when they say missing context or fact check fault, whatever, it's protected opinion and therefore cannot be defamatory.
	And Robert, not that I'm ahead of the curve.
	I'm only ahead of the curve because I'm following your taillights.
	You said, we discussed this a while back, it's like, okay, are fact checks matter of fact or are they just actually statements of opinion and an argument on the internet?
	Which itself wouldn't be a problem, except they use them to sanction, penalize, de-platform, and sometimes even worse, by labeling them as fact-check false.
	So they fact-check stuff.
	So they say false, missing context, yada, yada.
	By the way, here, redirect traffic to our websites.
	Redirect traffic to our platform so we can make money off your work while we lie about you.
	And Facebook says it's protected opinion.
	There's the law and there's the business.
	So your opinion in law, in their chances of success, and the consequences in business of what they've just done and business model.
	Go.
	So this goes back to our Candace Owens case, where a Delaware trial court bought that excuse and said that labeling something hoax has no factual inference whatsoever.
	That labeling something misinformation has no factual inference whatsoever.
	That calling something a fact check doesn't actually concern any facts and isn't itself a fact.
	So they're borrowing from that defense that was successful for them against Candace Owens in Delaware, borrowing it now for the Ninth Circuit.
	Presumably, they're also going to apply it in another case that's coming because Facebook's same group of people lied about the British Medical Journal, which reported on my whistleblower, who blew the whistle on how the clinical trials with Pfizer...
	We're littered with serious scientific and ethical problems in the production of data such that the data is utterly unreliable in terms of the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine, as she documented in detail.
	And so presumably they're going to make the same defense in that case because that case is coming.
	So the argument is that they are at least admitting now more formally, fully, and officially in court.
	And I've often said this is one of the utilities of filing suit.
	Make them admit that what they're doing isn't fact-checking at all.
	What they're doing isn't a fact at all.
	This is their own opinion about somebody else's opinion.
	And that has been...
	It's probably functionally true about fact-checking for a while that all it really is is their biased opinions about matters.
	But the problem is that's not how it's presented.
	And clearly people who read fact-checks think that it's a factual claim.
	They don't think it's of opinion.
	It doesn't say opinion.
	This is the thing.
	Because the fact-checks used to be he said it would happen in 1945.
	No, it happened in 1942.
	But then the fact-checks Became these hyper-contextualized, oh, well, he said this, but he meant this.
	They became politicized, where they became not fact-checking facts, like how many people died in a plane crash, how many people, whatever.
	It became what was meant by.
	And they became effectively arguments.
	Nothing wrong with that, but they're not facts and they are not fact-checks.
	They are arguments, rebuttals, or counter-arguments.
	And it's not just that they call them fact-checks when they're not.
	It's that they base policy.
	They base sanctions.
	They base deplatforming on adhering to the fact checks.
	If you put out a false fact check, you get deplatformed, demonetized, redirected.
	And so it became policy.
	It became weaponized.
	Then it became policy.
	And I'm not sure which one happened first.
	But yeah, so they said it publicly now.
	But what are going to be the legal consequences in terms of whether or not a judge is going to say, Protected opinion, so therefore can't be defamatory.
	I don't see any judge buying it.
	We need to get to the anti-slap stuff afterwards, but we'll get there.
	But the business consequence.
	Can Facebook continue to implement sanctions based on fact checks when they have now admitted that they are just protected opinion?
	Yeah, because of Section 230.
	Because otherwise they could be sued for fraud.
	Because clearly they are representing to people that these are factual claims being made.
	Not that these are just somebody's editorial opinion.
	And they're taking action based on the assumption it's a factual claim being made, not an opinion.
	And now that they're admitting, oh, we've just been lying to everybody, like everything else we've been doing for the last decade.
	Normally, you could sue for consumer fraud in that case.
	Under Section 230, you can't.
	And so that's still the hurdle.
	Now, the way in which you possibly can...
	Is the case pending before the Ninth Circuit brought by Bobby Kennedy and Children's Health Defense concerning Facebook being an agent of the state as it concerns these issues?
	For which more evidence developed this week when Freedom of Information Act requests show that Anthony Fauci and the director of the National Institute for Health at the time were conspiring to go after people who are critical of their COVID policies or raised questions about what critical drinker would call the message.
	Before we get there, I just want to bring this one.
	You should have Stossel on, sidebar.
	Robert, I will always courteously and graciously reach out publicly, but I will never shame anyone for not accepting a public invitation.
	I don't even know if they're ever going to see it.
	I would love to have Stossel on.
	I would love to have Gina Carano on.
	If they don't respond or say no, no problem.
	I will not shame them for that.
	I would love to have Stossalon because he's got a very interesting history that I did not know of in terms of where his parents came from, his upbringing, and now his experience with the media that will turn on you at the drop of a hat when they no longer like what you have to say.
	So yeah, tweet it out.
	I'd love to have Stossalon and Gina Carano.
	That would be on my wish list for 2022.
	What were you just saying, Robert?
	And now I just lost my thought.
	So yeah, I mean...
	Facebook is still protected under Section 230 if they've been lying to everybody about fact-checking really being just pure editorial opinions.
