Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 22, 2021 - Viva & Barnes

03:27:27

Sidebar Bonanza - Viva & Barnes LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Are we live?
	We're live, and I saw someone in the chat saying it's going to be a grow-off.
	I will destroy this dog because my hair grows faster.
	Although, look at this.
	Oh, yes.
	What do you smell on my fingers?
	My breath.
	Winston got his rabies shot yesterday.
	So, he hasn't been feeling all that good today for some reason, but it's back to the...
	You okay?
	You alright?
	You good?
	You know what I'm saying?
	Can you hear me?
	Does my breath smell funny?
	I think my breath smells funny.
	All right, down you go.
	People, it's going to be a fun one tonight.
	I was 30 seconds late because I forgot about the new intro, which I cannot forget to do, which is the Dr. Evil, Mr. Bigglesworth, except it's Mr. Winstonsworth.
	And so I'm not going to forget that, although I know the dog is going to poop and pee in the basement because that's what he does.
	All right, let's see who we got in the house here.
	Indeed, it was an actual legit F today.
	Viva is probably still busy primping his fro.
	What I love is there are these flares of gray hair.
	And I want to know, in geology, when you look through layers of rock and then you see rock, layer, layer, layer, then you see a black layer of ash.
	It's like, what happened at that point in time in the Earth that caused a black layer of ash to cover the Earth?
	What happened in my life right here when this streak of gray hair decided to say it takes too much work to produce color and you are under a sufficient amount of stress.
	We're going to save energy.
	And that's going to go white.
	White.
	White.
	Whatever.
	I'm growing the fro.
	I'm playing the long game on this one.
	This is a representation of where I'm at these days.
	So we're going to do it.
	Simping for Winston.
	Thank you very much.
	Trying to figure out what that avatar is.
	So, bottom line, tonight might be something of a bit of a hectic, melee, random stuff.
	I have looked through locals, and I have not taken the top ten comments because it proved to be very difficult.
	Logistically, no producer.
	Freaking kids at home because they've cancelled school until the 2022, and they're probably going to cancel school in 2022.
	I've got the top five, and they're good.
	And we'll watch through them.
	I've got, in the back room, right now, Hunley and Grobert.
	I know Barnes is coming.
	Barnes is coming because he said he was coming because travel plans were rearranged, which is good, and I hope it's for good reasons and not for bad reasons.
	And I've extended the invitation to a few other people, so we'll see who makes it here.
	I did notice someone was in the back room with a nickname that I did not recognize, so I'm trying to figure out if I sent the link out to people who I don't know.
	Let me see this here.
	I think Viva was less angry when his hair was shorter.
	It could be an embodiment of the flaming flaring up of my soul.
	Because I'm not getting angry.
	I'm just losing my patience with the world.
	I'm losing my patience with the rampant intellectual dishonesty, the rampant hypocrisy, the rampant gaslighting, the rampant corruption of every institution that we ever held near and dear.
	I've lost my patience with it.
	And it's going to be good.
	Great show on Atwood today.
	Yes.
	So for those who don't know, thank you very much, by the way.
	I was on Sean Atwood from 3.30 to 4 o 'clock our time, which was 8.30 to 9 o 'clock.
	Their time, Sean Atwood, amazing Brit with a great channel, was doing a marathon of people.
	And that's that.
	So let's just do...
	No standard disclaimers, no legal advice, no medical advice, no election fortification advice.
	YouTube takes 30% of Super Chats.
	If you don't like that, you can go and support us and follow us on Rumble.
	They have these things called Rumble Rants.
	Rumble takes 20%, so it's better for the creator, better to support a platform that you like.
	You can also choose to support Robert Barnes and I, me and Robert Barnes, Robert Barnes and me on Locals, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Where you get lots of exclusive content.
	The dog is already starting to bark.
	What else?
	Happy New Year.
	When does Smollett get sentenced?
	I was just talking about that today.
	We're going to ask Robert.
	He's in the house as well.
	I see him in the backdrop.
	In the background.
	And Jay Mill, whose avatar I always love.
	Beautiful brown trout.
	Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to everyone.
	I hope Santa finally brings you a fly rod, Viva.
	If you're asking the Canadian politicians...
	Santa's got to get vaxxed and wear his mask and download the government app, which we now know the government has been unlawfully tracking lots of Canadians during the pandemic.
	Okay.
	Sure, the white isn't poop from the bird.
	Okay.
	With that said, people, I'm going to bring in...
	This is going to be good because I don't recall.
	I think we've had Robert.
	How goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	Looks like Santa's not coming this year.
	He's unvaccinated.
	We'll get there in a second.
	We got Eric, and we got Grobert, and I like this layup.
	This is beautiful.
	Where are you, Grobert?
	I'm in Prescott, Arizona.
	Is that a legit setup, or is that a green screen?
	No, that's the setup.
	That's a nice little setup.
	Not bad, not bad.
	That's why I missed the thing with you.
	I had to get out of town.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I had a poker party in Malibu last week.
	Yeah, I was bailing that night, so I had to pass it.
	Yeah, no problem.
	Everyone in the chat, let us know if our audios are level.
	Actually, let's just do one intro.
	Robert, you're good, good.
	Grobert, let's hear your audio, and let's go to Eric, and then if it's unlevel people, tell me.
	Let me know if this sounds okay.
	I'm definitely unlevel.
	You sound loud.
	I'm very unlevel.
	I will see.
	It looks good.
	Mark, by the way, that is carpet behind you, right?
	Yeah.
	The first thing I look at is where my dog would take a dump and pee and carpet.
	We cannot live in a place with carpet anymore.
	It's sad.
	You have no carpet in your house for you?
	We have no carpet in the house except in the bathroom where you have those little towel things coming out of the shower.
	No carpet anywhere.
	Wow.
	Was it hardwood floor?
	It is hardwood floor upstairs, fake wood in the basement, and the hardwood floor is destroyed.
	Like, when we sell this house, no legal guarantee, no nothing.
	Take it as it is and do not come back to me for any problems.
	You know, you can train your dog by putting two-inch squares of rugs on the bottom of his feet when he's a puppy, David.
	Well, see, the problem with one of our dogs is...
	Let me just think.
	I think there's a joke here that I must have missed.
	No, one of our dogs, Mark, is paralyzed, so she goes wherever she wants.
	And the other one, we haven't worked too hard.
	What's your t-shirt, Eric?
	Oh, it's a Christmas extravaganza, so I brought the spirit.
	Fantastic.
	Are you in Virginia for Christmas, Eric?
	Yeah, yeah, I'm just home here in Hampton.
	Any family, friends come and do anything special?
	My father-in-law.
	Father-in-law come.
	He's pretty much all who's left.
	I think that body language is a father-in-law.
	I don't know if you're a big fan.
	It's like, yeah, father-in-law.
	Didn't sound as bad as mother-in-law is coming over.
	No, I like her.
	I'm just kidding.
	I like him fine.
	Someone says, somebody tell Viva to fix his Twitter.
	What's wrong with my Twitter?
	I thought I had it just right.
	Did everyone see?
	Robert, you might know more about this than I do.
	The Twitter beef between Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Jake Tapper.
	Were you familiar with this?
	I just knew that Kennedy invited Tapper to an open debate on vaccine mandates.
	They've known each other for 20 years or so, but I didn't see the response.
	Oh, well, I'm going to bring it.
	I'm going to share the screen here, people.
	Robert, share screen.
	I always say I know I've got nothing embarrassing.
	Isn't Fauci going after him, too?
	Mark, you were saying earlier?
	Yeah, well, Fauci is calling it a death threat.
	What Jesse Waters said.
	Oh, really?
	Bobby Kennedy?
	Well, obviously that book is the most effective book against Fauci and Fauci's history.
	I can't put it down.
	I mean, that should be mandatory reading for every kid in this country.
	I don't care how it happens.
	It's one of the greatest books ever written.
	And for folks out there, you can get it for...
	Digitally for $2.99.
	That's what I did as being a member of the Hebrew faith.
	I went for the $2.99 and gave myself an early Hanukkah present.
	The book is the same.
	It's thoroughly footnoted, David, and I strongly recommend it for you and your family.
	And for everybody out there, all the prophets go to fight vaccine mandates and relationships.
	Right.
	I mean, this is a masterpiece.
	This book, I...
	I'm sad and angry at the same time while I'm reading it, so I don't know if it's a good bedtime book or not.
	I just can't put it down, and I'm just infuriated as I'm reading it, Robert.
	But hold on, Mark, what aspect?
	You're talking about Robert F. Kennedy's book about Fauci.
	Yes.
	Fauci said constitutes a threat on his life?
	No, Fauci said that...
	By Ketany criticizing him in general, it's a death threat and a threat to his life because they're targeting him.
	And Jesse Waters, I guess, mentioned him.
	Jesse Waters saying that people should get up in his face, kind of like what's-her-name did out in L.A.?
	Maxine Waters.
	Maxine Waters' style of politics.
	And he has now taken this, interpreted it as a death threat, Fauci.
	Again, gaslighting the entire world.
	Of course, if you're against Fauci, you're against science.
	Right.
	Well, in fairness, I didn't hear what Jesse Waters said, but if anyone's encouraging people to get up in their face in public, I will disagree with that even as much as I...
	Right.
	I don't want to quote him.
	I don't want to quote Jesse Waters, but what Jesse Waters was implying was...
	He did say ambush, but I don't know if he means ambush with legislation, ambush with...
	Right, right.
	Yeah.
	Articles, but the term ambush does imply something.
	So I don't know.
	I'd have to see the exact quote, but I do know he said ambush.
	I didn't get the whole context.
	I assume that he was talking about, in particular, also congressmen stepping up to the plate, because so far only Paul has been willing to really critique him when he comes before Congress.
	I was on a call yesterday with Bobby Kennedy Jr., and he was complimenting me on my book.
	That, of course, that's the book by his father, To Seek a Newer World, Campaign Trail, 1968.
	He put together a lot of his campaign speeches and put it together, the book.
	It was one of my two favorite books when I was 12 years old.
	I carried that book around with me everywhere for like a year.
	And the other one...
	I didn't mention this to him.
	It was Art of the Deal by Donald Trump because it's a little bit different.
	Were you getting beat up, Robert?
	And you need Art of the Deal to get out of being beaten up for carrying those books?
	No.
	I really loved Art of the Deal because it had great practical advice in it.
	I'll never forget Hope for the Best, Plan for the Worst.
	That became a mantra in my head from the time I was 12. But my other favorite book without question was his father's book.
	But we were having some fun.
	I just put that behind when we had our phone conference the other day.
	He's like, ah, you got a nice reading.
	So, what did Tapper say, Aviva?
	I'm going to bring this up.
	Bearing in mind, people, I can't see what we're looking at right now, so this is always nerve-wracking for me.
	Don't open your DMs.
	Is it where you're following all the models or something?
	First of all, I want to bring this up.
	This makes me, every time I watch this, I laugh my head off.
	Joe Biden's very special Christmas message to the unvaccinated.
	Unmute it.
	You're all gonna die!
	You're all gonna die!
	It's from Billy Madison, and I didn't even realize it kind of looks like Joe Biden when I did it.
	It does.
	I mean, isn't that the worst White House Christmas greeting in history?
	It's shocking, Robert.
	We're going to talk about it because people said, you know, I said it was a prediction, and then people were like, no, that's a threat.
	And when I read it again, I could see it being a threat.
	Oh, I think you scrolled past it.
	Yeah, here we go.
	Here, we're going to start here.
	We're going to go to truly embarrassing.
	And then look at this.
	This is Jake.
	Let's start with the tweet itself.
	Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
	Jake Tapper.
	We both feel passionate about our views on vaccine mandates.
	Let's have a debate for the benefit of Americans.
	We can debate your enthusiastic support of censorship.
	That's a needle.
	We can appreciate that.
	And our divergent opinions on Dr. Fauci's effectiveness as the COVID pandemic manager.
	To which Jake Tapper responds.
	Truly embarrassing.
	No, I'm not going to lend credence to a conspiracy theorist whose views are so false, unhinged, and dangerous to public health his own siblings feel the need to publish op-eds against him.
	To which...
	I went a little nuts on Tapper, but let's just go to my good one.
	Jake Tapper won't, quote, lend credence to a conspiracy theorist Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
	But he'll work at CNN, a network that promotes lies and misinformation.
	Sandman employs very, very bad people.
	Griffin, Cuomo, and Don Lemon.
	Nice standards you have there, Jake Tapper.
	So yeah, Tapper's...
	How do I get out of here?
	Oh, speaking of which, the court ruled yesterday that there will be a jury trial in the Don Lemon-Dustin high school.
	Hello, Robert.
	Televised?
	Please tell me it's televised.
	It's federal court, so no.
	Federal court, no cameras.
	Bravo.
	It's just going to be drawings and things like that.
	But look, we still have no verdict in the Potter case.
	No verdict in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial.
	No verdict in the Elizabeth Holmes case.
	My own view is juries hate to come back after Christmas.
	They usually want a break.
	So it may be a lot of Christmas Eve.
	Guilty, guilty.
	Hopefully not guilty for Kim Potter.
	Didn't Potter imply they might be hung, though?
	Didn't they send back the hang question, essentially?
	I mean, that was absolutely what that question was.
	For those that don't know, the juror notes that came back in the Potter case suggest that what if they're irreconcilably...
	In essence, that was the nature of the question.
	They asked some other questions too, but that question strongly suggests that you have several...
	Here's my read on all three juries.
	You have a split jury in all three.
	The question is, what are the numbers?
	Are the numbers like the Rittenhouse case, which was like 10 to 2 for not guilty?
	And then the only question was, would the two fold that were holdouts for conviction?
	We don't know what the numbers are.
	Though I would say in Potter...
	That kind of question usually suggests something like a 6-6 split.
	A real intense split.
	Because usually when it's only two or three holdouts, they're just working them and working them and working them.
	Sometimes also people get confused.
	They see a jury note and they think that's what all 12 jurors are interested in.
	Often it's only what two or three jurors are interested in.
	So it's not easy to read the tea leaves on that.
	But in Maxwell, they're reading all the cross-examination of the alleged victims.
	But given that one of the questions came back, could we convict on just these two counts involving this particular victim?
	Doesn't bode well for Ghislaine Maxwell.
	That suggests that they'll convict on it at least partially.
	But it's...
	If Maureen Comey loses the Ghislaine Maxwell case, that is the end of her career now.
	As much as her cover-up work, that is not...
	Remind me to ask Grover later about Steven Seagal.
	I didn't know about his CIA history.
	Yes, apparently.
	Robert, if I may, is it the end of Maureen Comey's career?
	For now, meaning that in 10 years when everyone forgets, she'll get rewarded for her sacrifice?
	I don't think it would never be forgotten or forgiven if she were to lose that case.
	Judge Judy is retiring.
	She could become a TV judge on one of those shows.
	Yeah, exactly.
	I like this chat.
	Thank you for creating a pseudo-family for us all.
	So I guess now I have two lawyer dog dads.
	Just wondering how to explain this to my other family, LOL.
	Happy holidays.
	Merry holidays.
	Thank you very much.
	It is...
	I've had an offline discussion with someone who I met.
	We became friends.
	And he is the first person that made me appreciate that YouTube is about a community.
	And it is about building this network among people and a community among followers.
	I hate the word followers.
	Watchers.
	Oh, community.
	The best place you can give a gift if you need to give a gift in the last possible second for your family and friends is gift a subscription to vivabarneslaw.locals.com or to unstructured.locals.com And you can give, I mean, especially if you have any commie friends or family, you owe it to them to give them that gift.
	That's right.
	That's right.
	Any Baldwin love?
	The best gift would be the Fauci book, as far as I'm concerned.
	That's a gift that I keep on giving.
	Absolutely.
	You could add Alex Berenson's Pandemia.
	And also this book by Dr. Mark McDonald out of West L.A., The Psychiatrist.
	A small book.
	It's called The United States of Fear.
	I highly recommend it.
	A brilliant, brilliant guy, a West L.A. psychiatrist who analyzes the pandemic from a fear module and explains it through his own anecdotal treatment with his own patients.
	Absolutely riveting book.
	You'll go through it really quickly.
	That will be good.
	And to this super chat, yes, the Supreme Court has announced that we'll be hearing arguments, which means it's taking the case.
	Our prediction has already come true.
	It just won't be before New Year's, that they're going to hear all the Biden vaccine mandate arguments on January the 7th.
	And their questions will probably cue us in.
	The big key will be, where is Kavanaugh, where is Roberts, and where is Barrett?
	And we need two of the three to invalidate them.
	What if they recuse themselves, Robert?
	Yeah, who knows?
	You never know for sure with those particular three.
	But I think I'm pretty confident Kavanaugh is in the game, and I think either Roberts or Barrett or both.
	We'll ultimately strike down Biden's vaccine.
	Well, was Kavanaugh the gatekeeper in this particular case?
	Yes, because he presides over the Sixth Circuit Court.
	Right, exactly.
	Okay.
	You know, before we get, we're going to get into the CIA Steven Seagal business, but the three cases that we're waiting for verdicts on, Potter, Maxwell, and Holmes.
	So just starting with Maxwell, Robert, the jury came back with a question.
	Can we convict on some of the charges, but not all?
	A good indication as to where they're going.
	My question was in Kim Potter.
	I'm sorry, Kim Potter.
	When they came back with the judge to the jury saying, what do we do if we can't come to a unanimous decision?
	In your mind, and Mark, Robert, Eric Conley, if you guys have any opinions on this, does that indicate holdouts for conviction, holdouts for acquittal, or holdouts for both and you can't make any determination?
	I think in all three trials, we have split juries, and the only question is the numbers.
	So we have a split jury in Maxwell.
	There's clearly people who think she's not guilty, and that's due to the ridiculously cover-up presentation of the prosecution where they limited themselves to three witnesses, effectively two of whom had credibility problems, which they could have avoided by calling any of the other hundred.