	But I don't think a court should accept that.
	I mean, the reality is the standard is not what Facebook thinks they're doing.
	The standard is whether any reasonable juror could interpret their statements as even inferring facts.
	That's it.
	It doesn't have to be a factual claim itself.
	Could you even be inferring facts?
	To give an example, The Supreme Court said it's liable when somebody accused someone else of perjury.
	Clearly, at some level, that's an opinion that what they did was perjury.
	But they said opinion is not protected if it infers a false fact.
	That's what fact checks are.
	Fact checks when they're wrong and make a false factual claim.
	When you say your fact is false, that's a factual claim.
	That's not an opinion.
	Oh, jeez, I'm falling apart.
	I'm falling apart.
	Hold on.
	If anyone here clicks on Viva Speech, that might be noise from upstairs.
	I'm going to put the earphones back on for a bit.
	It's obvious that the Facebook fact checks were BS when they started fact checking memes.
	But this is the thing.
	Who is going to look at a fact check and say, oh, I'm just listening to somebody's opinion.
	No, then it would be rebuttal.
	It would be counter argument.
	It would be response.
	A fact check is...
	The chemical structure of an element would be a fact check.
	It would be a fact check.
	It would not be a nuanced argument discussion on a very complex issue.
	All that matters is that it infer facts.
	I think of it as legal pleadings.
	If someone says that fact is false, that itself is a factual claim.
	That's not an opinion.
	That's a factual claim.
	And so because you're saying a fact is false, you're saying a fact is a hoax, you're saying a fact is untrue.
	That's factual by definition.
	I mean, we deal with this in the law all the time.
	You make factual averments, somebody disputes those factual averments, claims those factual averments are not true, or allegations, or attestations, however you want to describe it, in the legalized language or lingo, that's a factual statement.
	It's always been considered a factual statement, not an opinion.
	That's not opinion at all.
	So I find it ludicrous that it was only because the Delaware courts, which by the way, the same Delaware courts, Delaware court system, said that Fox could continue to face suit from Dominion because they decided to interpret everything Fox ever even allowed on air concerning Dominion to be factual statements, even when those statements sound a lot like opinion when it's coming from Tucker Carlson or other people.
	So they have completely contradictory opinions depending on the politics of the party.
	And I believe this is either a fact or a satire.
	Jason, I know what it is.
	Jason, good one.
	I want to get back to the chief that I just brought up because that was a very funny name, which you might have actually got me before I read it thoroughly.
	Won't bring it back up.
	But no, it is preposterous because it's just the weaponizing of reason.
	It's literally the Orwellian Freedom is slavery.
	Ignorance is strength.
	And, gosh darn it.
	I forget what the third one is.
	War is peace.
	And, by the way, fact checks are opinion.
	And so, we're going to deem fact checks to be opinion.
	Fact checks are not factual.
	No, I prefer my variation.
	Fact checks are opinion.
	When you say fact check, you meant opinion.
	When Tucker Carlson comes out with his rant of the week opinion piece, it's a fact.
	Sue him.
	It's weaponizing language, but I guess it's always been this way.
	Orwell didn't make up the future.
	He was just recounting the past.
	The Biden administration is trying to convince people that their Head Start mandate is a performance standard.
	The lunacy of language.
	The way they're stretching language to impossible places.
	The federal contractor mandate is just supposed to be a procurement enhancement policy.
	I mean, this is ludicrous.
	Ludicrous.
	And if the courts don't stop this ludicrous components, they'll start to discredit themselves as an institution.
	But Robert, here's the thing.
	I don't want to black pill people.
	That's what I have been drawing white pill enthusiasm from what you've been saying for a while.
	Yes, they will discredit themselves.
	But what if the black pill is...
	Big effing deal.
	Screw you.
	We've discredited ourselves, but we still hold the power of the prosecution, the judiciary, and the executive.
	So, hey, good.
	We've discredited ourselves, but you're a lowly hoi polloi citizen on the street.
	Suck it up because you've got no choice.
	That's my black pill, Robert.
	The problem is the fifth pillar of power that undergirds the four pillars of power is the perception of the other four pillars of power.
	And the moment that pillar of power goes away, the system collapses.
	You can't kill everybody.
	That's the problem, right?
	You know, we don't yet live in a true robotic age where you can just start whacking everybody.
	And if people start to not believe in you, your institutions, it's only a matter of time before they crumble and collapse.
	There's a reason why Trump got elected president, because people are increasingly doubtful and skeptical and critical of our system.
	And right now, he's leading by double digits in a bunch of states.
	So the system should wake up.
	That they're about to get utterly crushed unless they come to some recognition and realization that they have to actually step up to the plate and do their duty and protect principle.
	I can't type it in time.
	Fact?
	L-O-T-R, Lord of the Rings is the greatest movie trilogy ever?
	False.
	It is Back to the Future 1, 2, and 3. Eat it.
	But also, Robert, they can't kill us all.
	You don't make a factual claim by calling it a fact.
	But when you decide to call something a fact check, Then anything you say is thereby factual.
	I mean, that's my view.
	Or at least a reasonable inference of a reasonable person in the audience reading it would be that.
	And again, it doesn't have to be the only possible inference.