	Victims that were involved in that case.
	And by exposing it as the broader theory that it is.
	Because the real conspiracy wasn't placating Jeffrey Epstein's perversions.
	In my view, the real conspiracy was a blackmail and extortion ring that was tied to intelligence operatives.
	I didn't even know the pilot.
	This is thanks to Eric Hundley and Mark's Eric and Mark's show, America's Untold Stories.
	I'm now looking for all the spook ties everywhere.
	It's going to keep you busy the rest of your life.
	No kidding.
	Well, it turns out the pilot's daughter...
	Works for military intelligence.
	Epstein's pilot.
	I was like, what's the probabilities?
	What's the chance that in the family just pops up like that?
	But I think that's what the case is in Maxwell.
	What they have asked for is they got full redacted transcripts of the three main victim witnesses.
	And they're going through cross-examination material.
	Then in Potter, they basically said they're conflicted and can they just bail if they can't agree?
	Which usually means a greater degree of conflict.
	You know, Maxwell was suggesting maybe 10-2 is my read, four convictions, two or three holdouts.
	Potter sounds like 6-6, which goes to our point about Twin Cities.
	You know, the big concern was, could you get a fair jury, impartial jury, in a cop case, in an interracial shooting in the Twin Cities?
	It looks like right now the answer is no.
	We'll find out if that changes tomorrow.
	Here's a question.
	Are any of these juries sequestered?
	Does anybody know what their status is physically?
	Potter is.
	Oh, Potter's sequestered.
	Okay.
	Potter is sequestered during jury deliberations.
	But to my knowledge, neither Holmes nor Maxwell is sequestered.
	We have one more guest now.
	I'm welcoming Nate.
	I love that he's here.
	I just hate this layout now.
	We need a sixth person in here for symmetry.
	Nate the Great, how are you doing?
	I'm alright, I'm alright.
	Just on vacation about to head home soon and just, you know, got the Christmas chair.
	How are you guys doing?
	Nobody's got any festive stuff going on except for me.
	Can you show us that sweater, please?
	It's ho-ho.
	It's Santa with the ho-ho-ho.
	My camera's bad, so maybe you can't see it, but that's it.
	Rock and roll.
	We're old school, so we do the ugly sweater still.
	Where was the vacation?
	We're in Atlantic City.
	We get the free suites.
	Viva knows I'm a degenerate gambler, so they send me comps for everything.
	I was going to say, he's always in AC.
	I know things that I do not disclose to the public, people.
	We just were in Vegas a couple months ago.
	Are you at the Trump Casino down there, Nate?
	Is there still a Trump Casino or no?
	No, I started with Trump.
	That's funny.
	I love both the Trump Casinos, so I started with Trump, but all Trump stuff is closed down.
	Right, okay.
	The idea of a free and open society where I can actually travel is shocking to me.
	We just waited for our government to announce what the new lockdown measures were going to be.
	And now we're limited to 10 people maximum for indoor gatherings just for Christmas.
	And after Christmas, it's down to two families in our own freaking houses.
	The government has usurped our ownership rights of our own homes.
	And nobody cares.
	It's a little crazy up there in Canada, brother.
	Yeah, it's crazy.
	So in Quebec, you can only have two families for Christmas?
	What's the rules?
	Ten people max for Christmas.
	And I don't want to tell people that...
	I was prepared for a curfew, and I was prepared to...
	I'm prepared to go to jail at this point.
	I went in for someone with my wife today, and I said, if they're asking for vaccine passports, I'm not showing it, and I'm ready to get arrested for it.
	And they had the sign on the door, and I had my camera.
	I said, Marion, just keep the camera rolling.
	If they ask...
	I'm not going to resist.
	I'm just not going to show it, and I'm prepared to go to jail now.
	They didn't ask, and we got in.
	David, you know, Trudeau really loved Castro, right?
	Oh, yeah.
	I think his mother loved Castro also.
	Oh, maybe.
	Maybe a lot.
	You know, that's the joke about Trudeau.
	He looked a lot like Fidel.
	Eric, Google it.
	He looks more like Fidel Castro than he does Pierre Elliott.
	His own father, yeah.
	When I was in Cuba...
	When I'm taking care of the refugees, I found out something about them.
	They always had to have multi-birthday parties for all their kids.
	Why?
	Because more than five people is in assembly.
	So remember what's going on in Canada and what's going on in Cuba anytime you think of our Bill of Rights.
	David, does the family limit apply to First Nations extended families?
	I don't know, but I can tell you one thing.
	I don't think Justin Trudeau cares about anything related to the First Nations or the Indigenous population.
	I think the word now is Indigenous and not First Nations because only certain Indigenous are qualified as First Nations.
	Trudeau does not give a sweet bugger all.
	He's spending a billion dollars on a vaccine passport when the Indigenous still don't have clean drinking water.
	He makes a federal holiday and then he skips it to go to the beach.
	Tofino Beach, which is in Indigenous lands in the first place.
	He doesn't care.
	He went to which beach?
	Fino Beach?
	Tofino.
	Tofino.
	It's on Victoria, Vancouver Island.
	It's a nice beach if you like that stuff, but he doesn't care.
	He doesn't care.
	How many Canadian polls do you think will go to the Caribbean this Christmas vacation?
	Any politician in Canada who goes deserves to be outed and deserves to be fired from office.
	And I make sure to weigh my words.
	No harassment, no threats, no nothing.
	They deserve to be...
	Never sit in office again.
	They're going to do it, but we'll call them out and I will be loud about it.
	I just wanted to ask you something about the government up there.
	I know in Jamaica, the Queen of England owns all the public land.
	She's the Queen of Jamaica.
	But I also looked it up.
	Wait a second, Jamaica Queens, Nate?
	No, the Queen of Jamaica is the Queen of England.
	Okay, sorry.
	I just want to make sure.
	You're not talking about Queens.
	Yeah.
	But...
	She's also the queen of Canada, too, in the common realms.
	But not Barbados anymore.
	Not Barbados anymore.
	So is it true that she also owns all the public land in Canada?
	You know what?
	I think I've got to bone up on the queen's rights here, because this is like the third time in the last month that I haven't heard this ever.
	Tim Pool, he got faced by Luke, who was very interested.
	That's where I first heard.
	He wanted to know all about the Queen.
	There are two different aspects.
	There's the Queen's right of sovereignty, which is mostly not exercised, and then there's separately private land that the royal family owns.
	That's where their real money comes from.
	It's not from governmental support.
	When I was touring London, I didn't realize all those prime pieces of property that are owned by the royal family.
	Privately, not a matter of sovereignty, not a matter of the other stuff.
	I mean, I still get people who email me and say, I know that the bar means British Accreditation Registry, and you're part of the secret British nobility, you know, that kind of thing.
	So you get the, like, and Ian sometimes wanders into that direction.
	Like, now that he's, like, legitimate queen issues, and then it's the queen secretly running everything, and I'm like, well, maybe, maybe not quite that.
	We had the same thing in Hollywood, Robert, but it's owned by Scientology, all the different buildings.
	Yeah, right.
	Oh, yeah.
	Scientology.
	Man, those people are crazy.
	They own a lot of real estate in Hollywood, my friend.
	Which was smart on them.
	I mean, that was a genius.
	They renovated classic buildings.
	Got to give it up to them.
	Absolutely invested the right time.
	I mean, that guy was right the perfect place, right perfect time, L. Ron Hubbard.
	You could take together pop psychology, big in the 1950s, science fiction taking off in the 1950s, throw in some car salesman aggressive techniques that were kind of taking off in the 1950s, and voila, you have yourself a religion.
	Well, a little North Korean ties, too.
	I just hope I'm as prolific as Hubbard as a writer posthumously as he is.
	No man has created more science fiction novels after his demise than L. Ron Hubbard.
	You know, Tom Cruise's kid is the savior, right?
	Isn't Tom Cruise's kid supposed to be the secret savior of the next part of the Scientology religious beliefs?
	I mean, she got out, but my understanding is the kid was like a holy conception, whatnot, all that jazz.
	Wow.
	He could be played by Keanu Reeves' son because Keanu Reeves was in Little Buddha.
	Do you remember that movie, Robert?
	Well, I always remember that there's all the rumors about Tom Cruise being gay, of course, that he has somebody that's on set with and all the rest.
	But I remember talking to Charlie Sheen, and Sheen was like, definitely gay.
	And I was like, why?
	And then he told me this story from their teenage boy.
	Basically, Risky Business is like a loosely real story of Charlie and some of their friends getting Tom a gift for his birthday.
	And all Tom did was actually talk to her, apparently.
	So that was Charlie's conviction.
	Well, I know a one-name celebrity who had sex with him who's a woman and swears that he's not gay.
	But she had sex with him when he was like 23 in New York.
	Yeah, I've heard.
	And, you know, he had a kid and he was married to multiple people.
	Well, there's Travolta.
	That's the other one.
	Travolta hit on a buddy of mine at a club.
	Robert, talk slower.
	I've got to take some notes.
	If you could slow down, I want to take some notes.
	Travolta definitely walks both sides.
	I kept having weird interactions with Travolta.
	I got into this.
	It was around Christmas.
	I was going to go to Midnight Mass at Notre Dame.
	I did.
	Beautiful ceremony.
	Fantastic.
	And I was staying at one of the great hotels in Paris because they had these great champagne cocktails.
	They invented in part champagne cocktail.
	Came down at like 2 a.m. or something because I'm on a mixed-up timetable coming from America.
	And I get in and I ask whether I can be let in and they let me in late because they closed at like 1.30.
	I thought, oh, this is great.
	And it turned out Travolta had already called down and asked to open up late.
	That's why they stayed open late.
	I thought they did it for me.
	They did it for John Travolta, of course.
	But he was meeting with some people there talking about some film and I kept running into him in weird places across Europe.
	It was late.
	My Gary Boosie experience with Malibu.
	I knew my calendar was totally screwed up when I was on the same schedule as Gary Boosie.
	Yeah, that's tough.
	Well, David wants to talk about Eddie Murphy, of course.
	I'm a vault.
	I don't talk about Eddie.
	Oh, Eddie likes girls that are not girls.
	That's what Eddie's favorite thing is.
	Wait a minute.
	I'll tell you something for that story.
	This will be evidence to the world.
	I know things that I do not disclose or even allude to knowing.
	And it's a very stressful thing.
	It's why my hair goes gray.
	Because when people tell me And it rocks my entire world and my perception of people who I thought I knew.
	I know nothing.
	I know nothing.
	If case Marty Singer's watching, I'm past the Statue of Limitations, Marty.
	I can talk about it now.
	Dude, I have my singer letter framed on my wall back in Hollywood.
	Did you get one?
	Oh yeah, no, I got one.
	I lost a job over it.
	I got a singer letter and I was fired.
	Stop, stop, stop.
	Grobert, Mark.
	You have to tell everyone watching now what a singer letter is and what it represents and just elaborate because I don't think...
	Well, I could just tell specifically I was working for a local newspaper.
	I had a fun column about the Dodgers every week.
	I live by the stadium and it was called L.A. Dodger Confidential and it was inside dope about the Dodgers by its design.
	It was a weekly column about inside stuff.
	And one of the inside stories was that the owner of the Dodgers was having an affair with one of the other hedge fund managers.
	He had bought her a house in Malibu.
	He had a house next door.
	And it was printed in the New York Post.
	It was printed in the Guardian.
	It was in the Daily Mail.
	I wasn't talking out of turn.
	But out of the blue, it turns out that the woman had an attorney named Marty Singer from Beverly Hills.
	Who knew?
	So the publisher and I got a letter.
	From Marty Singer, basically saying in nice legalese that he would destroy me as a human being and melt my entire family.
	She panicked.
	I said, don't panic.
	I've been through this before.
	You know, as editor of National Lampoon, I had Merv Griffin sue me for a parody called Sexual Jeopardy, The Home Game, ended up in federal court and watched a judge laugh his ass off up on the bench reading my parody of Jeopardy, The Home Game, Sexual Jeopardy.
	So I said, don't panic.
	And of course, she completely padded, pulled the plug, fired me, wrote a disclaimer, completely defamed me.
	And I said, OK, I guess we're done.
	But the Singer letter came out of the blue, Robert, and just it was so harsh.
	So and he said and the one legal thing I took away from it, you can elaborate on this, was he said just because it's printed in another publication does not absolve you of defamation.
	You know what, actually, and we'll get Robert and Nate to answer this one, because someone asked me this today.
	Does reproducing alleged defamatory content qualify as defamation?
	Well, he said it did.
	I refer to you guys.
	It's called the repeater rule.
	Yeah, republication does.
	What if I republish it to say that it's not defamation?
	Oh, that's fine.
	That's fine.
	Okay, so that was my answer, because who was the woman?
	It was I'mPoliticsGirl on Twitter.
	I might have to bring that up, who published a tweet about Rittenhouse being a murderer.
	And he shouldn't be a hero for the right, and yada, yada.
	And I retweeted it saying, you calling him a murderer after he was literally acquitted on charges of being a murderer?
	It's legally and factually incorrect.
	Could be defamatory.
	Someone said, if you republish it, are you not defaming as well?
	I said, not if I'm distinguishing versus...
	Robert, isn't that why...
	You're recommending that Bobby Kennedy goes after the AP?
	Because you can tackle every other newspaper that picks him up because it is a wire service?
	Yeah, I mean, I've encouraged him publicly to go after the AP, go after Instagram, go after some other people, see what he ultimately does.
	He's always had a kind of laid-back approach to all of that.
	He doesn't get personally attached to any of it.
	But going back to Marty Singer...
	Marty's infamous.
	The reason why Tiger Woods' scandals stayed secret as long as they did is because Marty Singer was his lawyer.
	Marty does two things.
	He intimidates the hell out of people who expose something about his client into feeling that their lives are going to be over if they publish.
	If they do publish, they better retract and correct and everybody gets fired and all the rest.
	Mark's story is a classic example of that.
	The second version, the second thing he does is he, let's say he facilitates people who he settles people's potential controversies.
	Let's put it that way.
	So there's a community here in LA just that, that are trannies that their whole business is extortion and blackmail.
	Right.
	And let's, let's just say, you know, they may go to Marty for settlements of disputes now, including his client, Eddie Murphy and some others.
	So the, I represented Nicole Murphy, Eddie's ex-wife.
	It was a very, very nice lady.
	Very nice lady.
	She had a lot of money stolen from her.
	We got the recovery indirectly.
	And that's why she was dating Michael Strahan.
	Strahan.
	Man, there's some interesting stories.
	Here's the thing.
	Let's say, if you've got an issue with your girlfriend, alright?
	Maybe don't put a tracker on her car.
	Especially if her car...
	It needs to get repairs.
	And she takes it into the repair shop and they're like, hmm, there's a tracker on your car.
	And that might end a relationship kind of quick.
	You know, it was funny.
	You could understand why he was so sensitive on cheating because his prior divorce and what it cost him.
	That might have been, you know, confession through projection a little bit.
	But yeah, Eddie likes girls that aren't girls.
	That's Eddie's.
	It wasn't a coincidence when he pulled over.
	He said he pulled over.
	I mean, Mark, you know, in West Hollywood, do you accidentally pick up a tranny?
	Wait a minute, I did, or are you just saying hypothetically?
	Yeah, exactly.
	I remember the story growing up.
	I remember two stories growing up.
	That one of Eddie Murphy and the other one of Hugh Grant.
	We had a guy in the Dodgers named Dave Stewart.
	And Dave Stewart, a great pitcher, eventually was on Oakland.
	And he was arrested in a sting operation, LAPD, with supposedly a tranny in back of the Formosa Cafe.
	Was immediately traded the next day to Oakland.
	And he had to get out of town.
	I just said, we just lost a 20-game winner.
	I don't care who he's in back of the Formosa Cafe with.
	And he was gone the next day.
	I mean, it's...
	I mean, it's, well, let's see.
	Well, yeah, I mean, well, I can't get into parts of it, but there's many stories that go down that with many.
	There's people in L.A. whose only business is entrapping people for extortion and blackmail purposes.
	That's the whole business model.
	All roads lead to Musso and Franks, Robert.
	Remember that.
	Yes.
	Hold on.
	More ways than people know.
	That's another story.
	Great, by the way, great steakhouse, great cocktails, great whiskey, sours, Musso and Franks.
	But there's a lot of backstories.
	Quite literally, at Musso and Frank's.
	When the jingle comes to mingle.
	Exactly.
	Yes, exactly.
	Now, what I didn't realize until I accidentally ended up doing a deep dive into Steven Seagal, because all these people are making fun of Seagal's most recent movies.
	He actually has a movie in which he only stands up once in the movie.
	Apparently, it's called Sniper Special Forces.
	They're pretending to be part of the Sniper series.
	They're not part of the Sniper series.
	A totally different movie.
	And literally, he hardly moves.
	And then they got a colonel that's like 87 years old because all the actors have to be over 50 or 60. But I didn't realize...
	It should have dawned on me.
	How does a guy go from being a little mid-tier karate guy...
	To being a big Hollywood actor.
	And then I was watching Eric and Mark's America's Untold Stories.
	Mark was highlighting just the long history of how the CIA promotes and protects people within the Hollywood industry.
	Tom Hanks?
	And yes, exactly.
	Tom Hanks?
	I didn't know about the Seagal-CIA connections until one of these random little mini-documentaries on Seagal that Seagal himself acknowledged that that's what got him his boost.
	But were you aware of that before?
	I was not.
	I have not heard Seagal.
	You know, people like that who travel a lot and do a lot of international things, I always assume there is an intelligence connection.
	And it kind of makes sense, right?
	How does this guy that's a nobody suddenly get a big Hollywood movie deal?
	Right?
	Almost out of the blue.
	Supposedly he's the bodyguard for one of these big, heavy-pitting producers.
	And that somehow translates into, we're going to give you a six-movie deal?
	That's going to be a mainstream marketed deal?
	You've never acted in your life?
	And you're kind of, you know, you're either pretending to be Asian or pretending to be black, depending on what day it is in the movies.
	And that's going to make you a star?
	Apparently he himself bragged that the CIA recruited him when he was in Japan to try to make contacts and connections in Japan because he was one of the few Americans in Japan at the time.
	This was the early 1970s.
	They then recruited him and placed him into high profile roles in Hollywood to develop him as connections, which means Putin probably should...
	Watch his back a little bit with Seagal wanting to hang out and become a Russian citizen and all that jazz.
	But all of it all of a sudden made sense when that combination was put together.
	Atsugi, as you know, Robert, was a big CIA recruitment center after the war.
	They had the U-2 spy planes out of Japan.
	And it was kind of like the Casablanca of the Far East.
	You know, there were so many different Japanese communists were mingling there.
	You had Oswald as an air traffic radar guy.
	Who may or may not have divulged the air limit, height limit of the U-2 spy plane to the Russians.
	We don't really know.
	But, you know, the recent revelations that were cherry picked, as I pointed out on the show, were cherry picked as propaganda against the current Russian-Ukraine situation.
	Yeah.
	Well, the other thing is, you were looking at the new FOIA releases.
	That's what I'm talking about.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, that's what I'm talking about.
	Yeah.
	Most of them were cherry picked.
	To throw some shade onto the Russians currently because of the situation with the Ukraine.
	So they went into the vault in the middle of December for no reason whatsoever and cherry-picked stuff out of Mexico City.
	And the reason, as I was explaining on Locals, the reason that the bottom of the barrel is Mexico City is not because that they don't want to offend the great socialist state of Mexico.
	It's because the entire frame begins in Mexico City, Robert.
	That's where the entire frame is, and that's why they don't want to allow those documents to come out until the very end.
	They cherry-picked 1,500 of them, and if you start to look at them and you know the lineage of the documents in Mexico City, Mexico City is Casablanca here during the Cold War.
	Oh, yeah.
	You got that famous photo of...
	You know, Barry Seal and all those guys hanging out in the 1960s in Mexico City at some random party.
	The day of the assassination, J. Edgar Hoover has a phone conversation with LBJ saying the photograph and the audio tape of the man at the embassy in Mexico City is not Lee Harvey Oswald.
	And in that statement and in that transcript is the collapse of the entire...
	There's many other collapses of the assassination, but you could just take Mexico City and collapse it in five seconds.
	With Hoover and LBJ having that conversation in real time on the night of November 22nd.
	But Mexico City, the frame starts on September 28th, 1963, with Oswald supposedly being in Mexico City.
	He's not.
	He's in New Orleans.
	There's plenty of witnesses.
	They're beginning to frame him for getting a visa to go to Cuba, to go back to the Soviet Union, in theory, after he kills the president.
	That was the frame.
	Now, hold on.
	I'm going to put a pause on this for one second.
	I'm going to bring up a chat from Chrissy Mayer.
	Hey!
	Hey!
	Add on as a sidebar attendee at one point, a guest.
	Chrissy, Merry Christmas, Vivian Barnes.
	Appreciate all you do.
	But now, I'm going to exploit this parenthesis because I want to do one thing.
	Get back to Nate the Great's video on Rittenhouse before I bring you...
	Another video, which Nate might have to edit or make an update on his video.
	Nate, the video you made on the Rittenhouse lies, speaking of more current misrepresentations, how long did that take you to get that video monetized after manual review?
	The first one got monetized after a week.
	The second one, they just denied it straight out.
	Straight up denied it.
	Wow.
	They denied it.
	Because the first part of the video, I just went over the first five lives.
	They denied it based on that.
	So I was like, alright.
	They denied all this stuff.
	Because I think it's just two writings.
	Too much truth in one video?
	We can't have that?
	Yeah.
	You might be so much truth there.
	The internet is pixelating you right now.
	No kidding.
	CIA.
	We were just talking about the CIA.
	Nate, Robert, Eric, and I'm not bringing this up to put anyone on blast.
	This individual put this on Twitter.
	We shall watch and we shall assess many things.
	Let me think.
	Let me go share screen.
	This is in relation to Rittenhouse.
	Chrome tab.
	Twitter.
	Share.
	Bringing up the thing.
	Okay, I think we're good.
	Here we go.
	Here we go.
	Listen to this.
	So if you don't know this, Kyle Rittenhouse is currently on a MAGA media tour around the country.
	He's doing radio interviews, touring the Dallas Cowboys locker room, and now he's the confirmed speaker at Turning Point USA's upcoming AmericaFest.
	He's right there on our website.
	American flag waving behind him, just grinning away like a celebrity guest.
	And he is a celebrity guest, because a third of this country has turned his teenage murderer into a star.
	So he was.
	He was.
	Of course he was.
	He's not laying low and starting his life over like his lawyer suggested.
	He's capitalizing.
	Riding high.
	The boy in the free-as-fuck t-shirt throwing the white power symbol.
	And he's out here devouring his 50 minutes of fame like George Zimmerman signing...
	The white power symbol is still defamation for everybody out there.
	George has said that calling this a white power symbol is libel.
	I won that case, that part of the case.
	They said ultimately we couldn't prove actual malice, but that part of the case I won for Cassandra Fairbanks, who then took me off her wedding list.
	But that's another story.
	Because I pointed out that she owed an apology to Wendy Rittenhouse for saying John Pierce was a good lawyer.
	And she's a sweetheart.
	Cassandra's a sweetheart.
	But apparently she didn't sympathize.
	But that statement, like that, you could sue over.
	Like that, just that one statement.
	And these people that keep repeating the statements that are easily provable libel is extraordinary.
	I like it.
	I like it.
	The white power symbol.
	I see it.
	Yeah, that's right.
	She's making it herself.
	I hate to be an asshole, but every now and again I have to be.
	Because literally, and she did it more than once.
	She did it repeatedly.
	Based on her own video and her own words, I can only conclude that I am politics girl is a white supremacist.
	Them's the rules.
	Because boom and boom.
	This is why...
	Being stupid.
	If you're going to be stupid, you're going to have to apply your stupid rules to yourself as well.
	And I don't want to be a troll, and I don't know if that means being a troll.
	It just means holding everyone to the same standard they apply to everyone else.
	On the same token, I'm going to push a little, and I guess I'll be ostracized here soon.
	I don't know that I think what Kyle's doing is necessarily wise.
	Yeah.
	Especially on Tucker when he's talking about forward assist, which made Gage Grotenhouse's testimony suddenly get a whole new light because, well, no, that's not technically re-racking.
	It can appear to someone as a re-rack, and now we've got a whole other view, and it's like, dude, you won.
	Why are you going into this detail?
	He's a little bit caustic at points, I think, especially with Crowder and stuff, and I know he's young, but I think that maybe just...
	Touch of humility isn't terrible.
	Well, and Unheard wrote an article, and some other people on the right have been critical of this latest tour.
	People shouldn't be critical, though, of Kyle.
	This is David Hancock, his business manager.
	So this reflects David Hancock's personality.
	He's going to pimp the kid out everywhere and every place.
	That's why he has him answering questions about what type of girls he likes and get into a Twitter war or rhetoric war with LeBron James.
	And this was against what Mark Richards said was a good idea.
	This was against what I said was a good idea.
	And I don't blame him for it.
	He's an 18-year-old kid who is in a world he has no understanding of.
	This is David Hancock.
	All the way through, controlling it, manipulating it, and wanting to get rich off the kid and empower himself.
	And as we can get into, Hancock, speaking of spooky connections...
	Keep State Dave, you mean?
	Well, hold up, hold up.
	Keep State Dave, that's his nickname in certain parts of the web, and deservedly so.
	Robert, I meant to tell you the same thing happened to me with the Sirhan case, where there was a Hancock...
	Sirhan version, which at some point after the parole announcement comes from Newsom, we can discuss in the opening.
	Not America's untold stories.
	Hold on, one second.
	Actually, before we even bring in the next guest that I see in the backstage, I think we all agree Rittenhouse should not be doing this, correct?
	Or doing it differently.
	Not getting into the incident.
	Just getting into his life and things like that.
	I think that's great.
	How he's going to move forward.
	I think this is being done for the benefit of David Hancock, not the benefit of Kyle Rittenhouse.
	That's the way I put it.
	That's why I'm afraid the same thing would happen with Sirhan if he's released, Robert.
	And we can discuss that later.
	But there's elements...
	Yeah, you knew people would come latch onto him quickly to try to direct that in a whole new direction.
	Oh, yeah.
	My only cool with this is the kid's got to eat.
	And he's been fleeing for the trial.
	I know he's the $2 million bond and all this stuff.
	I'm thinking it's going to be hard for him to get to school.
	So if he's going to make a little money going and doing this, I think he should do it a little better.
	Maybe we would perform.
	Maybe he should be better.
	But I don't know.
	I would still say, yeah, do it, because I understand he's going to make some buck, too.
	Nate, I don't know if Nate is doing the robot like nobody's business.
	Nate, if you can find Better Internet or tether off your phone, it's literally...
	I think we made out what you were saying, but that brings me to my next question.
	Before I bring in our next panel member, the invoice...
	We're not all lawyers.
	No.
	I never even think about asking for payment to go on a channel or whatever.
	Is Rittenhouse, do you think he's getting paid for these appearances?
	And I say this without judgment.
	I say better on him if he can do it.
	Is he getting paid for this?
	I have no idea.
	But it's Hancock's idea of how to raise money.
	It all smacks of Hancock.
	The kind of topics they're even discussing is Hancock.
	He's a frat boy personality.
	It's not that different than Pierce.
	It's not that different than Pierce if you break it down.
	Pierce is all militia.
	This is all badass.
	Boom, boom, boom.
	Mark Richards made some mistakes when he did an interview.
	He let some things out of the bag that would have been better kept in the bag.
	I think he wasn't speaking through some of what he was saying.
	Another thing is when Ian Paul, his girl, is saying...
	He's not listening to the advice of his attorney.
	I don't think his attorney should have been doing the rounds of interviews.
	But with that said...
	There are ways to do this that could have been better.
	In the house, Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press covering the Ghislaine Maxwell trial.
	Wow, look at this.
	We got three New Yorkers.
	Is this triple New Yorkers on the bottom here?
	Woo!
	And good people on the top.
	You got...
	Well, I won't say conspiracy theorist, man, but you have the individual who has...
	Good theories with the UN that relate to Glenn Maxwell, going up to Robert Barnes, who knows these things, going back to Grobert on the bottom.
	So you've got your zigzag, and then you've got your three squares on the top.
	We need a secret square in the middle.
	Just move us around.
	David, move Nate up and put him down there.
	We'll just sit there and watch.
	We need Paul Lynn from the Hollywood squares if we can bring him back.
	Matt, any developments in the Maxwell trial?
	Are they going to deliberate tomorrow?
	They're not.
	They're not.
	In fact, today there was almost nothing.
	And then at the end, Judge Nathan was going to ask them whether they wanted to delury tomorrow because they'd already been told that they'd have the day off.
	Then this was sort of thrown into disarray by Judge Nathan going to D.C. for three days.
	Oh, for her promotion.
	To pursue her nomination to the Second Circuit.
	So then she wanted to see whether the jury would switch their plans, but they decided not to.
	And also, right at the end of the day, they asked for at least two other witnesses, their full testimony.
	So they're going to come back in Monday, and I would not expect them to be coming out with anything.
	Certainly Monday morning, maybe into Tuesday.
	Who knows if it'll go past the new year?
	They're off the clock.
	Matthew, explain that they asked for the testimony.
	Does that mean the transcript, the audio?
	No, there is no audio.
	At least to my knowledge, there's no audio.
	Yeah, in the federal system, they don't show you the video or the audio.
	They asked in their first full day, they asked for three of the four victim or survivor witnesses' transcripts, the whole transcripts.
	And it took like three hours for the two sides to agree because they had to redact the sidebars.
	I'm not really sure why it took so long, but it took a long time.
	And then today, at the end of the day, they asked for the fourth and final witness survivor and also Epstein's house manager, Juan Alessi.
	It was kind of an interesting character.
	He could have probably been charged, but he testified for the government.
	He described dildos going into Ghislaine Maxwell's basket.
	This was literally the tenor of the trial.
	Did you say dildos?
	No, he didn't say dildos.
	I didn't keep my list from last time of what couldn't be said.
	The terminologies, I believe they're called toys.
	We used the word dildo.
	This was repeated in closing.
	This was repeated in closing and even in rebuttal, I think, by Warren Comey.
	It's the D word.
	It's the D word.
	The D word as in what?
	There were two big bathrooms apparently in the Palm Beach house, and it was legally significant that Juan Alessi's job was to rub down the sex toys and then to place them in the basket in Ghislaine Maxwell's bathroom.
	This is like knowledge.
	Whatever.
	She knew.
	Conscious avoidance.
	Honestly, things have gone...
	I don't want to say they've gone off the rails.
	Things do take time.
	But I think, at least as an observer of it, I think a lot of the people here, at least press members, thought it would be done today.
	And not only is it not done today, there's a four-day break.
	I can imagine voir dire.
	Is it credible that these people are not going to...
	Are they sequestered, Matthew?
	No, they're going home.
	They're going home and they're admonished to learn nothing about the case.
	It's totally impossible.
	People are going to ask them, what case are you on?
	What case are you on that you're having to go in Monday between Christmas and New Year's?
	Oh, it's a big case downtown.
	I covered a less high-profile case here.
	A guy accused of wanting to fly to go to the Taliban, and he mentioned to somebody that he was in a big case and then started getting text messages, the guy is guilty, and almost got thrown off the jury.
	So this is like, basically everyone's going to pretend that nobody heard anything over the weekend.
	Matthew, this is fascinating, but I just want to know about Kevin Spacey next door.
	I don't care about the rest of this stuff.
	What's going on next door?
	Okay, no, no.
	I'm covering that.
	It's a civil case.
	There's a civil case here.
	Of Mr. Rapp, who's by name, and then there was an unnamed or tsunami.
	Did you see him?
	He got bounced.
	But Rapp is going forward, and it's extremely nasty in terms of every, at this point, like every single bit of discovery is being fought for.
	Who gets to depose who, for how much time, but it is moving forward, and it's moving forward, and as you know, he's...
	I think he goes by Fowler.
	He's going under another name, but it's definitely Kevin Spacey.
	And the connection between the two cases, of course, is that he was one of the passengers on the Lolita Express plane.
	And this is not a conspiracy theory, by the way.
	2002, the five-nation Africa tour of Epstein, Glenn Maxwell, Shante Davis, Bill Clinton, Chris Tucker, a comedian, and Kevin Spacey.
	And they flew around to Ghana.
	Nigeria, Rwanda, Mozambique, and South Africa.
	Matthew, Matthew, hold on, hold on.
	Kevin Spacey's always been confusing to me, though, because Epstein was known for a particular type of whatever you want to call it, product or whatever.
	Sure.
	That's not Kevin Spacey's type.
	Kevin Spacey has a very distinct type.
	Have you heard about Les Wexner?
	Do you know that theory?
	No, I'm asking.
	In any story that I've written, but those who are curious...
	Who asked themselves why it is that Les Wexner allowed Epstein to take all this money from him.
	I mean, and then later said to his board, I was taken for tens of millions of dollars, I'm so embarrassed, but never went after Epstein legally.
	There are those that say that there is some Kevin Spacey-like explanation there, or that there's a videotape that doesn't go the same way as all the other videotapes.
	Why is this videotape different than the other videotapes, and why is it worth...
	Hundreds of millions of dollars in a townhouse.
	I don't know if it's true.
	Is he involved in a civil suit, Matthew?
	The Wexner guy?
	Say again?
	Is he involved in a civil suit?
	Yes, he is.
	He's going to be deposed in this case of Giuffre against Dershowitz.
	Right.
	They're taking it out, and there's a desire.
	I don't know if he's been deposed yet, actually.
	I've been sort of sucked into the vortex of this case.
	I have a question.
	Is David Boies the mastermind behind this entire debacle?
	Are you talking about Theranos?
	I mean, he's a mastermind about the entire debacle of the American legal system.
	He's on all sides.
	He's on all sides, yeah.
	No, no.
	I mean, he appeared saying, I didn't know Elizabeth Holmes was not a fake blood machine, but here I am.
	I'm the champion of Virginia Giuffre.
	He's everywhere.
	He also prosecuted Bill Gates and Microsoft back in the late 90s.
	He's supposedly divorced because of the Lolita Express.
	It all comes together.
	I had big criticism, David.
	Bowie shows up magically wherever the government needs him to direct an operation in a particular way.
	I was particularly critical of him being involved in these Epstein cases because of his client list.
	Several of those people were Right.
	When he would have apparent conflict of interest.
	I mean, Bowie's has represented Bill Clinton before.
	Represented Al Gore before.
	Helped bring in a lot of these people to be part of Theranos in the pitch.
	Tried to intimidate both journalists and even Wall Street Journal journalists and prosecutors and investigators from even going after Elizabeth Holmes at Theranos while he was lining his pocket.
	And he was close buddies with Charlie Rose.
	They share a place in Paris where Epstein also had a place.
	And we know about what Charlie Rose liked to do.
	Come over, honey.
	Give me my coffee while I get naked.
	I don't know what Charlie Rose likes to do, and I don't know if I want to ask.
	His DVD collection reorganized over long weekends in the Hamptons.
	This is a very New York reference.
	This guy, Matthew, knows a lot of stuff here, Robert.
	I'm just going to go Google what reorganizing his DVD is.
	I had a great time.
	I started using the word vlog, by the way.
	I'm remembering that you told me that I could, as long as I didn't sell t-shirts or commercialize it.
	Hold on, hold on.
	I'm sorry.
	Viva's got one with his little dog on it now.
	I'll put that up.
	But hold on one second.
	I'm still an idiot.
	What does reorganizing your DVDs mean?