	It doesn't have to be the most persuasive one.
	It just has to be a reasonable inference by any reasonable person.
	And maybe Harmeet Dillon will do this.
	You should hire Richard Baer as people's pundit.
	Do a poll and put it before the court.
	Ask people, when you see something called a fact check, do you think that is a statement of fact or a statement of just subjective opinion?
	And you'll get at least a good number, my guess, a majority of people say, I assume a fact check is actually factual.
	Not that it's not factual.
	No, first of all, I agree with you.
	Who just said Back to the Future 2 was the best one of the three, okay?
	The first one was the most original.
	The second was the most entertaining.
	The third one was a letdown, but Mary Steenberger, I love her.
	I have a thing for her.
	She was my high school crush.
	I'll never forget it.
	But Robert is judging me thoroughly right now.
	Yeah, okay.
	It's over the top.
	We'll see what happens.
	We'll see what happens legally and business-wise and policy-wise.
	Oh, sorry, that was it.
	Anti-slap.
	What are your thoughts on the strength of their anti-slap argument?
	Because I can understand that.
	Facebook raises the anti-slap argument that they're being sued for exercising their First Amendment rights while depriving other people of their First Amendment rights.
	Set that aside.
	They're basically saying you're suing us for exercising our First Amendment rights to qualify something as something.
	So dismiss it on an anti-slap basis.
	Strategic lawsuit against public participation.
	I think it's relatively broad in California.
	Do you think they're going to succeed on that aspect of the claim?
	They have to succeed on the opinion part first.
	Because if you libel someone, slap doesn't protect you.
	Okay.
	So the anti-slap laws only protect you if it's not actionable as libel in the first place.
	And so now there's a question in federal court.
	Other federal courts have said anti-slap law doesn't apply under federal rules.
	The Ninth Circuit has said it does apply.
	But that's also subject to future appellate reversal or Supreme Court clarification.
	I think the Supreme Court will ultimately say anti-slap laws do not apply in federal court.
	So whether or not they even have that remedy long-term if it went up all the way up the appellate food chain is an open question.
	But either way, they have to win on the underlying merits argument that nothing they said could be interpreted as factual.
	It's not just that the best argument is that it isn't factual.
	It's that no reasonable person anywhere Could interpret anything they said as factual.
	I don't think that's a reasonable interpretation of the evidence.
	Me neither, but I saw what happened in Salmon, saw what happened in Candace Owens.
	I don't see this going any other way.
	But when someone says fact check, yeah, fact is the opposite of opinion.
	Fact to opinion is war to peace.
	It is ignorance to strength.
	It is...
	What's the third one?
	I forgot the third one.
	Doesn't matter.
	Okay.
	So we'll see.
	We'll follow it.
	It's fascinating.
	But it didn't get the attention it deserved.
	Partially because I think Facebook controls the attention that it gets.
	So we'll see.
	But Robert, we cannot finish the evening.
	We're going to go on for a little bit more because we've got a lot of stuff.
	Baldwin, we cannot...
	I mean, it's another week.
	Another Baldwin.
	Baldwin got served with a search warrant.
	And so did the PDQ, the...
	Prop company who provided the dummy rounds, which for 50 dummy rounds apparently contained upwards of seven live rounds.
	And I'm not laughing at the tragedy.
	I'm laughing at the absurdity of what's going on in this.
	You get 50 dummy rounds sprinkled in there, live rounds.
	Alec Baldwin getting served with a search warrant for his cell phone, which ended in 3999.
	And I'm not saying that to dox him.
	I'm saying that because...
	When I saw that, I was like, okay, someone's going to make the association.
	Three, triple nine, flip the nines upside down.
	It's three, triple six.
	I could see it because I can add numbers and see these things.
	There is no positive way to spin the search warrant, correct?
	No positive angle to it whatsoever.
	No.
	Is it as bad as I think it is?
	Now, I will not be judgmental to Alec Baldwin.
	I would not give my phone to anybody ever.
	So I would say, get a search warrant and let me consult with my attorneys.
	What's the exact process?
	They say, okay, we like your phone.
	No, get a warrant.
	They get a warrant.
	How much advanced warning does he have before they grab his phone out of his back pocket?
	I don't know in New Mexico how the state court process works.
	It's a little unusual that you even have the publication of a search warrant.
	But a lot of state court proceedings are public proceedings, unlike federal court proceedings and search warrants.
	But it depends on the nature of the case and the state in play.
	So, I think the search warrant was overbroad.
	You know, it was not clear to me why he needs the whole contact list and messages going back a month or so and things like that.
	It's like, hmm, that kind of looks like a fishing expedition to me.
	I don't think that search warrant should have been signed as given, even though I think, again, Alec Baldwin is guilty of a crime in all likelihood.
	But it is an indicator that the investigator, by the nature of what's in the search warrant, the investigator...
	The other reason, if you're a defense lawyer, this is a high-profile case, so it's a little bit trickier because there's a reputational impact of a search warrant being issued.
	But generally speaking, if you know the search warrant, you're going to get access to it, you prefer to force that.
	Some people are asking, why do you just turn it over so that all this will stay private and quiet?