	It was apparently, I think the trouble that he got into, and I don't mean to say dismissively trouble, he invited a much younger media colleague and said, do you want to come to my house over the weekend?
	I'm going to reorganize my DVDs.
	No, he stole that line from me, and I'm never going to forgive you for stealing that line.
	I used that first, Matt.
	He might have actually said eight-track cassettes, but it's...
	I used beta.
	I was using beta.
	And then he had to quit.
	PBS had to say, he walked the plank.
	That's why they gave the show...
	I still don't know what you're saying.
	What do you mean reorganize?
	It was his pretext for inviting her out there.
	It was a pretext.
	Then he's like, bring me some coffee.
	Oh, look, I'm naked.
	How are you?
	I'm not joking.
	I alphabetized my DVDs in the back.
	It's like Louis C.K. saying, can we go organize the refrigerator in the hotel room?
	While you're here.
	Why do I feel like I've missed out on life?
	I don't know what's going on.
	He was still figuring out what the eggplant emoji I mean.
	Now that I know that, it becomes extra inappropriate for Brian Stetler to have the eggplant and the hot dog and the pizza emoji in his back wallpaper, given what's going on at CNN.
	Oh yeah, I think I'm in trouble.
	So he invited people over to reorganize his DVD collection.
	Did he have DVDs or no?
	No, I think.
	I mean, I think he did.
	And I think he was one of these guys that I think that when it came out, he tried to say that he'd been misunderstood, that he must have misread the symbols.
	But ultimately, that's why he's no longer sitting at that dark.
	You know, as we're sitting around, he had his own table.
	He's no longer at that dark table.
	And they passed.
	They gave it to.
	I guess it was Christiane Amanpour.
	Anyway, the show is gone.
	Let's also point out how deep into the state Charlie was, where he was flown to Syria to interview Assad.
	He's not Jimmy Kimmel.
	Let's not make believe this is a typical nighttime talk show host, Matt.
	He was up the deep state's ass.
	And he's deeply tied to David Bowies, who ties back into all this.
	But, I mean, one of the best movies on this, maybe it was titled on the UN aspect, title, I think, was it called The Whistleblower?
	Yeah, absolutely.
	The Balkan Wars, absolutely, yeah.
	I've met that woman.
	She's come to the UN a number of times.
	And I guess what I wanted, you said a little bit dismissively of, like, it's somehow a UN conspiracy theory.
	I just want to say this.
	All conspiracies aside, the UN has total legal immunity.
	I wish it weren't the case, but that seems to be the case.
	It's the best place to go.
	Why do you find a disproportionate number of pedophiles that are clowns, that are young preschool teachers, that are priests?
	It's not because priests and preschool teachers and all of them are bad.
	It's because it's people who want access to children and power over children.
	And the number one place to get power and access to children is in war-torn regions under the UN guise because you can't be prosecuted for what you're doing.
	And the whistleblower exposed this.
	And the only thing that...
	You know, I think she was like most whistleblowers.
	She was naive.
	If you watch the movie, she really thinks, well, clearly the UN would do something about this.
	They would not.
	I mean, the Albanian mob is one of the top human trafficking organizations throughout the world and has been for 25 years.
	You don't have to watch the movie Taken.
	Put those two pieces together.
	I mean, the idea of blood oath before it was an omerta, it was an old Albanian 14th century tradition.
	And you had long ties between the Sicilians and the Albanians going back to the 1500s when the Turks came into Albania.
	But the idea that the Balkans would be particularly a hotspot, but it was true in Haiti after the earthquake.
	It's true in large parts of Africa.
	What do you have is you have a bunch of kids that are orphaned.
	That are unprotected in a region and who is going to seek those people out, particularly in positions of power for which they can't be held responsible by local governments or any government.
	I mean, it's basically a permission slip.
	And then what the UN tries to say is that they encourage the troop-contributing country to bring its own prosecution, but they almost never do.
	And then if they were responsible, the UN would say, we're going to stop using...
	Peacekeepers from Burundi because you've committed a dozen rapes in the Central Afghan Republic.
	You haven't held anyone accountable.
	Sorry.
	But then they say, well, we can't get any other troops, so we have to just keep doing it.
	And so this is when I was there, I would ask about each of these cases.
	They literally have a website where they data dump.
	They did three this week, cases of child rape, allegations of child rape.
	And then.
	I would say, okay, at least tell me more information.
	Like, what was done for the victim?
	What follow-up is being done to see if the country they came?
	And they would have a paragraph.
	I've been thrown out of the UN.
	I put it in writing, they don't answer it.
	And the people they let in don't answer it.
	All they want from the UN is a quote like, Antonio Guterres is deeply concerned about the situation in Syria, or deeply concerned about the weather pattern in Japan.
	It's turned into just a quote box.
	That literally is like sending rapist peacekeepers repeatedly to the same places and doing absolutely zero to fix it up.
	So I'm sorry to...
	I'm now off that soapbox, but I just wanted to say it's not about just like...
	It's a known thing and it just keeps happening.
	Oh yeah.
	It's going to take 25 years now.
	It's like...
	It went from being...
	My naivety went from being funny under one circumstance to like, this is the...
	Proverbial depository of a black pill.
	People don't know this.
	People don't appreciate this.
	Robert, when you phrase it this way, and then Matt, when you confirm it the other way, you're dealing with institutionalized sickness, institutionalized abuse, and it covers it up for itself.
	It's just horrifying.
	It's just horrifying.
	Now I no longer want to smile.
	Even the United Nations knew it was a bridge too far to put its headquarters in San Francisco at the beginning, Robert.
	Even they said, no, this is a little much.
	We'll take New York.
	Anyway, you're right, David.
	Earlier, it was consenting adults, so we can kind of laugh about it, whatever, certain peccadilloes or preferences, but everybody involves an adult.
	They're not here.
	And that's where it gets really dark.
	I do want to say this.
	It's not even like, in the case of Epstein, the youngest we've heard so far is like, in this case, a woman was 14. It's totally illegal.
	Some of these cases in the Central African Republic, you're talking about five-year-olds.
	Same in Haiti.
	Really negative behavior.
	There was a group of French soldiers in the Sangaris one.
	They literally were like handing out chocolate cigarettes for sex acts from five-year-olds.
	Matthew, tell them about the billboards in South Africa.
	Urging people not to rape five-year-olds, those billboards that the government have put up, because they believe that they're free of AIDS and they're having sex with five-year-olds.
	This is a government campaign now in South Africa.
	In Haiti, a lot of this was documented as well.
	Very, very young people.
	I'm going to say one thing, by the way.
	I requested manual review for the demonetization before we embarked on this discussion.
	I will totally understand if this remains demonetized.
	What irritates me is that this is stuff that people don't know about that they need to know about.
	I'm going to sit here dumbfounded and just listen for a bit.
	Grobert, Mark, plant that discussion seed.
	The billboards where they're telling you not to do bad things to children.
	Yeah, it's become a national epidemic in South Africa because of their belief that everyone is ridden with AIDS and the age of consent, whatever that is, 14 or 16 there.
	They have gone way below that to where baby and child rape has become a tradition almost in the past 10 years, where the government has now been forced to put up billboards and air PSA.
	Yeah, which is unbelievable.
	Now, speaking of the...
	Back to the Maxwell trial.
	Did anything related to the UN ever come up at the trial?
	Did that magically stay undiscussed at trial?
	Absolutely.
	Yeah, nothing at all.
	In fact, I mean, my whole...
	And I tried to just sort of, you know, live tweet and stay very, very closely attuned to what was being said.
	And I don't...
	I mean, obviously, every trial is going to be smaller than people from the outside would want it to be.
	But this was truly...
	I guess the way I see it is, like, it's almost no different than the R. Kelly trial.
	Like, they've only gone after the side of the case, which is, like, not sensational, you know, very negative.
	He was recruiting, you know, 14 to 16-year-old girls for massages, paying $300, and Maxwell was a significant part of grooming them.
	And they've done their best to prove that.
	Maybe they had...
	Some witnesses that were off-age, maybe there's some issues about the interstate nature, etc.
	But they literally, other than a few teasers from the two pilots that they called, there was virtually no reference to the other side of the case, which is like, why was Epstein involved with all these powerful people?
	Why was he running tapes everywhere?
	Where did the tapes go?
	They didn't touch that at all.
	They would probably say, or you guys might say, look, they're prosecuting Maxwell.
	Their goal here is to say, you know, DOJ screwed up with Epstein in the past in Florida, and we're going to get this scalp number two in New York, and then no one, you know.
	But they're missing, they're consciously, consciously limiting the scope of what even came in.
	And I think, beyond that, I think the only other thing I would say is, I put in a number of filings to Judge Nathan to unseal things, because In the name of protecting the confidentiality of the witnesses, they've redacted the flight logs.
	Now, some of the flight logs are public and got leaked, but various documents in the case, they've withheld in full because of one or two names of these four victims with pseudonyms.
	And it seems to me like you could redact those names, but you shouldn't be protecting the perpetrator in the name of protecting the confidentiality of the victim.
	It's the prosecution who's doing it.
	That's what's annoying about it.
	No, no.
	And that's what gives rise to a lot of people.
	I try to not, I try to, I see what, and then the fact that it's Maureen Comey as the prosecutor, the fact that the government, you know, wants to protect its own.
	Even, I mean, look, I watched, and Judge Nathan never said why the trial was canceled for three days.
	People sort of knew, but she didn't say, like, I'm going down to D.C., I'm going to be questioned, I'll be back on Thursday.
	You know, Wednesday, there it is.
	The Judiciary Committee is questioning her.
	And nobody even asked about the trial, much less about, you know, the Lolita Express or anything else they could have asked.
	They didn't ask about it.
	And Matt, I want to say one thing before I get to the question I have for you.
	I have turned off monetization for this video, so I'm going to ask some questions that I would have otherwise never asked, but we'll get there in a second.
	You gave up on it.
	Forget it.
	Forget it.
	This is a bridge too far.
	I want to get back to Haiti.
	I want to get back to the child trafficking.
	I want to get back to the billboards in South Africa, Mark.
	First thing, this is Judge Nathan, who has been meticulous to the point of cutting off...
	Evidence because of the scheduling in a day who says, if you don't have your next witness lined up, we're ending the trial or ending the day.
	And now she's going for three days because she needs her career to be furthered and will put the trial on hold while she ends the evidence of one of the parties because of her scheduling.
	Am I wrong?
	And if I'm not wrong...
	No, no, you're right.
	I mean, I don't...
	Here was another detail.
	During voir dire of the choosing of the jurors, there was one juror that was in the final pool, almost on the pool, and she said, look, we're going to work right up to Christmas, right up to the New Year.
	And one juror said, no, since I filled out the questionnaire, my spouse has bought us a ticket to travel between Christmas and New Year's.
	I would have to miss two days of the trial.
	And Judge Nathan said no.
	You can't be on the jury.
	And I think one of the two sides wanted this juror and said, but why don't we just not meet between those two?
	Or like, we're only going to miss one day.
	And Judge Nathan said, no, it's imperative that we do this.
	And after that juror was bounced, then I guess the scheduling came in from D.C. of how and when she would go.
	And mysteriously, a Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of the trial were simply canceled.
	To me, I mean, it's a choice.
	I don't know.
	I half expected to see her name when they did that sort of, what do they call it, tarmac fever.
	There were like a bunch of judges just recently approved at 3 in the morning.
	I thought maybe she had to go and be questioned to get on that list, but she wasn't on that list.
	So I don't know.
	But it seems to me she could have said to them, I'll come in January.
	I'm doing a big trial, and I've just bounced jurors for trying to miss two days, and I'm going to close down the defense case because they don't have the next witness ready.
	Like, I should wait until January.
	She didn't, and she didn't tell people why it was happening.
	And so, I mean, I've written about it.
	I'm sure there's going to...
	A lot of the judges kind of rally around each other.
	They probably think that's an unfair criticism.
	But transparency.
	She should have just said, this is what I'm doing, and this is why I'm doing it.
	I want to read this, Luke.
	Just so that it doesn't look like monetization is about a money thing.
	Yeah, maybe $100 to...
	It's a lot of money.
	$100 to $500, maybe $1,000 a video when it's demonetized.
	But it's not that.
	It's monetization affects the spread of a video.
	Not just ads.
	Speech about court cases and documents isn't grounds for...
	It is, first of all, Luke, and that's the problem.
	But that's the bigger concern.
	I can put out another video tomorrow and it'll compensate for demonetization.
	It's that it kills the spread of the content.
	And this is stuff that people just don't know about.
	So Luke and everybody needs to share it themselves.
	Because that's the way you get around it, is you have to retweet it.
	I mean, honestly, we can only go so far.
	I put a video of a Q&A.
	Before I was thrown out of the UN, I would go every day to their noon briefing.
	I really enjoyed it, to tell you the truth.
	People would send me stuff.
	I would Google around.
	I would go in every day with my four, like...
	Here are my tough questions.
	And literally, they would demonetize those videos.
	This is not appropriate for all advertisers.
	It's a question asked in a UN briefing about something the UN did and them dodging the question.
	It may not be interesting, but I don't know how it's not monetizable.
	And a fascinating thing, whenever I would put up highlights or videos about Julian Assange, it would bounce not between demonetize and monetize.
	It would bounce between the red The red icon, which is not able to be monetized.
	Sure.
	And I know it's an algorithm.
	I know they put in words.
	They put in certain legit words that people don't want to advertise on.
	But it's not the demonetization that's the issue.
	It's that it kills any form of promoted reach.
	So organic is all that you have left.
	But I think if CNN put up one of its videos or another news organization on YouTube...
	I don't think they'd be subject to the same standards.
	That's what's always struck me.
	You're discouraging coverage of certain things except by a few players because I don't see them.
	I don't know how it works.
	That's the goal.
	The goal is to have gatekeeper control.
	So it's not everyone that covers the Maxwell trial or mentions sex toys or the rape of children in Haiti is going to be demonetized.
	If they can trust a trusted source, meaning one that's not going to say the UN is doing this on purpose repeatedly.
	If they just go in and say, what a terrible problem, but the UN's trying to solve it, definitely.
	But now I want to stop here, and I want to get into this parentheses.
	Haiti.
	The extent of my outrage about Haiti had to do with the charitable organizations that were created, that just siphoned the money off, never gave any back.
	The standard charity fraud, the charity laundering that you see ordinarily.
	Things that I did hear about were child trafficking from Haiti.
	And I, look, I'm an idiot.
	I need someone to, can we delve into this a bit right now?
	What are those allegations about?
	What's the truth of those allegations?
	How do they materialize in real life?
	And what do they look like in real life?
	You mean where the Clinton Foundation is?
	That Haiti?
	Yes, that one.
	Okay.
	Well, I mean, that goes all the way back.
	I mean, you know, Papa Doc Duvier, I mean, really arguably goes back to Haiti was the first successful slave revolution in the Western Hemisphere.
	Not long after the French burdened him, Napoleon in particular, burdened Haiti with such a ridiculous debt that it could not repay, that it could not dig itself out of, that retarded its growth completely economically, culturally, and politically.
	And so it's been a source of problems.
	Some of these kind of sub-issues in a criminal underworld and a place people would go to to grift one-way, shape, or form and exploit in a wide range of ways.
	I mean, famously, the Clintons complained about a $1 minimum wage being imposed by Aristide for workers in Haiti.
	It gives you an idea of the extreme nature of it.
	But, I mean, Doc Duvier was so famous, he made a Bond movie.
	I mean, it was a whole Bond.
	I think it's Live and Let Die, I think it is, that's loosely, basically Papa Doc Duvier.
	and it connects them to drugs and criminal operations throughout the U.S. And while it's doing so as a bond villain, there was a lot of truth to that undercurrent of that story.
	Papa Doc Duvier's misuse of voodoo to control and coerce the local population.
	So that's the backdrop you have in Haiti.
	Then you have this earthquake, deeply poor country.
	They basically run Aristide out of the country.
	Again, one of the I know Aristide is very controversial, but in my view, he was one of the only reformers who ever actually cared at all about ordinary people in Haiti.
	Whatever his mistakes were, I think he actually cared about people in ways really no other Haiti leader arguably has since the slave revolution itself.
	But after the earthquake, what do you have?
	You have tens of thousands of orphans, young children, orphans, in a poor region that's unprotected.
	And what you had was you had UN groups, other groups go in there and exploit those children.
	And then allegations started coming out because you had underage girls showing up pregnant.
	Underage girls showing up with severe injuries.
	Things like this.
	And it became clear what was happening.
	And it involved UN-connected people or people protected by UN immunity in one way, shape, or form.
	Some of it was connected even to the Clinton Foundation.
	That was some of the more, not just the massive grift that the Clinton Foundation did, putting up cheap trailers that they promised would have all these protections that it didn't.
	The first hurricane takes them out.
	Not just the massive grift.
	It was the child trafficking.
	Under the guise and under the direction, under the immunity of the UN, in large part, and of Clinton-connected people as well because of the power they had legally related to how the UN, in part, helped shape the post-earthquake Haiti.
	But that's some of the stories in Haiti, and it's just one illustration.
	I mean, probably the best cinematic version is the whistleblower one we tell, because that one is, you know, ordinary everyday person, thinks they're doing great work for the UN, comes in, kind of almost accidentally uncovers and discovers this human trafficking that's going on.
	And what she's shocked by is that the UN actually goes to great lengths to cover it up.
	Not to punish it, not to discipline it, not to deal with it in any way, shape, or form.
	And legal immunity itself, as Matt is pointing out, is the key to all of this.
	Because they're immune is the reason why nobody can prosecute or punish these people, unless the UN directs it.
	I was going to just add one thing, and this goes beyond child sex trafficking, but as I'm sure people have heard, the UN brought Colorado to Haiti after the earthquake.
	Now, it was just like, you know...
	You know, gross negligence.
	They brought in peacekeepers from Nepal that had cholera, which had not yet existed in Haiti.
	They didn't screen them.
	They had a sanitation facility that was basically just pouring excrement into a river and 10,000 people died from cholera that was brought by the UN.
	There's virtually no dispute that the UN contingent from Nepal was the cause of this disease.
	And the UN hasn't paid a penny, nothing.
	I know the lawyers that tried to sue, and that's why I say, like, it's sad, but it's clear to me there is immunity.
	They tried to sue, and they got nowhere.
	At every turn, the UN said, we are immune.
	We don't have to pay anything.
	They don't even take papers.
	Like, they wouldn't accept process.
	The guy tried to fax them the papers.
	The Secretary General was running away from papers as he went into, like, Cipriani's on 42nd Street.
	And they didn't get a penny, nothing.
	And so to me, that's like, that's really terrible because you can talk even about like, you know, Bhopal or, you know, I would even say like Epstein, like Epstein for all of his impunity, it did end up in the MCC.
	And, you know, that, you know, Bhopal, somebody at least was put on trial.
	What's the MCC?
	No accountability.
	Oh, Metropolitan Correctional Center.
	Yeah, I'm sorry.
	It's closed right now.
	It's about 100 yards from where I'm sitting, but it's, yeah, it's a, that's, that's.
	I mean, so it doesn't, I don't mean to overdo it, and there definitely are people that work in it that mean well, but it's extremely dangerous.
	Many people don't mean well, by the way.
	It seems like immunity is the problem.
	I mean, Robert, with the pharmaceutical industry, the immunity that they have with vaccines, any organization, institution that gets immunity seems to abuse it naturally.
	It's just wide open for abuse, Robert.
	I mean, no doubt about it.
	The other thing is, going back to this trial, like my view was that this trial, even before the trial started, would be more of a cover-up trial than an exposure trial.
	A lot of people have a lot of questions about what was really going on, what was the scale of this, what was the scope of this, who else did it implicate.
	Given that there were some names on there that are high-profile political figures, high-profile public figures, high-profile financial figures, the whole mystery of how Epstein got his money in the first place, the extraordinary coincidence of Ghislaine Maxwell being the daughter of Robert Maxwell, who had connections to intelligence agencies and was long known for using his publications for blackmail and extortion purposes.
	Say it, Robert.
	Mossad.
	Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	For all the people.
	Yeah, whether it's Mossad.
	Mossad, people.
	Mossad.
	KGB.
	I'll be like, you're covered up from Assad.
	I mean, to me, this was always going to be a cover-up trial, and there was a history of this.
	Connected to Comey, Maureen Comey's father, but connected to Robert Mueller.
	You go to the David Asimov case out of the Bay Area.
	Robert Mueller takes over that case.
	Massive child pornography uncovered.
	Magically, after Mueller takes over, the state and federal criminal charges all disappear.
	You have Epstein that shows up as an informant for Mueller at one point in some of the FOIA documents that Technofog revealed.
	But that my view was, I don't accept the argument that people are making that this was necessary to get a conviction, because to me, we're seeing evidence of that.
	The more persuasive argument for a conviction...
	Was to put the broader scale of this.
	If you tell that jury, this woman that's abusing young girls is talking at the UN about a whole bunch of things.
	That makes her a much more scary figure.
	That's not, oh, she's just the girlfriend of this pervert and helping out this pervert in some desperate way.
	This is a whole different scale.
	But Barnes, they had a limited number of people they could talk to.
	Think about it.
	It'd be like, okay, let's bring her up.
	She's obviously a victim.
	Okay, so now I'm on the defense.
	I'm like, okay, so let's talk about your other time.
	Who else was there?
	Who else was in the room?
	Okay, so she was grooming you for whom?
	Who did she take you to?
	That's why they couldn't bring up anybody that had all these other people they were victimized by, is my theory, as to why they limited this case.
	Because what you pointed out, Matt, was putting on two, three victims, because the fourth person's not legally a victim, was high risk.
	And now we're seeing it.
	Stop for one second.
	I've got to bring this up because this is how you know when you're dealing in troll territory.
	If you don't mention Mossad, you are Mossad and you're covering for them.
	If you do mention it, it looks like it got under your skin and you're Mossad.
	So Golden Mongoose, I didn't know what Mossad was until I started this.
	And then someone said, hey, one day to Dave, they're going to accuse you of being Mossad.
	So ignore it.
	You're Mossad.
	Call it out.
	You're Mossad.
	You know what that is?
	That's like being called a racist.
	Ignore it.
	You're a racist.
	David, I just want to add on to that because this bad thing is the equivalent of white power.
	I mean, the agency, the intelligence agency that you never hear anything about is the one from the Communist Chinese Party.
	And the reason you don't hear about them is because they're the most effective.
	You don't see movies about them.
	There's no James Bond fighting them.
	You don't hear about the Egyptian intelligence unit.
	You don't hear about ONI.
	That goes right to Matt's book about the UN being basically a captured entity of the Chinese government.
	There have been two cases brought right here.
	This Mossad thing borders on anti-Semitism.
	Every time I hear Mossad, it becomes absurd.
	But Mark, if I want to say one thing, can I bring Mark up?
	Hold on one second.
	Mark, if I want to talk Mossad, if you look behind you over your shoulder, the way that chair is positioned looks an awful lot like a McGinn-David.
	No, look over your...
	It's a joke, actually, people.
	But that looks like a joke.
	Okay.
	People will see what they want to see, and they'll ignore what they want to ignore.
	And I don't care about Mossad any more than I care about CIA, FBI.
	I think none of them are any more or less corrupt than the other.
	They're all corrupt.
	But it's a...
	Did I just take someone out of the chat?
	You just killed Barnes.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, you are Mossad.
	You took out Barnes.
	It was Barnes.
	They knew it.
	He's the only Mossad.
	He's the only Mossad.
	Everything is screwed up now.
	No, no, we're going back here.
	We're going back here.
	There we go.
	No, that wasn't the way it was.
	It was this.
	Here we go.
	There we go.
	Dear goodness, that's funny stuff.
	But I like the point that you made.
	But, David, it's the same thing with the CIA.
	As Robert is well aware, there's ONI, there's Air Force Intelligence.
	You never hear anything about ONI.
	Oswald was ONI.
	I mean, all you hear is CIA.
	It's like they're the only agency in the world.
	But what's ONI?
	The Office of Naval Intelligence, the oldest intelligence organization in American history.
	It goes back to 1887.
	You never hear a goddamn thing about them, and that's because they're probably doing the most damage.
	They're the ones blamed.
	For those who have doubts about what happened with Pearl Harbor, it's the Office of Naval Intelligence.
	Thank you.
	If I may, I'm going to throw this out here because we've never discussed it, but I don't ignore it, the USS Liberty.
	Would some people say that ONI was involved in that, or am I just connecting two dots?
	The NSA is probably more culpable in that.
	And for anyone who doesn't know what the USS Liberty is, don't accuse me of never bringing it up.
	I'm aware of these things, but we don't actually often talk about this stuff.
	Well, most people believe things that are nonsense.
	But going back to the China aspect.
	Matt, I mean, were you surprised by the degree to which, like, we just had a conviction that was very low-key in press conference.
	Harvard professor?
	Harvard professor secretly working for Chinese intelligence.
	I mean, it got almost no coverage during all this.
	Yeah.
	No, no, absolutely.
	And again, I can't help it, but I just want to make this, the allegation of China dominating the UN, it's not just that they have many high, you know, high positions in the UN, they have a veto on the Security Council, it's not just that...
	Non-governmental organizations can't get into the UN if they mention Taiwan.
	There's an accreditation committee, and the US puts up with it.
	Two-thirds of the questions asked are, why do you have this map on your website?
	Will you change your map?
	Come back in seven years when you've changed your map.
	Go ahead.
	Matt, explain what you mean right there.
	Why do you have this map and will you change your map?
	What does that mean?
	Because there are groups, NGOs, that portray Taiwan as a separate entity or at least an entity in which they have an office.
	And China insists that you call it Taiwan, province of China.
	I'll give you another example that used to, when I was there, blow my mind.
	Any journalist from Taiwan cannot enter the UN.
	And they say it's because you have to have the passport.
	From a UN member state.
	Of course, this never made sense because Palestine is not a UN member state and their journalists are in, just to play down the Mossad card.
	And that literally is something that the UN enforces.
	You could work for, it's a country or an entity, whatever you want to call it, of 23 million people.
	It's a large economy.
	If you work for a newspaper in Taiwan and say, I want to come and cover the UN, you're not getting in.
	You're not getting in.
	And they put up with that.
	So these are examples.
	But the two cases, it was entirely proved.
	What happened, there was a president of the General Assembly.
	John Ash was his name.
	He was the foreign minister of Antigua and Barbuda.
	He was elected to this kind of figurehead position as president of the General Assembly.
	And he literally demanded bags, brown paper bags of cash from a Chinese NGO, actually a Chinese businessman but connected to the government, who wanted a UN document saying that the UN wanted to build a convention center in Macau and that he was the only one that could build it.
	And he bought that document for $25,000.
	And he invited the PGA to fly to visit him in Macau.
	And the PGA said, I'll go personally for $25,000.
	But if you want me to bring the UN flag, it'll cost you $50,000.
	That was the proof.
	But the thing about the prosecutors here of the SDNY, they never went after anyone in the UN.
	They only went after the businessman.
	And they never followed through to make sure that the most rudimentary...
	The same thing happened two years later, and the same thing is happening today.
	The same people that were shown in that trial to have taken the cash for the document still work for the UN.
	But, you know, so I've sort of gotten into a fight with the prosecutors because I cover those cases and say, like, you're pulling your punches.
	Like, you're only going after this, like, buffoon-like Chinese businessman who sort of flew into Las Vegas with a lot of cash.
	And the people that are actually corrupting the entire international system are getting a get-out-of-jail-free.
	I have a question that I need to ask you.
	I think I've asked Robert.
	Eric, it's much less applicable to Eric, maybe more so to Mark as well.
	Someone who I went to discuss things with says, like, when you talk about things and you're afraid to bring them into existence, it's a condition.
	I forget what it's called.
	But here's my question.
	I'm afraid to bring it into existence, but I need to ask the question.
	When I send out a tweet criticizing Trudeau, I think, is Trudeau going to send Secret Service to my house and beat me up in the middle of the night?
	It's an irrational thought, and I know it's irrational.
	Unless you're a reporter for Rebel News and you're on the street.
	Even then, he wasn't at home.
	He was out there just trying to talk in public.
	you're doing stuff and you are questioning people who don't like being questioned who have committed atrocities that will be far greater than any individual atrocity that could be committed against any one individual who dares question them.
	Do you not at any point have any real concern?
	No, I mean, I will I don't want to overdo it, but in the course of like...
	Here's one way I could answer to you.
	At a much earlier stage, I did like tenant organizing in the South Bronx.
	And I will say this was scary because the guys that own one or two buildings and are throwing out their tenants without heat, they will kill an organizer.
	And while I was there, there was some like well-meaning tenant organizer that was like thrown beheaded in Hunts Point.
	So that does.
	Then I started challenging banks and I was much less afraid because I think they have much more to lose.
	They have much more to lose.
	Who knows?
	I'm not saying that they wouldn't do it, but if you challenge a merger of Chase and J.P. Morgan, they sued me for attorney's fees, but they didn't try to kill me.
	But at the UN, I will say, in the final stages before they threw me out, there was the laying of hands.
	There were moments, and some of them I've actually live-streamed them with my phone until they grabbed my phone, where they didn't just say, you've got to go.
	They said, you're going to go.
	And I remember this guy grabbing my arm and then like...
	Twisting it, like totally on purpose.
	I wasn't resisting.
	I was saying, like, take your hands off me.
	Twisting it on purpose and making it very clear.
	So in the thing that you mentioned, Belt and Road's killed, it's based on reality, but it goes beyond it.
	I can totally see.
	I mean, they killed 10,000 people in Haiti negligently, but I can absolutely see the UN killing somebody and covering it up.
	I can totally see.
	I mean, it sounds crazy, but I don't think it's a leap.
	Because they have total immunity.
	There was a Legionnaire's disease problem in New York, where every building in New York was supposed to be checking for water and cooling systems and to stop this terrible disease.
	They didn't let the inspectors into the UN.
	They have a big fountain.
	They have a big cooling tower.
	They never let them in.
	They never let in the fire inspectors.
	It is in New York, and it's not subject to any law.
	And so even if the police felt there was a corpse inside the UN...
	I know a UN staff member that died of a heart attack.
	Because they didn't allow the ambulance into the building.
	They literally, like, the guy was in 3B, he worked in the mailroom, and that's how he died.
	And he can't sue either.
	They just paid his widow some money, you know?
	Speaking of Mossad...
	And I'm saying that tongue-in-cheek, Joe.
	No, that's okay.
	I'm Jewish.
	I must be Mossad.
	All Jews, we're all Mossad.
	We are all Mossad.
	Humor is nothing but the obviously well-positioned comment at a given time.
	That was the joke.
	Joe, how are you doing?
	I am great.
	How are you doing?
	Hey, Joe, have you met Matt at the courthouse covering Maxwell?
	No.
	No, I don't know how it is that I've missed him.
	I thought I did the other day.
	Somebody approached me and I wanted to say, because I saw your jury thing, by the way.
	I thought it was excellent.
	I really think you did a public service with that.
	Thank you.
	I've been trying to get you on.
	I would love to have you on my show sometime soon.
	To be almost honest with you, I watched the jury thing and I was going to sign in and it might seem to you that I'm letting it all hang out here.
	I'm letting it all hang out as regards to the UN.
	I sort of hold, I get people like, as I'm sure you do, all day saying like, so what do you think is going to happen?
	How is the jury going to rule?
	And it's like, I'm not going to, I couldn't really be like doing, I can say a lot of things, but I don't really see any value in doing that.
	So I kind of learned from your jurors, but I didn't enjoy them.
	But I'm glad to, I'm glad to, I thought it was really, I had never seen anyone do that in the middle of a trial, choose the people that had actually watched it and say, what do you think?
	I thought that was excellent.
	Thank you.
	Thank you very much.
	We can field this one, Joe, both you and I together.
	Ask Joe if they should end in Matisse Beppe, which is circumcision in the mouth Beppe, which is where they do it, and then they suck with the blood with their mouths, and the issue with it, other than being questionable, to put it mildly, there's been transmission of herpes from the moil doing the procedure to the baby.
	I don't think...
	Is this a pressing issue or what's going on?
	It depends on what you mean by pressing issue.
	You know, Let's reorganize.
	I want to know if H&H Bagels is still open, Joe.
	It is.
	I stumbled on a case about H&H Bagels today.
	While covering this trial, I'm still calling into all these civil cases to try to cover them.
	And there literally is a Fair Labor Standards Act case involving H&H Bagels.
	Okay, now we're getting somewhere.
	Forget about the dress.
	I want to know about the bagels.
	I still have yet to write it up.
	Everyone in their right mind objects to...
	I forget what it's called.
	Everyone in their right mind objects to that and thinks it's...
	Should not be a league.
	I think I'm speaking for Joe.
	You're not speaking for me.
	I'll tell you right now.
	If they ban Matisse Le Paire, I would be starting rallies like 10 times against it as hard.
	That would be really genuine anti-Semitic discriminatory laws.
	I'm going to say this right now.
	I disagree with Joe, but I'm going to hear him.
	I'm going to listen to him.
	And I know he's not going to change my mind because I know enough about the procedure that I'm never going to change my mind.
	But Joe, you've got a lot of people out there who are not going to agree with you right now.
	By the way, Merry Christmas.
	This is an awesome holiday episode.
	We're arguing the Jewish procedures for the Christmas episode.
	This is not Jewish procedures.
	This is a very, very small minority.
	Of all Jews out there who believe that this should ever be done, Joe, I'm all ears, man.
	Let me hear if you can convince me.
	You're saying a small minority of Jews.
	Yeah, basically the religious Jews, they're the ones who believe in it.
	But unfortunately, there's a very small percentage of Jews who actually follow Torah and adhere to its tenets.
	So yeah, if you look at the overall aggregate number of people who identify as Jews or have Jewish blood in them, it's a small percentage.
	If you look at the percentage of people who actually adhere to Torah and follow what our rabbis have told us for the last, I don't know, 3,500 years, yeah, Mitzitzvah B 'peh has been done that entire time.
	And to say that it should be outlawed or banned, I'm telling you, it's...
	It's astonishing to me that in this age where everyone is so, you know, everyone here on this channel will probably agree that they have issues with the medical laws that are being passed.
	And I'm not going to be more specific because I have respect for it.
	Once we got into Haiti and Whistleblower and the UN and Maxwell and Epstein and now we're into Jewish religious tradition debate.
	That ship is...
	I'll tell you right now, this is unquestionably a First Amendment violation.
	It is unquestionably.
	This is exactly what the Greeks did when they took over Israel and basically said you cannot have circumcision.
	Because this is a critical part of the circumcision process.
	That's what I'm trying to say.
	It is a critical part of the circumcision process.
	It's not just removing the foreskin, but the actual drawing of blood.
	The actual drawing of blood is, if you don't draw blood, it's considered an invalid circumcision.
	First of all, it's impossible to do a circumcision without drawing blood, but hold on one second.
	Thank you for the enlightenment.
	This is what the sidebar should be every week, the prophet.
	We might be doing this, exclusive this, once a week on Locals, but Robert and I will talk afterwards.
	Robert, you can ask a question.
	What do you think, Joe, about, because that's the argument about for certain Islamic traditions in the United States, is female circumcision.
	Very controversial still in parts of Africa, but it's controversial here in the United States.
	Their argument is they have a First Amendment right to female circumcision.
	It's gone.
	It's battled out in Detroit and some other places.
	What do you think about...
	Where does that First Amendment...
	Because, for example, we said Native Americans, even though they have a long peyote tradition, that can be regulated and banned under the U.S. Supreme Court.
	One could argue either way on that, but where does that limitation...