	The advantage of forcing a search warrant tactically is you force the officer to put things under penalty of perjury, and he often will give you a roadmap of where he's at and where he's going.
	And so there's a tactical edge to forcing that.
	There's a reputational impact that's unique to high-profile cases that might mitigate against that strategy, but that's not an uncommon strategy.
	But I did think the warrant was overly broad.
	Sometimes there's the federal system, you can file a motion for return of seized properties.
	You can ask for a special master like Project Veritas did if you believe it's overbroad or invasive.
	So there's ways in which you can contest it.
	I assume there's comparable remedies in New Mexico, but I've never litigated a state case in New Mexico, so I don't know.
	I've litigated some other cases in New Mexico, but not a state criminal case.
	But from what I read, he calls himself the affiant.
	I always find that funny.
	You're going to get grilled.
	Affiant.
	Affiant, yeah.
	However you want to pronounce it.
	I like to say pronunciate just to agitate some people in the crowd.
	Agitate.
	You've got to agitate them.
	Yeah, exactly.
	But given what he says throughout the whole thing, he clearly thinks Baldwin is hiding something and Baldwin is partially guilty.
	Now, he doesn't make the ultimate prosecutorial decision.
	The DA does, but presumably a DA signed off on...
	What we predicted was Baldwin going public, saying things that didn't make sense, that were going to lead to the court of public opinion, Pointing out that he's likely lying was going to backfire on him in the criminal case because it would put more pressure on the investigator and the prosecutor to look at the case.
	Now, you thought it could lead to prosecution.
	I was still skeptical of that because of the politics of the prosecutor involved.
	But what it has led to is this.
	I mean, here's the thing to ask everybody.
	Why wasn't this search warrant issued right back at the time?
	There's a little delay here.
	And probable delay is that originally the prosecutor didn't approve going forward at all, but now there's this public blowback where everybody from the ex-DUCA hazards actor is saying, uh-uh, you can't fire the gun the way Baldwin said you fire that gun, to every other gun expert I've seen saying, nope, that story doesn't make sense, to the behavior body language panel.
	Being like, ah, he's hiding something here.
	Not sure what it is, but he's hiding something here.
	You get all of that aggregate credit and then you get a Canadian lawyer saying you're guilty and I figured out how.
	And it adds up and you get a New Mexico investigator having enough political pressure, public pressure, to make the prosecutor sign off on taking the investigation one step further.
	And who knows what Alec was dumb enough to yip about in one of those texts.
	Remember everybody, never in writing, always in cash.
	Baldwin may have forgot that lesson.
	And now, Robert, you're right, because the warrant itself said, okay, we've seen receipts, text messages leading up to the production of Rust with Helena Hutchins.
	I have so many what-ifs, but we'll get there in a second.
	So, in the warrant, they say, okay, there were text messages before leading up to receipts, yada, yada.
	That's fine.
	But then in the same war, they say, we want all of your contacts and all of, effectively, basically, I think it's all of, you know, any information relating to all of those contacts, not related to Rust.
	But can you imagine, just hypothetically, people were out there floating the idea that there might have been a relationship between Baldwin and Helena.
	Can you imagine if that comes up in the text messages?
	Can you imagine if there's a unfriendly or, what's the word I'm looking for?
	What's the word when you're looking for a fight?
	Oh, sweet, merciful goodness.
	Yeah, or if he said, oh, whatever, right after the incident to somebody on his little iMessage.
	Or saying, why would there have been a bullet?
	IMessage, not so much.
	What's the word I'm looking for?
	Confrontational.
	Can you imagine if he had confrontational text messages with Helena Hutchins on his phone?
	Or he said something to somebody else about her.
	That's probably the bigger risk.
	He probably wouldn't be the type to say something.
	Directly to her, but he might have said, man, I got this new director.
	She's a total...
	Now, some people are saying he's had ample time to delete his text messages, to which I was responding.
	It sounds like they have...
	If he used Signal, then there's no centralized place for those.
	But if he used almost anybody else...
	Once they know what his carrier is, they can just go to the carrier and get all the text.
	Some are kept, some are not.
	Depends on the carrier.
	Depends on the time, length, etc.
	But apparently he was using iMessenger.
	Which is...
	Well, whether or not it's forever.
	It sounded to me from that warrant that they had the receiving ends of those text messages.
	So what would be greater than getting his phone?
	Seeing deleted messages that they have the recipient's end of.
	You can delete it on your phone.
	Someone else received it.
	And unless they deleted it...
	You're screwed, especially if you delete it.
	So this stuff is, it's just getting hotter and hotter.
	And I will say, I'll never think that Alec Baldwin did it on purpose with the consequences he intended.
	I just think he either pulled the trigger out of frustration or as some people are saying, oh, who was the guy?
	Someone did a great breakdown.
	Let me get it because it deserves to be viewed.
	Where he said the only other alternative is that he had his finger.
	Perpetually depressed.
	Already on the trigger.
	And when he pulled the hammer back, full cock, release, and then did it.
	Let me just get the guy's name because he deserves to have that video watched, but it was watched a million and a half times, so I'm not doing anything.
	But I'll get there in a second.