	Do you think that...
	Well...
	Would you extend the same principle to those traditions that say we should have a right to peyote and we should have a right to female circumcision because it's part of our first religious tradition?
	I'm going to let Joe answer your question, Robert, before I bury him with my follow-up.
	Hey, David, pull up my screen real quick.
	I'm scared, man.
	I don't know if I want to do this.
	You're the first headline on Revolver.
	Oh, there you go!
	Now, I know that Revolver is called a conservative website and a patriotic liberal website.
	Therefore, I shall forever be known as a patriotic liberal Canadian.
	Whatever.
	Yeah, it was founded by Darren Beatty.
	Worked in the White House for a period of time.
	Friends with Amanda Milius, who was on our sidebar earlier in the year.
	Daughter of Grady on.
	The great director, John Milius, who Mark knows.
	I mean, one of the all-time great, great Hollywood characters.
	And everything connected to January 6th is just extraordinary.
	And we're seeing more people develop something that if you had been, if you're looking at for a last-second gift, by the way, same idea.
	If you had been a member at last New Year's at VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com, you would have got a hush-hush that would have predicted.
	What this article is talking about that Viva covered, that Julie Kelly talked about today, American Greatness, not only about January 6th, but the connection to the Whitmer case, that these were cases that were smacked of governmental entrapment.
	And what an idiot I am.
	I was trying to click on that link repeatedly, and it wasn't coming up, so I think I now understand.
	But Joe, Joe, so first of all, we're going to get to Jan 6th after this, because that one has exploded my mind.
	Joe!
	Robert's framing it as a First Amendment issue.
	Where do you draw the line before I get to my question?
	I said that the line cannot be drawn.
	So what else?
	Look, his knowledge of constitutional law far exceeds mine.
	I'm not going to say...
	I'm not weighing in as to whether or not the court has the power and authority or even potentially that they have precedent which would justify the banning of it.
	I'm simply pointing out that this would...
	I'm telling you the...
	The religious Jewish perspective is that this would be a gross infringement of our religious freedoms.
	Now, if you want to tell me that the Supreme Court has the power and authority to do it, I mean, arguably, I would have to look at the judicial reasoning as to how it was approached with respect to the female circumcision and peyote cases, which I haven't looked at in, I don't know, 20 years.
	Their power doesn't mean that it's not something that would genuinely be infringing on traditional Jewish law.
	And something that, you know, it's almost, there's very few exceptions as far as those who say that you can circumcise without engaging metzitzapet.
	Some people say, some people today, when they do metzitzapet, instead of doing mouth to circumcision, they'll actually use straw.
	They'll actually use like a straw to draw it out, to sort of keep that.
	That flesh-to-flesh contact.
	You can't use a straw in L.A., Joe.
	It could be a pre-done steel one, Mark.
	You just have a reusable one.
	I have to smuggle in plastic straws now.
	That paper straw is awful.
	I think they use a metal straw.
	I used to use a metal straw in the 70s.
	Yeah, but it wasn't for the same procedure.
	I don't like metal stalls.
	They look like weapons.
	But FGM is very different than circumcision.
	That's not the discussion actually right now because I can appreciate the argument over circumcision versus FGM.
	This is a specific type of procedure for the circumcision, which involves manually extracting the blood from the circumcised region, which is that which you know.
	And so...
	I would be curious, before you ask a question, I would be curious to look at the statistics.
	You're all assuming that there's just massive transmission of herpes from more.
	What I'm saying is, I'd be really curious to know if that happened more than two dozen times in the history of America.
	Because I doubt it did.
	It seems very unlikely.
	I'll defer to the rabbis as to the Jewish tradition.
	And I lean towards First Amendment protecting these things.
	The toughest case, for me, peyote should have been First Amendment protected.
	The toughest case is female genital circumcision.
	I have a problem with it.
	Instinctively I do, but it is a strong tradition in certain communities.
	And at what point...
	It's about who decides kind of issue.
	Well, that's like, okay, what if I remove a finger just because I traditionally have it or something?
	I feel like it's starting to get in that territory.
	There's got to be a limit somewhere.
	And the question is, where do we draw the limit?
	But most importantly, who gets to decide where that limit is drawn?
	Do we?
	Do courts?
	Do legislators?
	Does the majority or does the ordinary individual?
	Who gets to draw that little?
	And the thing about the female circumcision is you're impacting the woman's ability to enjoy the rest of her life.
	It's having an impact on her ability to experience sexual pleasure, from what I'm told.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Essentially.
	Let me see if I can do this.
	I'm going to bring this up here.
	This is six guys talking about clitorectomies.
	I just want to point that out.
	The Jewish minority taking over the conversation.
	I want to hear Viva's atom bomb question for me.
	I can't bring up the number of cases of viruses transmitted through the process.
	The issue would be, Joe, you're talking about biblical practices that it would be a violation to restrict.
	Then I would like to know about stoning my neighbors for leaving the religion or stoning my neighbors for being homosexuals or stoning my neighbors for any number of crimes within the old practice were punishable by death or by stoning.
	So where do you say, okay, well, those are too biblical to be modern versus the ones that you have to respect are biblical rights.
	Stoning is in the Bible in as much as an old tradition as the circumcision.
	Metzitzah Bepe.
	Metzitzah Bepe.
	It depends on who you're stoning.
	I'd be in favor of stoning a few people.
	There we go.
	Selectively.
	I agree.
	We need questions, Viva.
	Viva, they're all over you.
	Harsh.
	So...
	I...
	I'm not really.
	You want to look back as far as biblically what's written in Torah, so I'll tell you that those laws are not meant to apply in America.
	They're not meant to apply in any of these countries.
	Arguably, whether or not it's meant to apply in Israel today, that's a debatable position.
	But what I would say to you is those laws are meant to apply in a country which is under religious Jewish control.
	If I saw someone who was relying on Torah as a basis to stone a homosexual, I would be the first in line to say, throw this guy in prison for the rest of his life.
	Even though my religion, from a religious perspective, I do think that homosexuality is wrong.
	That doesn't mean that it's my place or the place of any other individual, whether they're Jewish or any other religion, to actually try and effectuate Jewish law in America or any other country.
	It's not your place.
	It's not your place to weigh in on that.
	To the person who just said, lame question, unless you're getting there, where do you draw the distinction between that which is equally provided for in the old scripture of religious practice and that which you don't tolerate in modern times?
	So are you asking me specifically a Jewish question or are you asking me an American legal question?
	I can understand that question in two different ways.
	If someone wanted to outlaw stoning of your neighbor who is an adulterer...
	Would you be up in the streets protesting that?
	Yes.
	Yes.
	I just want to ask one question.
	Are the Chinese Communist Party involved with undermining the Jews through Red Lobster, that franchise that's all across?
	Joe, I have to ask you as a fellow Jew.
	Are the Chinese Communists involved in spreading the franchise Red Lobster?
	And I was going to say also, while we're talking about old ways and new ways here, how in the world can you not survive without bacon?
	Oh, that's not difficult at all.
	Well, you got some good faking bacon.
	No, I'm not sure.
	I don't even seek out faking bacon.
	I'm telling you right now.
	I've never tried any shellfish.
	I've never tried lobster or anything like that.
	I've never had any form of animal product from a pig.
	In fact, any of the major chains you guys, presumably, or most Americans will regularly patronize, I've never set foot in any of them, whether it's McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's, you name it.
	I've never set foot in them because the food that they're going to be preparing there is not kosher.
	It's something that you get used to.
	It's something that you don't even think.
	It doesn't even cross your mind when you're living an Orthodox Jewish lifestyle.
	Someone says faux bacon is an abomination, and I have spoken to rabbis who say faux bacon should be illegal because you should not want to replicate that which you're not allowed to have in the first place.
	But let's move on from the religious discussion.
	Okay.
	Thank you.
	I hope we answered some of your questions.
	Say it again, Mark?
	I hope we answered some of your questions on this episode of News with Jews.
	By the way, I floated that idea to Eric discreetly.
	That's great.
	Okay, hold on.
	We got David Seller says, I got some good news.
	Just finished today in a two-year-long custody battle for my three daughters, which have been living with me throughout the case and COVID-19.
	I couldn't ask for a better Christmas gift.
	Cheers.
	Merry Christmas to everyone.
	David Seller, what is...
	W-O-W-F-M, Stanford.
	Don't super chat it.
	Just let me know what it means.
	Wow, FM.
	He's a big fan of FM radio.
	Wow, FM radio.
	That's amazing.
	Okay, so we'll move off the religious talk because that doesn't actually entertain everybody, but it might entertain some.
	Let's get back to...
	Let's get back to the fun topics like, you know, kiddie crimes and all the other great things we're going over.
	Joe, we were talking about Matt earlier.
	I mean, but you also commented on their decision to limit this trial in the way they did created a real risk because you're talking about the credibility of two or three people now.
	Really one.
	It's really one.
	Oh, yeah.
	Explain that.
	Well, I mean, when you actually look at the six counts, and if I'm mistaken on anything here, Matthew, feel free to interject.
	When you look at the six counts, there was actually limiting, so you have to understand that there's three substantive charges, and each of them have a conspiracy charges hack for the other three.
	And it starts with the odd number ones are the conspiracy, and then the even number ones are the substantive.
	So, for example, you have enticing a minor, the second charge is enticing a minor to cross state lines for the purposes of engaging in illegal sexual conduct.
	Charge number one is conspiracy for enticement of a minor, etc., etc.
	So what's very interesting about the way the judge directed the jury to approach their decision on guilt or acquittal was that she said, with respect to charge two, you can only find guilt based on the conduct involving victim Jane between the years of 1994 and 1997.
	But with respect to conspiracy for that very same crime, in Charge 1, you can find guilt of Ghislaine Maxwell for any victims between the periods of 1994 and 2004.
	A much broader range of who you can convict for and the time period.
	And this was an astonishing thing when you think about it, that for the conspiracy to commit this crime, you can attach...
	Her conduct with respect to multiple victims, theoretically hundreds of victims, but I guess there were multiple people who referenced this case, for example, Virginia Roberts, and they even specifically asked one of the jury questions that I think Matthew Leafs mentioned yesterday.
	They asked, with respect to Charge 1, can we consider the testimony of another victim who testified under her real name, Annie Farmer?
	And the prosecution was obviously very excited by this, screaming yes, and the judge responded that yes, you could.
	It's an interesting thing for us to break down for your viewers here why that would be, that the conspiracy charge can have such a broader range of analysis from the jury as opposed to the substantive charge.
	So, but yes, it's really, respect to charges two and four, the only thing that they're allowed to consider is Jane and with respect to 1997 to 2007.
	And I do think that their decision to protect the elites.
	From having their names tossed out in open court and for being associated with this conduct did limit their choices as to who they brought in.
	That's my personal opinion.
	We saw other instances where they certainly seemed to protect the elites, like when they have over-redactions, that the judge is looking at them saying, why are you redacting every name from the flight log instead of just limiting it to the victims?
	I want you to change that.
	I think Comey had an egg on her face for that and said, well, we were under time pressure.
	We couldn't find someone in the mail room.
	We didn't have enough people in our staff to actually address this.
	I don't know what you're saying.
	Did they ever, Matt, ever unredact that?
	They have done some, kind of belatedly.
	I actually want to get, I'll go one step more procedurally.
	This will be from a journalistic point of view.
	I don't feel that Judge Nathan has been a champion of transparency in the case at all.
	I think that, and I'll say why, even compared to other judges here in the Southern District, and I'm not, this is going to sound...
	Horn tooting or whatever.
	But I put in filings.
	I put in a filing to Judge Rakoff.
	I said, this withholding is wrong.
	He said, absolutely.
	Put it in the docket.
	He ordered it released.
	Other judges will say, this filing has come in.
	I put it in the docket.
	I ask the parties to respond to it.
	And then I'll make a ruling.
	Judge Nathan seems to just make her own decisions on what should be.
	She doesn't listen to any kind of—she doesn't hear arguments from both sides, because in this case, the prosecution and the defense are both—they're both equally arguing for redaction.
	So it's not a normal case where you would have—you're hearing from two sides, and then she's in the middle.
	You're having two sides both wanting secrecy for their reasons, and I think you have her, and, you know, this is this—she might think it's unfair, but I think— She wants the message for her performance in this case to be she protected the victims.
	Unlike, you know, she protected the confidentiality.
	She allowed these three victims, some of whom's names are already known.
	I mean, it's an open secret.
	It's kind of ludicrous, actually.
	People wrote to me from the UK and they say they know exactly who Kate is.
	Kate's been in all the tabloids there.
	I'm not saying who they are.
	I'm just saying, so she wants that to be known.
	And so to the degree that there's people unhappy that things are over-redacted.
	Doesn't seem much to care.
	To the degree that there are people that say that maybe you shouldn't have gone to D.C. for three days in the middle of the trial that now makes it so that people...
	This is a key point.
	This pause now for four days.
	She told the jurors, you're not supposed to talk about it over the four days.
	You're not supposed to consume any media.
	I think it's impossible to believe that that won't happen.
	And I wonder whether it will have some impact when the jurors come back on Monday.
	Matthew, Matthew, seriously.
	Having watched Viva Frey, I don't know.
	Matthew, seriously, and maybe I'm wrong on this, but can you tell me any of the damn jurors that didn't hear ahead of time that she was a creep working for Epstein?
	Before they even walked in.
	I know.
	I would think they have more questions now than they did going in.
	They probably were like, yeah, weirdo.
	Many of them said that they'd heard of Jeffrey Epstein, but not her.
	But I agree.
	I think that there was a degree of, I don't want to say lying, but people that wanted to be on the jury would tend to downplay it.
	And I think it's going to be the same.
	I think it's going to be impossible if either side on Monday says we should poll the jurors, we should ask them, truth or dare, put your hand on the Bible.
	Did you discuss this case over the holiday in any way?
	I don't know if you're going to have 12 people that didn't do it.
	I bet both sides would be happy for it to be a mistrial so they don't have to keep kicking it down the freaking road.
	Do they really want to deal with it?
	No, I don't think they do.
	So, they would have to retry the case, I believe, if there was a mistrial.
	I will tell you this, if you look at the intersectionality of the jury, I mean, and I've seen enough about them, it seems that the defense did a really good job of managing to avoid any individual who seems like they would be supportive of the Me Too movement.
	I mean, you have older women, some men, they don't look like your typical New York...
	Are there women from Sheepshead Bay, Joe?
	I can't speak to that.
	Okay, thank you.
	One of the questions, though.
	The jury questionnaire said, have you ever worked with Me Too?
	Have you given the money?
	Are you prejudiced against people that have a, quote, affluent lifestyle?
	So all of these things were vetted out.
	So I agree.
	They did pretty well.
	At the same time, would you agree with me if the jury instructions cast a very broad net, which enable the jury to convict?
	Let's think about this.
	She just needs to be aiding or abetting.
	And she's as culpable of anything that's happening here.
	With respect to Carolyn, we heard Carolyn's story.
	Carolyn was the third victim to testify.
	She was the one who was beaten by life.
	More than any of the other four victims.
	She looks as if she had a miserable life.
	From the time she's four, she's been abused by her own grandfather in the worst way a woman can be abused.
	And then she drops out of school in seventh grade and shortly thereafter meets Virginia Roberts who introduces her to Epstein.
	And there's very little talk of Maxwell's relationship in the whole...
	Carolyn's story.
	Much more Maxwell involvement in the other three victims.
	And the only thing we know is, if you believe everything Carolyn said, and her testimony was really ripped repeatedly for four and a half hours by Jeff Paliuca before it was resurrected by Comey in a very dramatic testament, redirect.
	But, you know, her involvement with Carolyn was that Maxwell was there.
	The first time she showed up there and told Virginia, show her what to do.
	The other involvement is that there's two other steps in involvement.
	Both Carolyn and her ex-boyfriend Sean said that two different women would call to schedule appointments.
	One was a French-speaking woman, another a French-accented woman, and the other was Maxwell.
	Also, she mentioned...
	That one time Maxwell touched her breasts.
	Now, and the problem with that last part from what I recall is that she never discussed that at all in the last 15 years.
	It's almost like something that the breast touching from Maxwell to Carolyn seems to be something that came up like in the last six months.
	So the credibility of that element of it seems really paper thin.
	So the question is, my point is...
	There's so little that she did here.
	And yet, a simple phone call where she knows what's going to happen and she knows that she's sending a 15-year-old to go meet with Jeffrey Epstein to have the Epstein special.
	Just that one phone call seems as if it's enough to...
	And also, this is the other thing.
	You have to realize we're talking about the sixth charge.
	The sixth charge is interstate commerce.
	And the interstate, that's minimally transacted, minimally related to this entire thing.
	And what's that interstate?
	It's a FedEx package that came from New York to Florida, which FedEx testified was not sent by Glenn Maxwell.
	But sent by Epstein.
	So Maxwell has nothing to do with the interstate element to it.
	She has nothing to do with...
	She has very little to do...
	She's not grooming Carolyn the way she did the other three victims.
	She's not doing anything to push her closer.
	She's really just making a phone call.
	And for that phone call that she made, who knows how many times?
	It might have been once.
	It might have been a dozen times.
	But because of that phone call now, she's engaging.
	She's a part of this interstate...
	Of this interstate use of the males to induce someone to engage in illegal sexual conduct.
	And I never thought for a second that that sixth charge could possibly hold up until I saw the jury charges.
	And the reason I gave this home a giller here was to basically ask you, do you not think that Judge Nathan cast a very wide net to enable the jury to convict on actions that seem really minimally involved towards Towards getting Carolyn, in particular, associated with Maxwell.
	Before anyone does anything, when you see me doing this, I'm not doing anything dirty except petting my dirty dog on my lap.
	I'm going to continue doing it, but Matt, you go.
	I saw the person saying get to January 6th, so I'll be very succinct.
	Just listening to it in live tweeting, so they're not thinking about it very much.