	Okay, so Baldwin's getting deeper and deeper into Schmitt's Creek, as we say in Canada.
	He has a problem with the investigator.
	He still may not have any problem with the prosecutor, but he...
	He allowed the investigator to have a broader leash because of his foolish public defenses.
	And it was Brandon Herrera who did the...
	He did the video.
	It's Brandon Herrera.
	A dozen of them.
	And they've just broken down over and over again.
	Is it John Schneider, the ex-Dukes of Hazzard guy's name?
	He's done a couple of breakdowns himself.
	I mean, just tons of people.
	They're all like, uh...
	Impossible.
	But in the warrant itself, based on the investigator's notes, it said that he fired it.
	It didn't say that he just...
	It said he dramatically did something, but it didn't say he...
	It didn't say what Baldwin said he said with George Stephanopoulos.
	And my assumption is they wouldn't be doing a search warrant if the gun actually did have a defect, because that was the only other explanation.
	So it sounds to me like that he clearly did pull the trigger.
	He's lying about it.
	And the only question is whether there'll be criminal consequences for it.
	His own self-immolation in his failed self-defense publicly has put him into greater jeopardy.
	Now, I still think...
	Low likelihood he gets prosecuted because of the politics of the DA there and his own politics.
	But, you know, we'll see.
	Now, I want to bring this one up just because I want to address the Canadian question.
	Mrs. Carruthers, what level of confidence is there in the Canadian Supreme Court if, when, any COVID health mandate cases are brought?
	Do you think the courts could be captured like everything?
	I do not think any court system in Canada is ever going to intervene for anything related to COVID.
	That would contradict the measures implemented by the government.
	And it's not to set a black pill out there.
	They will not do it because the deference they have showed to the decision-making process of the government and the expectation of the general public.
	I mean, just like Robert and I talk about it.
	In the States, the mass public, the general public seems to be not behind these measures.
	In Canada, they seem to be.
	So you've got the political.
	You've got the media and you've got the general population backing the measures.
	You think the SCOTUS is going to come out and say, no, quarantine hotels are not justified.
	No, face masks are on.
	They're not going to do it.
	They're not going to do it.
	So you, if you, if democracy is a double-edged sword, if democracy is not going to save you, save yourself from democracy.
	All right.
	Well, we were doing good here, Robert.
	What do we have left on the menu?
	Just two main cases to talk.
	I mean, there was a bunch of cases this week, but two main ones that are worth going into today.
	The Trucker and the Tinder class action.
	Let's do the Tinder so we can finish on the Trucker, because I don't know anything about the Tinder.
	I was going to say Little Binger might qualify for that Tinder class action, and I realized he probably used a different app.
	Opinion, people.
	That's opinion, not fact, just so we're clear.
	Yeah, exactly, exactly.
	It's informed speculation for Pillowboy.
	Basically, it turns out there's a Tinder class accident that's now been certified in California because it appears that they discriminated against their older subscribers.
	They were charging different rates based on your age, which violated age discrimination laws.
	There's not much beyond that, but I found it kind of a funny case.
	I was wondering...
	Who's going to sign up for that?
	Who's going to say, yeah, I was one of them.
	You can put me in the public record.
	That's another...
	It's like the Ashley Madison case.
	It's like, who's going to sign up to say, yeah, my records...
	Hold on a second.
	Only Lenny Dykstra would have no fear.
	He'd be like, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	They stole my record.
	But other than Lenny, I don't think a lot of people were signing up for the Ashley Madison class action.
	So we'll see how many sign up for the Tinder class action.
	Robert, I got this advice from a lawyer who said, first of all...
	Marry young, stay married.
	If you want to stay rich or not get poor, don't get divorced.
	But these are like, who in their right mind?
	I'll venture to say nobody.
	I mean, that's hilarious.
	I had no idea about the lawsuit.
	But yeah, even if I were there, count me out.
	I get class action stuff.
	What was the one that we just got recently?
	It was Dropbox.
	It was one of these platforms where we're like, okay, I can file a complaint.
	I can get my $25 back at the end of the day.
	I was like, no thank you.
	It was not a sex site.
	But Robert, the trucker sentence has led to a mass protest across the trucker world.
	As it should.
	It should lead to a mass protest just in general.
	Now, I don't like playing the political identity side of things.
	I think it is relevant in this case.
	The individual is Cuban or South American, Morales, Cuban.
	That doesn't change anything except for that maybe there's a two-tiered justice system in America, which I think we all knew.
	But this is a truck driver, 23 years old.
	He's driving through Colorado.
	He's driving a big rig, 18-wheeler.
	For whatever the reason, the brakes fail.
	The brakes fail outright.
	There's no contradiction of that.
	I don't know the facts.
	If you know more than me, and if the chat knows more, let me know.
	If the brakes failed because he was using them and not using engine compression to slow down, if they failed because of whatever, he ended up in a massive pileup, crashed into, I don't know, 25 other cars, explosion, four people died.
	They charged him with 25 charges, the most serious of which was...
	I think it was over 40. He was convicted of like 27 charges.
	Oh, sorry.
	My apologies.
	He was convicted of vehicular homicide, which was the one I suspect was the most serious of the charges.
	That aggravated assault.
	First, some aggravated assault charges.
	Aggravated assault is even more offensive to the legal mind.
	But, Robert, the argument from the prosecution, as far as I understood, I guess there were two questions.
	Do you or do we know, if I'm going to go to the chat, did his brakes overheat or did they fail?
	Was he going 85 miles an hour when they failed or after they failed?
	Those are two things I'm not sure about.
	And then there's an issue.
	He didn't take the emergency off-ramp, which if anybody's driven through...
	I've never driven through the Rockies in the States, but in Canada, when you go through consistent low grades or downhills, they have these off-ramps.
	If your brakes fail, you just go on gravel and cross your fingers and pray to God.
	So they had those, and apparently he missed two of them or decided not to take two of them, which I don't believe that he would decide not to take them for a second because the alternatives could not have been better than that.
	But they convicted him on 26 charges and the minimum, apparently, mandatory consecutive sentencing, 110 years, to a 23-year-old kid with no criminal record, no nothing, passed the training, by all accounts, breaks failed through no fault of his own.
	But he made a series of bad decisions from what I've been able to read.
	I'm going to go to the chat and see if anyone has answers, but Robert, what's your take?
	So this case, I think, was largely brought about by two things.
	Misrepresentations on social media.
	That's why I'm always skeptical when I see some social media viral case about some private citizen where they're asserting something happened.
	I tend to be reluctant to retweet those things or comment on them until there's more facts developed.
	Because this is a case where the early social media was that this was a crazy, reckless driver speeding through traffic who then ran right head-on into a local traffic jam and caused a huge pile-up and killed a bunch of people and injured more.
	And the idea was that he was a reckless speeding driver, and I think that's what led to the over-prosecution.
	Which is the second element of this by the prosecutor.
	So it creates this another, it's like, you know, the Amy Cooper case and these other cases where people rush to judgment about what happened based on a selective social media version of events.
	And how many times do we see this in the social media version?
	It doesn't turn out to be true.
	But the media ran with it because it was great clickbait, etc.
	And there's a 23-year-old kid now facing life in prison, largely because social media people, people just share things without vetting them.
	If it's a private citizen and you weren't personally there, be very careful.
	The Covington Kids case was all about that.
	Be careful before you jump to conclusions about some edited version of a private citizen on social media, because nine times out of ten, that narrative will not be true.
	And people, I don't think people publicly rag on me about this, but people DM me, like, can you share this, share that?
	Even if it looks over the top, like there was a two-minute video coming out of Canada.
	Of an individual being denied entry for food into a market.
	I don't like sharing this because there's a lot of...
	I don't know any details about this.
	And two minutes, even unedited, can be taken out of context.
	And you have to be careful about it.
	Now, I'm reading this chat here.
	He couldn't read signs.
	And I don't know if that's a joke or if that's actual evidence of the trial.
	But even if he couldn't read signs, that's not vehicular homicide.
	And I don't think you need to read signs in order to know where your best...
	Exit strategy is like, you don't need to read signs for that.
	So I don't even know if that's true or not, but based on the facts and now the chats are coming in heavy, but so the second aspect was I think the prosecutor charged him with 42 charges and I think he was convicted at 27, acquitted at 15. If that isn't over prosecution, I don't know what is.
	So the, they, they created the prosecutor's choice created this risk.
	They could have just done one or two charges so that the judge wasn't bound.
	By the maximum sentencing rules, mandatory minimum rules in Colorado.
	So the prosecutor chose to overcharge, thought he would plead to a couple of them by overcharging.
	Prosecutors do this all the time.
	They coerce pleas by overcharging.
	It's unethical, but nobody disciplines them for it in the judicial or ethical system.
	And that's partially why.
	And then he got convicted by the jury very fast.
	So, you know, it's another jury selection case because it shows you the significance of that.
	Jurors come to certain preordained conclusions and then that's it.
	And they may have come to those conclusions because of pretrial publicity concerning this case in the local area.
	Now, the prosecution's theory at trial, they partially blamed him for the break problem because they were saying he didn't do it right earlier.
	They blamed him because he had exaggerated his qualifications to get...
	To get the job.
	But all of what they were arguing was really negligence, it sounded to me, not criminal recklessness intending to cause harm to other people.
	Now, here's the most frightening part, but it actually puts a real-world legal example of the philosophical debate we had when the sidebar with Robert Gruller and Joe Nierman, good logic, and watching the Watchers are there.
	Media YouTube names.
	Which was, would you be willing to sacrifice yourself as an innocent life in order to save multiple other innocent lives?
	Because it's always the version, it's better to have one innocent person go, one innocent person be free, even if it means another 100 guilty people go free, than one person be convicted just to make sure the 99 guilty people don't walk.
	And a lot of people have problems with that.
	But the best way I've always thought to characterize it is to make it personal.
	Okay, let's say you could die, and by dying you would know 100 people, or go to prison, say, for 20 years, and you know by doing so, 100 people's lives were saved.
	Would you do it?
	Most people often have a second thought when they see it translated in those terms.
	The prosecutor's actual theory and closing argument in this case was that he should have drove his truck into the back of this other, I think it was another tractor trailer.