	I didn't think the jury charge was out of keeping with other jury charges that I've heard.
	These are very loose laws.
	There was this case here about ease and wire card and a legal marijuana business in California and the use of credit cards.
	It was amazing what could be turned into a crime.
	The larger point I would say is that this is why it was a mistake to only have four victims.
	This is why it was a mistake.
	To only focus on...
	In the case of Carowind, it's almost all intra-Florida.
	It's not even interstate at all.
	Meanwhile, there's all kinds of evidence of them flying people to Little St. Jeff's and flying literally...
	It's still part of the United States, but it's definitely out of the country.
	And this is where the big shots went.
	I'm not convinced even that Palm Beach, other than maybe a few people, was the place where Epstein did his...
	his hosting of big shots to film them having sex with minors.
	So the whole little St. Jess.
	Does this have been established or did I miss something?
	We never heard any testimony at all about any sexual activity on Little St. James.
	Literally zero testimony during the 13 days of trial, which is astonishing.
	Because it's the most dangerous, it's the most explosive part of the case.
	Yes, and that's another indication as to how far they're going to protect that.
	I've been sort of doing secondary reading during the trial, and there are people, I mean, I'm assuming they could be tracked down.
	there's a guy that was a, a like electrical contractor who said, I did a lot of work for Epstein on that Island.
	And I saw all these young girls, hundreds of like, no mistake at all.
	People flown in.
	There was a girl that tried.
	There was, I guess it's Sarah Ransom.
	Sarah Ransom.
	Yeah.
	Tried to leave the Island.
	So I think that, I wish they would have a press conference.
	I went to one recently by Damien Williams, but it was only about charging this Mount Vernon police with abusive tactics, police tactics.
	But somebody needs to stand up and take an answer and say, why did you do the case this way?
	Right?
	The defense can't do it.
	They're precluded from using it in their closing.
	But why did you leave such massive chunks of this enterprise, particularly the ones that were interstate, particularly the ones that involved big shots?
	Why are there nowhere to be seen in the case?
	I think we know why.
	I think we know why.
	I mean, it's kind of obvious why.
	Yeah, I know.
	I know.
	But you'd be surprised.
	I'm here, I'm sort of in this dual world with like...
	I don't want to use any pejorative term with professional journalists and with, you know, the guys that are out in Foley Square at the end of the day.
	And it's surprising to me, among professional journalism, how much respect there is for how George Nathan is doing the case, how the prosecutors are doing the case.
	And it's sort of, it's frustrating because it's like, I don't think it's crazy to say, like, this prosecution sucks.
	You mean a lack of curiosity?
	I was fighting with the other journalists because they were like, we love the UN, and I was like...
	I absolutely know.
	I'm sorry.
	Well, I was just going to say, I mean, I think your coverage of the UN, your coverage of the trial is exposing the same thing, which is most institutional journalists act like stenographers for power rather than questioning power, contesting power, challenging power.
	The journalists here are much better.
	And I'm not just saying it because I'm still here, but because, I mean, I think that it's a more serious crowd.
	There were literally, in the UN briefing room, there would be people like falling asleep.
	There was a guy that was drunk at the stakeout.
	So there were people that never showed up for years.
	There was a guy that slept in his office.
	There was a lot of professional recorders, but there's still a, there's a limitation on how, how, how, you know, there's any, and just to, just to.
	Respectfully, Matthew, if I may.
	I mean, look, I will tell you that I have been public in praising the prosecution and Judge Nathan and the defense in the fact that they've been...
	I think that all three parties...
	Judge Nathan has been very professional in the way she's handled herself, and I think that the way she kept her court cases moving was very professional.
	I thought her decisions on objections and sustaining and what testimony was legally admissible and what wasn't was pretty spot on.
	She's very smart.
	She's very smart, and I think that the prosecution...
	Starting with the limitation that they don't want to expose big names, once they started with that limitation, which I agree with you, totally wrong.
	But once they start with that limitation, I think Comey, Pomerantz, and Moe, I think they were busting their asses to try and get convictions.
	Oh, I don't doubt their competency or their skill set.
	I doubt that the theory of the case was unduly limited because they didn't want to expose certain third parties.
	That I agree with.
	I concur with that.
	A possibility of acquittal that would be unimaginable six months ago.
	And I would just add this.
	In the run-up to the trial, I will say this about Judge Nathan.
	I think she gave inordinate play to the Maxwell side.
	I mean, there are other judges here.
	I've mentioned Rakoff, but there's certainly this guy Kaplan.
	There's a bunch.
	They would have not have given six final pretrial conferences.
	They would have said, you get one conference, you get one set of motions to eliminate, and that's it.
	But every time they want to write a letter about not getting a letter of FedEx and the MC, I just saw Judge Furman deal with this guy who was in the MDC.
	The CIA leaker, Joshua Schulte.
	And he said, no, you've got to stop with the letters.
	I'm not going to keep reading them.
	But she gave massive play.
	I think it's because she knows they would appeal.
	It's a high-profile case.
	Maybe she knew this nomination was coming down the pike, but there's some motive involved.
	And I'm not saying that that's a sleazy motive, but it's a motive.
	She wants to be known as the judge that vindicated the rights of the anonymous witness, survivor witness, and the one that ran a trial narrow as it was so well that maybe resulted in a I'm not sure that that should be the motives of a judge.
	And I think people don't like a judge that says, no, you get one shot.
	But if other judges are doing it to other litigants, it should be done in this case too.
	Otherwise, it's not fair.
	Your other point to transparency, and this is a good transition to the January 6th cases.
	Oh, yes.
	You contrast this with, you know, she deliberately chose not to allow...
	You're never getting monetized, David.
	Oh, he didn't bother.
	This video, I'm done with this.
	I just nailed you a check.
	Let's get...
	Checkers are carrying it.
	I'm going to say one thing that I wouldn't ordinarily say.
	Shit.
	He's totally protected.
	He's Mossad, so he'll get monetized.
	That'll be the proof of it.
	Mossad always does live streams in their basement.
	Never mind.
	One final thought before we leave there.
	Maxwell, I think we all agree.
	It was a...
	What's the word when you circumscribe the prosecution?
	I think Nathan went out of her way to let the defense go a little more robust so she can't get accused of giving them grounds to appeal.
	I think we can all agree.
	Do we all agree?
	Thumbs up.
	It's a cover-up of a prosecution and it was never intended to go beyond the limited scope of this trial.
	Okay.
	Now, Robert, bringing us to another cover-up.
	Yeah, because I'll say, I mean, this judge chose not to publicize or even make transparent the case by allowing people to call in and listen to audio.
	I mean, you have the federal rules, which I think are already outdated and antiquated by not allowing video, especially here where they're actually videotaping the trial.
	They're just only broadcasting it within the courthouse rather than everyone else.
	And as you know, everything about this case is going to increase people's skepticism of how the government handled this case.
	I had somebody hijacked that line.
	Three letters asking for the call in line.
	And she finally docketed one of them and denied it.
	I want to tell you that there's other judges that are not obeying that.
	Including one that's on the Second Circuit, Richard Sullivan.
	Every time he does an in-person violation of supervised release, he puts it on the phone.
	Even if there's two people calling in, and I'm one of them.
	But his idea is people should be able to call in, whether it's family members.
	Often, he's a very tough judge.
	It's like general deterrence.
	Why would you hide these things if you're trying to send a message that you can't do something?
	Why would you do it?
	And a good contrast is, as you've mentioned, the January 6th cases...
	You can still call in because they love to just lecture.
	They love to hear that.
	They want the whole world to hear they're lecturing these defendants, even as evidence mounts that there may have been government culpability or complicity at some level, whether it was informants went rogue or the rest, as Viva broke down with the Revolver story.
	Well, now I broke down the Revolver article.
	The Revolver article, it's not a five-minute read.
	It might be a one-hour read at your first read.
	And then you have to...
	I read slow.
	Then you've got to watch the videos that are attached in there, and that adds 10 minutes.
	Then you've got to reread it again.
	But the bottom line of the Revolver article, I don't care if the website has a right-leaning conservative slant, whatever.
	It's facts.
	You could read the conjecture.
	You could read the hyperbole.
	But the bottom line facts are that you have arguably, but not so arguably, the three biggest participants in the Jan 6, Ray Ebbs, and then the Three other, I guess four people.
	Unindicted co-conspirators.
	One guy who's on a tower, literally telling people what to do.
	Another guy who seems to be undercover cops based on the way he approaches people who are smashing windows with a crowbar and is not afraid of them.
	And then another person who seems to be someone who might have been busted on a crime and then turned informant, the guy with the long hair, on the...
	Yeah, the Proud Boys guy who's an informant.
	Well, we know that he was an informant, but the other four...
	Baked Alaska, isn't he an informant too?
	No, no.
	Big Alaska got...
	Have you heard of John Sullivan?
	He's one of the main defendants, but he's an interesting character.
	Right.
	Well, how so?
	He's African-American, number one.
	Number two, he was filming BLM.
	He was with the CNN producer.
	He's a journalist.
	I'm going to call him a journalist.
	He goes where there's trouble and he turns his camera on.
	But because he's seen to be part of BLM...
	I get a lot of mail.
	I've covered his arraignment.
	I covered his things in Utah.
	People were going crazy saying, like, he's the...
	I mean, this was like Revolver before there was Revolver.
	I mean, it doesn't take a rocket science to say, like, this guy was, you know, agent provocateur.
	Yes, sir.
	He filmed Ashley Babbitt getting shot.
	He was the one that had the footage.
	Yes, sir.
	And he monetized all of it and CNN paid him, you know, there's contracts in the record that he got paid for the footage.
	So people are saying, like, CNN paid for the, you know, for the carnage.
	Isn't that a snuff film, Matthew?
	You know, but it's an interesting character.
	He's an American phenomenon.
	I will.
	That relates to the old, speaking of, whenever I hear the film reference, other than the great film Eight Mile, which has a great line in it, which says when you dance with the devil, the devil doesn't change.
	The devil changes you.
	But it always reminds me of Son of Sam, the New York case, because remember the alternative theory or different conspiracy theory or whatever you want to label about Son of Sam was that they were covering up snuff films being made for a high-end Hollywood-connected guy.
	Didn't he end up like dead six months later?
	Well, no, there's a lot.
	Oh, God.
	Now you're pulling into my show.
	Yep, there you go.
	The Sons of Sam cult.
	There were a couple parts of that.
	One, that Berkowitz only did like three of them.
	That there was more than one shooter.
	And if you look at the drawings and everything else and the placement, etc., it does line up that he could have been part of a group.
	He later on did say that, yes, I did that one, but not that one.
	But this one, not that.
	Was pulled over.
	That never made any headlines.
	And there were apparently illegal firearms and explosives on that bus that they were then attempting to seek DNA samples from the people on that bus, one of whom ended up at the riots the next day.
	So whether or not they were arrested turned into informants.
	But as far as I understand, there were no pipe bombs.
	Am I wrong?
	Does anyone know anything different?
	I don't know.
	I'm still waiting for the motivation of the Las Vegas shooter.
	The FBI promised me they'd come up with a motivation by the end of the decade, David.
	Well, by the time they finish with a gun of Alec Baldwin, they'll get back to you on the Las Vegas.
	I'm trying to solve the Baldwin case.
	I don't have time for this.
	Mark, do you think that the recent escalation of things on the Baldwin case, meaning Mike, I'm still on the vote.
	Less than 10% chance he gets prosecuted.
	But what do you all think?
	They're going after Hannah and Dave Hulse.
	You have to go with all three and give it to the grand jury, wash your hands of it, and just say I did the best I could.
	If I was the DA, a woke DA, a George Soros acolyte, I would simply take all three of them, which is what happened in the Georgia case.
	They took...
	All the top-tier people, the director, the AD, the producer, the line producer, turned it over to the...
	Randall Miller in South Carolina.
	South Carolina.
	Randall Miller in Georgia, the Midnight Rider case.
	The DA turned it over to the grand jury, which is what might have to happen here, because anything else that she does reeks of a political motivation.
	If she doesn't indict Baldwin, but picks the girl Reed and leaves off Halls...
	I think her best move would be to give all three the grand jury, and whatever comes out, comes out.
	Mark, Grobert, Sean Atwood asked me today on our stream on Sean Atwood.
	Sorry about that.
	Who was that we know?
	There were only four people present, and one of whom is no longer alive, and I'm not saying this to be glib.
	It was Baldwin, Helena, David Hulls, and Sousa.
	Those were the only four people in the room at the time?
	No, the gapper was there because he held her when she fell down.
	Yeah, and also the special effects guy, Thomas Gandhi, was there in the doorway.
	Okay, first of all, that's shocking and interesting, and none of them have talked.
	None of them.
	Well, Gandhi has spoken.
	He was in the 2020 episode, and Sergei has spoken.
	Sousa has not spoken, as far as we know.
	And the script supervisor said she was there.
	She was deafened, remember?
	The script supervisor was there also, yeah.
	So hold on.
	What did they say?
	Have they said anything that contradicts...
	Have they said anything to support my theory, that Alec Baldwin pulled the trigger out of frustration?
	Well, I mean, the real hitch is the Hall's written statement to the sheriff's department that he did not hand the gun to Alec Baldwin.
	That's in writing.
	The sheriff then went to each of the witnesses who contradicted him, and he said that's a disparity problem that Hall's has.
	Now you've got this...
	This Napolitano from the state OSHA going after David Hall is trying to get him on the record with multiple subpoenas that he's avoided.
	And now he's agreed to do a Zoom interview with his lawyer present regarding his violation of OSHA standards.
	And I think they just want to get him into a contradictory situation in terms of being on the record.
	So that's going to be interesting.
	But now the father, which I think we're going to cover on Friday, Eric.
	The father, who is Sean Connery.
	Whoa, whoa, whoa.
	Where are you going to cover it, Mark?
	Come on.
	You have to do this properly.
	America's Untold Story, which I think is the next channel on this dial.
	I think if you go to the right or the left, it's fine.
	America's Untold Stories, which Eric and I do.
	And I now see that the father, for the first time, Hutchins' father, who is the Sean Connery character, literally from Hunt for Red October.
	That featured Alec Baldwin in the movie has now made statements against Alec Baldwin for the first time.
	So now you have a Russian nuclear subcommander coming after him.
	And what did he say in terms of how he's against Alec Baldwin?
	He said he finds it hard to believe that Baldwin didn't pull the trigger and kill his daughter.
	He's saying he's at least partially responsible.
	Early on, he and Matthew Hutchins both said they didn't blame him.
	So this is a flip.
	There's a flip.
	And so people are asking this question.
	It's a movie shoot.
	Are they really saying there's no videos?
	We have videos of everything.
	So they're shooting on film.
	Mark, do you know if they're shooting on film or digital?
	Okay, they're not shooting anything.
	This is a blocking.
	So you're not shooting anything.
	You're just blocking for where the actors are going to stand.
	Nobody's shooting anything.
	Let me rephrase.
	So there was no video footage?
	There was no video footage at all.
	We don't know, actually, Mark.
	Somebody pointed out, if we go back and I've got to look at Baldwin's interview again, though, he did say she was filming.
	Did you see that?
	Let me just explain that.
	She's looking through the monitor for the position of the hammer of the gun.
	She's not recording what she's doing.
	If she was, that's going to be a breakthrough situation.
	Believe me, she was not recording.
	But if we believe that, but bottom line, were they shooting on film or was this a digital?
	Probably digital.
	Well, because this is, again, this is in real time, because the camera crew quit.
	She was shooting with a handheld Insta camera that was mounted on her.
	If you saw what she was using, that was video.
	And I believe that's because of the quitting of the camera crew in the morning.
	The new crew is en route after lunch, by the way, just so you know what she's looking at.
	Is framing him with the gun.
	And all of that cocking of the hammer is that she wants an extreme close-up for whatever reason, which could have been done in post-production, could have been done as an insert shot, is traditionally not done with an A-list star.
	It's usually done with his body double afterwards or late in the day.
	Mark, not only that, apparently she was using Halls for that.
	I read somewhere that Halls was doing it, too.
	Yeah, very common.
	And that was part of why he had the gun, is that some of the footage was him doing it.
	So there's a lot of interesting...
	And Mark, can you expound on most people, I mean, the people who haven't watched America's Untold Stories, the fact that the woman who was shot...
	Who her father was.
	Right.
	So the father was the top nuclear submarine commander at a Murmansk during the Soviet Union.
	She was raised in the most secret naval base in the world.
	That's up in Siberia.
	That's the Murmansk Soviet naval base.
	Her father is the Sean Connery character from Hunt for Red October.
	Let me just leave it at that.
	And on Friday, we'll probably pick it up from there and expound upon the father coming for Baldwin now.
	Where are you going to be following?
	By the way, remember who was in Hunt for Red October?
	Yes.
	Alec Baldwin.
	Yeah, but hold on.
	Where are you going to be following this up?
	Mark, you got to get this down, man.
	Where are you going to follow this up?
	Eric knows.
	America's Untold Stories.
	And you can even go to americasuntoldstories.com or youtube.com slash americasuntoldstories.
	This is episode 10, right, Eric?
	How many episodes have we done?
	Yeah, it's going to be a decade.
	It feels like a decade.
	It's a decathlon.
	I still don't think I have an answer to the question.
	Was this movie being shot on film or digital?
	Probably digital.
	I think most are digital now in indies.
	They've gotten good enough.
	This was shot on film.
	People don't appreciate how much film costs.
	This was being shot on film, from what I understand.
	Okay.
	Okay, interesting.
	So that would...
	Hold on.
	Just subbed.
	People.
	Thank you.
	So that would decrease the likelihood of a...
	Constant digital recording.
	If it's on film, you don't want to waste it, so you start filming when you go because film is expensive.
	Fine.
	I'm going to have to go into the history.
	If you see what she's wearing, she's using a Steadicam to frame these shots.
	And she's looking at the monitor.
	She's not recording what she's doing.