	And should have killed himself rather than risk other people being harmed by going into the traffic jam.
	You're now calling that criminal recklessness to not kill yourself because maybe it saves other lives.
	That's a terrifying impact of this verdict.
	I brought up a bunch of chats which are not sympathetic to the individual, and this is one of them.
	He had a Colorado...
	I guess it meant Colorado...
	I think that's a truck driver's license.
	Good only in Texas.
	He should never have been in Colorado.
	But here's the deal.
	Let's assume that that's true.
	Vehicular homicide, which is to say that even if that's true, negligence, maybe.
	And then I don't know how many charges that you could...
	I mean, the only argument could be that because he is operating a dangerous vehicle like an 18-wheeler, that the criminal recklessness standard is less like it is if you're handling a gun.
	But the other issue with this is mandatory minimums.
	Mandatory minimums came about...
	Because ordinary people didn't trust judges to give equitable sentences.
	And because of that, they required judges to impose at least a certain sentence if you're convicted of a particular crime.
	And here, the judge said he didn't think 110 years made sense for what happened here.
	And again, most murderers get a lot less.
	So reckless homicide people get a lot less.
	But it was only because of the way prosecutors charged him.
	Combined with the mandatory minimum laws that forced the judge to issue a 110-year sentence.
	What a lot of truckers, the reason why they were enraged is they think this is putting an obligation on them that's saying, we're going to criminalize your conduct if, again, this was the prosecutor's argument, if you don't commit suicide rather than risk another person's life.
	And I do have, you know, I'm not comfortable with that idea.
	You're on mute, Viva.
	Sorry, I'm an idiot.
	Trucker, I said I want to read a couple of chats because I think people should not misconstrue what's being said here.
	Trucker here, many drivers south of U.S. border don't read English and have zero regard for U.S. road safety.
	Driving semi, you need to understand the language.
	Fair.
	Yes, you do.
	No question about that.
	And he shouldn't have had the license.
	I get that, but look at that phraseology.
	He should have used, okay?
	That's negligence.
	That's not criminal recklessness.
	It's not clear he understood the runaway ramps or that he could have effectively used them.
	That was indisputed trial.
	And remember, again, ultimately what the prosecutor's ultimate argument was, was not the runaway ramps, was not how he used the brakes, was not whether he should have been driving in Colorado, was not whether he misrepresented things.
	Her main argument at the end was he should have killed himself rather than risk other people's lives.
	Ask yourself if you're comfortable with that standard.
	Should you go to prison for life if you don't kill yourself when killing yourself may save other people?
	I'm not comfortable with that idea.
	Just so nobody misapprehends anything.
	He is guilty of something in the sense that...
	Clearly it's negligence.
	No question it's negligence.
	He took undue risk.
	And maybe the combination of negligence and a truck under the circumstances he was in equals criminal recklessness.
	But again, if it was just that, if that was the only issue at trial, different dynamics.
	I still have some issues with it because I think it's a disproportionate sentence and this is because of prosecutorial overcharging and social media misrepresentations and mandatory minimums being excessively used.
	But that's not what happened at this trial.
	I mean, the core argument at the end...
	Was what I just described.
	People should ask themselves, are you comfortable with that?
	Even if you're comfortable that he should do time, are you comfortable with 110 years?
	Even if you're comfortable with both of that, are you comfortable with this being the reason?
	That this has established a legal precedent in America that if you're in a position where you could lose your life to save five others, you now commit a crime by not doing so.
	I'll read Christina Hilton just because I disagree with this in principle.
	Again, false choice.
	Don't drive so fast.
	Okay.
	Go easy on the brakes.
	That presumes a lot.
	Use your engine for assist.
	Okay.
	All retrospective.
	Lock this guy up.
	Same with all other...
	So, this is the issue.
	I got dog hair on my face.
	Reckless driving versus vehicular homicide.
	I mean, that's the issue here.
	The issue here is the charges and the conviction.
	And it appears that the reason why the speed happened was because he lost the brakes.
	That's my...
	Not because he was speeding before the brakes.
	It's my understanding.
	And mine as well.
	The prosecutor chose to use this case as a different precedent.
	So you could believe all of those things and be okay with the case.
	The question is, you're saying it's a false choice.
	The prosecutor is the one who created that choice.
	And this case will now be used as precedent for future such cases.
	Understand that's how the law works, functional.
	And so ask yourself whether you're comfortable with that.
	So you might be comfortable with the outcome without being comfortable with the means and the precedent this outcome set.
	It's not legally binding precedent, but it's publicly effective precedent.
	I want to read this one.
	I hear kids upstairs, and nobody's come down to get me, so we're good for now.
	Mike Demaret says, Robert, if Alec Baldwin wised up and decided to hire counsel, would you be willing to defend him?
	No comment.
	And then we got, someone said, Viva, let Barnes finish his sauce.
	Well, I can't let Barnes finish his sauce if I'm going to forget mine before he does.
	I'm joking.
	I will.
	Okay, so we got that.
	Robert, I think we did everything.
	I'm just going to look through this to see.
	Oh, the Disney lawsuit, we can talk about that later.
	There's a solution, by the way, in the truck driver case.
	The governor can commute a sentence to a reasonable sentence.
	And that's what truck drivers are trying to create.
	And that's whose perspective I'm going to defer a little to.
	Because, I mean, truck drivers know what this is on both sides.
	And if they're overwhelmingly saying this is a disproportionate sentence, they understand that he's being blamed for things that are putting too high a standard of care on him, then I'll listen to that.
	And I definitely think the sentence is disproportionate.
	But the bigger problem I have is the kind of public policy precedent they effectively established with this case.
	Yeah, so the commuting, and also commuting does not mean letting him off scot-free.
	He nonetheless was involved in an accident that killed four people.
	But what would be fair?
	Ten years?
	Ten years?
	The rest of this individual's life, as if this was premeditated?
	As if this was, I mean, compare, this was not reckless driving like the dude taking, drag racing, flipping his car and killing three pedestrians.
	This is, dude was doing his job.
	Maybe he didn't read English.
	I don't know that that's the case.
	Maybe he didn't know to take the off-ramp.
	I doubt that's the case.
	Maybe he just panicked under the circumstances after having brake failure and shouldn't have been behind the rig of a car.
	Of the vehicle, was the company itself not on trial in this, Robert?
	This was a criminal case.
	The defense claimed that the company had failed to properly check the brakes before they gave him the truck.
	The prosecution claimed it was his fault for how he had handled the truck earlier on the drive.
	So that was a disputed issue of fact at the trial.
	But the company, to my knowledge, clearly the company should have vetted things a lot better.
	This sounds like a company looking to hire...
	My guess is they paid him less than they paid some Teamsters.
	And that may be the real reason why...
	This all happened.
	Throw him under the bus.
	Okay.
	Robert, first of all, what comes next week?
	So right now we're waiting for a Glenn Maxwell verdict.
	Kim Potter verdict.
	Elizabeth Holmes verdict.
	The Supreme Court probably going to take up the vaccine mandates.
	So we'll have a busy Christmas week.
	But otherwise, it's Christmas week.
	Which I already properly started by watching the greatest Christmas film ever made.
	Die Hard.
	What was it?
	Christmas Vacation!
	Okay, sorry.
	As far as I'm concerned, greatest Christmas movie ever.
	Die Hard 1, and then Home Alone.
	And then maybe, yeah, Christmas Vacation is also great.
	And so we may not have a live stream Wednesday, or you may not be on the stream Wednesday, but I think I can do something Wednesday.
	I think we can do it, and we'll find something fun to do.
	Robert, we're going to do a stream before the end of the year to do a retrospective, but I guess...
	You need to make people optimistic.
	Heading into Christmas, heading into the New Year.
	How do you do it?
	I'm going to be listening because I may need some of this optimism.
	Well, I think what everybody's been waiting for, for the Supreme Court to weigh in on the vaccine mandates, will happen.
	And I think it's going to be a good ruling.
	And it would be one of the greatest precedents ever set in American legal history.
	So, that's what I'm looking for for Christmas.
	That would be the best Christmas gift I could imagine.
	Alright, and with that said, people have wanted a little bit of Winnie.
	He's on my lap.
	This, for everybody who's been here long enough, was the other vlog dog who I still think about him.
	It still breaks my heart.
	But this guy came.
	Look at this.
	Look at this.
	Look at that.
	Oh, you can come down, guys.
	Quickly.
	Before we end.
	And we've got two other monsters coming down.
	It's happening.
	Hurry up!
	Hurry up!
	You're fully...
	Okay, good, good, good.
	Someone's coming.
	Someone's coming.
	What do we got?
	Okay, we got number three of three, eating an apple.
	See, I will be happy when my hair is as long as this.
	I'm going to streak it.
	It's going to be beautiful.
	Robert, it's been one heck of a year.
	I mean, we're not done yet.
	We're going to have our end of the year.
	It won't be Wednesday, but it's been awesome.
	Jamie, have you guys watched at Christmas?
	Has he seen Christmas Vacation yet?
	Or Elf?
	Oh, have you seen Elf?
	No.
	Have you seen Christmas Vacation?
	They watched Home Alone tonight.
	They were watching Home Alone.
	I think he's too young for Die Hard.
	People, is he too young for Die Hard?
	Yeah, don't touch the thermostat.
	We're going to do it.
	Everyone out there, stay tuned.
	We'll go to Locals.
	We'll post what is going to happen for Wednesday.
	I'll be bouncing around.
	Robert, we'll see what happens next week.
	What are your plans for the holidays?
	You're staying home?
	You've got to go to Texas, then I'm to Tennessee.
	Okay.
	He took that to heart.
	All right.
	People, Robert, stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.
	Everyone in the chat, thank you very much.
	It's amazing.
	It's amazing.
	Every week is amazing.
	I feel better than I did three hours ago.
	So, Robert, I'll thank you.
	I'll thank everyone in the chat.
	I want to make sure that kid doesn't do it.
	It's blue.
	The blue light means he just touched something.
	So I'm going to go.
	All right, everyone.
	Enjoy the rest of the week.
	See you next week and stay positive.
	Not outrageously optimistic, cautiously optimistic.
	Peace, people.

▲