	It's merely a framing operation.
	And for Baldwin, it's a blocking operation.
	So you've got both happening simultaneously.
	Your theory of her directing him repeatedly...
	I believe, you know, would anger some actor into shooting her with an empty gun out of just being, you know, pissed off, just going, click.
	I mean, that's not far-fetched.
	I think I had the same theory at the same time you did, that there is some reluctance on the part of a cinematographer, as Baldwin said, to even talk to an A-list actor.
	It's just not done, David.
	Just not done.
	I mean, Baldwin's...
	Go ahead.
	I'm sorry, Robert.
	Oh, I was just going to say, it's a brief transition, but Matt, speaking of search warrants and subpoenas, have you followed any of the litigation involving the January 6th committee's subpoenas?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	I mean, I've been following that some, although I have to say, it's one of the...
	Yeah, I would, but I would defer to others.
	Basically, what I've been doing is whenever I can, you know, the District of Columbia puts out its list of cases, and so I've been following a number of the actual people charged for going into the Capitol.
	Like, there's the guy Refit from Texas, and there's the crazy guy from Utah.
	There's just a few that have sort of jumped into it, and I try to keep up with them.
	The other ones, you know, I read the paper, the filing, but I can't necessarily commit to being, you know.
	I was wondering if you were curious, because one of the people they're going after, speaking of films, tapes, conversations, is they're going after a journalist who was embedded with the January 6th folks.
	But it was pure freelance journalists.
	And what they're doing, the January 6th Congressional Committee...
	Is subpoenaing the phone records of all of her connections for the last six months and covering everybody she ever talked to, her phone list, her name.
	I mean, it's an extraordinarily invasive subpoena of a journalist that I've ever seen.
	Do you know if reporters can measure freedom of the press or any of the free press groups have jumped in?
	And I say this because...
	Have they come to the jury?
	Well, one of the big Freedom of the Press Committee hired counsel for her.
	Oh, okay.
	I'm glad to hear that.
	If I'm subpoenaed, I just want to say I did not kill myself.
	That's really interesting.
	Thanks for raising that to me.
	I'm going to check into that aspect.
	Someone said I was low info.
	I thought it was a joke.
	Someone's defending me.
	I'm not low info.
	I'm innocently naive.
	I am not innocently naive.
	I have Blanchknot's dirty joke books.
	In my parents' house where I lived with one child in their basement.
	Wow.
	Blanchknot.
	I know all the dirty jokes on earth.
	You should read my National Lampoon dirty joke book, David.
	No, National Lampoon, that's child stuff.
	I got Blanchknot.
	I got volumes one through six.
	We ripped off every Blanchknot joke.
	Robert, who's the journalist?
	I don't remember her name, but it goes right to the core of a lot of press freedoms and other freedoms and whatnot.
	And it was just something that would be up Matt's alley.
	No, thanks a lot.
	I'm glad that I will definitely check that out.
	I actually am heartened that they came to her defense because I've had a different...
	I'm going to go back.
	I'm going to circle back again to the United Nations very briefly.
	Don't pull a sack here.
	We don't want to pull a sack here.
	No, no.
	What I want to say is that as a journalist, I have a somewhat kind of ambiguous or relationship with some of these sort of like high profile press freedom groups.
	I feel like they've decided in advance who's the bad guy and who's the good guy.
	And if you're getting screwed by who they think is a good guy, you're going to have a hard time.
	I'm glad if it's true that they've come to the, you know.
	That they've cited against the committee.
	That would be a good thing.
	When I got here first to SDNY, and I started running into judges saying, get out of the courtroom, or this thing is sealed, or this never happened, and I would write to them, and I'd say, I'm a journalist.
	You're the reporter's committee.
	Can you help me with the filing?
	Can you help me with some case law?
	And they were like, you don't think this is the right case.
	This might set a bad precedent, or this is not a high-profile enough case.
	So I started doing my own filings, because I'm like, there's no...
	Who's to decide?
	And I think, like, if courts are supposed to be open, it really doesn't matter whether it's a crack case or Ghislaine Maxwell.
	You know, they're supposed to be open.
	Mark, were you ever part of any of those during your sort of journalistic days?
	You know, like, Reporters Freedom?
	I assume, like, in Marty Singer's letter, I assume they didn't come to your rescue, but the...
	Were you ever involved in any of those groups?
	Oh, yeah.
	All the time.
	And I've been a publisher and I've been a reporter.
	I worked for the Village Voice in LA Weekly, Matthew, just so you know, for 15, 20 years.
	But I was also a publisher and an editor, so I've been on both sides of the argument.
	No publisher has never backed up a writer that I've ever been involved with except this recent Marty Singer thing.
	I expect the publisher, and I've been the publisher, and had to back up the writer.
	And I've been the writer who's been backed up by the publisher, Matthew.
	You know, so I've seen it happen both ways.
	You have to have the backing of your publisher.
	Otherwise, the whole house of cards collapses.
	Right, Matthew?
	Sure.
	Oh, absolutely.
	But I mean, it's a much narrower question.
	It's like there's, you know, the Committee to Protect Journalists.
	I've gone to their galas before COVID, you know, in the Waldorf, and they're talking about Myanmar, arresting journalists, and it's all great stuff.
	And then I will say just personally, when I was...
	Grabbed by the arm, arm twisted and thrown out of the UN.
	They didn't do anything because they've decided a priori that the UN is good.
	And if the UN throws you out, you must be bad.
	Or they want to do their fundraiser in the UN.
	Or they want a UN special rapporteur on international press freedom.
	So they can't at the same time be saying like the UN threw a journalist out.
	So it's just inconvenient.
	And it's the same thing with judges.
	Like, well, that judge is basically good.
	Too bad that, you know, this thing got sealed.
	Let's call this another time on the next case.
	And it's like, this thing happened.
	It happened.
	You said they grabbed you out of the arm and they twisted it.
	At that point, nobody appreciates this unless you've been in this situation.
	It's one nanosecond before actually breaking your arm.
	It's not like, hey, we're going to play around.
	It's one movement of a wrist and your arm is snapped and you're in there and you're like, what the heck is going on?
	I was really surprised.
	It's a very grainy YouTube of it, but I was surprised.
	I thought they were saying, okay, you've got to go.
	I'm packing up my bag.
	Suddenly they're grabbing me.
	It was clear to me, and I don't mean to, that basically something clicked.
	In the mind of the secretary, they said, let's just get this guy out.
	We're just going to start following him around wherever he's going in the building.
	And they supposedly had a rule, you weren't supposed to stay past 7 p.m., but unless there was a news event.
	And there was a news event.
	But they were saying, no, no, this was a budget negotiation, not a news event.
	Therefore, let's grab your arm, twist it, tear your shirt, throw you in the street, and that's it.
	So, I mean, I guarantee you, I won't circle back again, but this is the kind of, I agree with you in terms of, if you work in a structure of publisher or journalist, you definitely want to have your publisher on your side.
	But I'm sort of, I'm always, same thing, it's like Human Rights Watch.
	There are a lot of these big name groups that I feel like they can never criticize the UN, other than in sort of a fake way to sort of clean, you know, to say like, oh, we criticize them.
	But deep down, they want to work with them.
	They think that they're a good force, and they feel that part of their legitimacy comes from having an entree to the Secretary General, to having an event and sponsoring it, you know.
	And so the victims of these institutions that are preordained as good have nowhere to go.
	The UN that you described sounds like an international...
	It sounds like an international pyramid scheme, Matthew.
	I mean, no, it's just a weird...
	They're just blind spots, but the blind spots always seem to go the same way.
	The closest I've had to this was...
	We just did an episode where I took on the Moonies, and they formed a circle around me, the Mooney executives.
	Who are the Moonies?
	I can't explain the history of the world.
	I'm just trying to tell a story.
	Maybe you're in the wrong business.
	I was telling some stories in Gay Pressman.
	Moon had been arrested when I was at Bard College.
	I went to the arraignment at the courthouse.
	What's an arraignment?
	I'm not a lawyer.
	But you can check the episode out.
	We just did it on...
	What's the name of the channel, Eric?
	America's Untold Stories.
	That's great.
	And they put me on their death list, so that's about as close as I've ever gotten to my arms.
	It's a giant Christian cult, David.
	So you're too young, David.
	You're too young, David.
	When Mark said Moonies, I thought you said Goonies.
	I had a joke the entire time Joe was gone that he's gone to smoke a cigarette, Robert, and this might be your time, the one and only, to light it up if you're ever going to.
	I won't say that, but Joe, where the hell did you go?
	Just so those conspiracy theories have flowed.
	Well, he was having a cigarette.
	That's what his picture said.
	It showed that he was having a cigarette.
	I was actually prepping my stream for right after this show.
	Joe, where's your stream going to be after this?
	So my YouTube channel is GoodLogic, which is spelled L-A-W-G-I-C, like logic, but law.
	So L-A-W-G-I-C, and I talk law, I talk politics, I've been covering the Glenn Maxwell trial second to one.
	Or none, depending on your opinion.
	Specifically referring to this guy here who's been doing such a phenomenal job in live tweeting.
	And I don't know how you type that stuff that fast.
	You must be using a recorder or something.
	Your gifts.
	What you brought to the public was great.
	And I think I gave a more extended, fleshed out synopsis of what I was able to watch when I was there.
	It's two different ways to take it in.
	I agree with you.
	I missed the big picture for the trees, but I like the trees.
	But Matt, it was actually the one question I didn't ask you when you were on, I think it was a week and a half ago.
	How do you do this?
	You're connected and just typing away in real time, correct?
	Yeah, how are you doing that?
	If the phones aren't allowed, how does that tweeting happen?
	You type faster than I can write.
	You've got a special pass.
	Yeah, I mean, I'm a quote, you know, what do you call it?
	In-house reporter.
	When I first got here, I came for like six months.
	I was covering the UN corruption case.
	And they were like, no way.
	No matter how much you're into one case here, you can't, you're not going to be.
	And I started, I'm still now writing like 10 stories a day.
	Some are shorter than others, but I cover like everything in the courthouse.
	And so then I'm an in-house reporter.
	I can bring my phone in.
	I can bring in.
	That's why there was this mystery.
	Were you ever a litigator?
	Were you ever litigating?
	No, I mean, I've done like FOIA, I've done like administrative law, kind of public interest law stuff, but I've never had a shingle out saying like, you know, come to me with your problem.
	Okay, look at Joe.
	He's trying to claim.
	This is called niching down, by the way.
	I want to leave that door open.
	No, no, no, no, no, no.
	Matthew, this is Joe niching down, trying to say, no, no, look, I'm unique.
	Really, really, I'm unique.
	I'm super important.
	I'm going to say one thing.
	Before I went to Knight Law School and became a lawyer, I did an argument in the Second Circuit.
	I was challenging bank mergers, and I was not yet a lawyer, and we had to appeal.
	I go up there now and cover the cases.
	I was like, hey, I was there.
	I was an appellate lawyer.
	I was a pro se appellate lawyer.
	Matt, I have the utmost respect for your insight on...
	Everything you've discussed on the law and everything.
	I didn't mean any disrespect at all.
	Don't take it the wrong way.
	But the reason that there's a running thing here going on between myself and our hosts, because I had billed myself as the only attorney who's covering this case.
	And then we found out that you were the only New York attorney covering it.
	And then we found out that you were doing it.
	And me was like, you're full of crap.
	He's crushing me.
	And I actually had said, I'm the only New York litigator.
	So I was like, well, technically...
	No, you didn't say lawyer, Joe.
	You said lawyer.
	I'll just say one thing.
	The fact that Matt is the only one who gets his computer in, Matthew is Mossad.
	I'm just saying that right now.
	Here's a mystery.
	This is a good mystery.
	One of Ghislaine Maxwell's longtime lawyers is a woman named Leah Safian.
	I didn't know anything about her until the charge conference.
	Then somebody explained to me that she represented the brothers when they were charged with fraud after the death of the father and looting pension funds.
	Anyway, she's a lawyer.
	I think she's based in California.
	She's admitted in California.
	She's reportedly the source of the photograph of an In-N-Out burger of Ghislaine Maxwell when she was on the lam looking relaxed and eating a burger, if you've gone down that rabbit hole.
	Was she in the bikini or was she fully clothed?
	No, no.
	She was just eating with a small dog that turns out to be Leah Safians.
	This is the phone question.
	She's been in the front row in the gallery for the entire trial.
	She's often been talking with Kevin Maxwell, the brother.
	During breaks, she went up to the defense table.
	If you go over the docket, you find that she visited Maxwell in April in the Metropolitan Detention Center.
	With Bobby Sternheim.
	So she's a lawyer, and she does work with Maxwell, but she's not in the docket.
	If you go to PACER, she hasn't filed any notice of appearance.
	And so I ask myself, one day, this is kind of a weird thing.
	I'm live tweeting it, and I've got too much time on my hands.
	So I noticed that Kevin Maxwell takes down his mask to drink water and leaves it off for a long time.
	I'm not trying to out anyone, but it seemed funny to me with all this pressure in the courthouse to, like, everyone must be masked, and they're now requiring particular kinds of masks on Monday.
	So I tweeted, Kevin Maxwell is maskless in the front row of the courtroom.
	And Leah Safian takes her phone, shows it to him, he puts on his mask.
	I then tweet that, like, this is crazy.
	And then I ask myself, And I don't mean, it's not to like get too nitty gritty.
	How did she get the phone into the thing?
	Because you're supposed to, lawyers that are admitted to practice in the Southern District can also get that permission to bring in phones.
	But you've got to be admitted.
	You have to, and she's, I church Pacer.
	I go to SDNY Pacer.
	I plug in Leah Safian.
	Ever brought a case?
	Never brought a case.
	Ever been listed in a case?
	Not in a case.
	So the question to me is, is there some special, was there some special dispensation made to Maxwell's entourage?
	Or was she just breaking the rules?
	Matthew, this is the part of it.
	If you go into the metal detector, I did it for six months.
	I had to take apart my bag, my wires, my laptop.
	There is no way you're getting a phone in.
	This is the part of the show, Matthew.
	This is the part of the show where the Jews vote whether she's Masada or not.
	I'm getting all these direct messages saying, watch out, she has a history of threatening people.
	But to me, it's funny because it's a very specific question.
	I didn't actually see it, so I haven't written about it.
	But supposedly during one of the breaks, Safian was showing her phone to Maxwell.
	Now, it's interesting because people get screwed for having a smartphone.
	In the MDC, right?
	There's a case, the OneCoin case, where it's about to be thrown out because the guy had a phone and they didn't produce it under discovery.
	So the question is, I don't know if her lawyers are allowed to show her the internet during the trial.
	I mean, maybe Joe does as a litigator.
	Is that permissible?
	As a person who's in detention, can they use the internet during their trial?
	It depends on the court rules.
	In the past, Some courts allow in cell phones and laptops in general.
	Some only allow it for lawyers.
	Some only allow it for people who request permission.
	There's paranoia.
	There's an order allowing her in.
	There's paranoia in the court about not wanting people to record, which I find ridiculous.
	I may have had some high-profile clients who recorded secretly because they wanted to record the proceedings for posterity purposes.
	Mark?
	Yeah, yeah.
	But, I mean, I think it's amazing how paranoid they are about access to the internet, about access to phones.
	Now they've liberalized over the past four or five years because so many lawyers now depend on their laptop for access to electronic evidence.
	I've never felt comfortable with any of it.
	I just don't trust the court's internet.
	I don't like talking if I'm inside the courthouse.
	I like to get out of the courthouse before I talk to my client if I can avoid.
	I mean, people forget to turn off the mic because they're always listening.
	Now, I once used that against a prosecutor in a high-profile case in L.A. that involved Heim Saban and some others.
	He forgot the mic was on and started cussing out the judge, and that didn't turn out good for him, but that's another story.
	But how much of that is going on is really quite incredible.
	So I thought when Joe was trying to, you know, the competition of who would...
	Have the best resume.
	I figured Grobert somewhere along the way would have it.
	It's like journalist, publisher, writer, screenwriter, comedian, businessman.
	It's like if there's been a profession of interest in the last 30 years, chances are Mark has done it at one time or another.
	One spent a year in St. Thomas and had a lot of sex.
	I'd like to talk about that right now.
	What just happened?
	The audio got very sexy and Mark is talking about sexy time.
	Keep up the good work, people.
	I don't know.
	It could be an episode coming up on America.
	Definitely.
	That explains why he's down in Arizona.
	That's like a pimp-out pad, Rich.
	If we change this subject entirely, what else would we have to talk about?
	January 6th.
	We did Gen 6. I don't know what's left to cover.
	Robert, from the constitutional perspective, I'd like to give the murder stats for the big cities that had just come up.
	In the Eastern Division, Philadelphia is in the lead with 521, New York in second place with 443.
	In the Midwestern Division, Chicago at 767, dominating the entire league.
	And in the Western Division, LA with 352.
	We need percentage increase, not raw numbers.
	Okay.
	I'm working on it.
	Now, Mark.
	Now!
	The numbers will be far worse.
	No one answered my question before about the charges.
	I do think this is a very interesting legal question.
	If you guys can walk me through your thoughts on it.
	I thought you went back to Macceth Bupin.
	No, no, no.
	I was asking why with respect to conspiracy, you could have such a broader net on who it is that the jury can hang their hat on rather than the substantive charges.
	I'd like to get your feedback as to why that would be both Robert or Matt.
	If you can, your thoughts as to why it is that the jury would be allowed to consider more?
	Well, Matt said it's right.
	This is done all the time.
	So it's not at all abnormal.
	There have been a lot of people in the criminal defense bar in some aspects of constitutional law who've critiqued this dramatic expansion of federal criminal law.
	I mean, you can commit a crime for the weirdest things.
	There's, I think, even a Twitter...
	It's called Crime a Day.
	It's like the random, you know, you caught the wrong fish in the wrong park, you committed a crime.
	There's a whole book on that, that everybody can be convicted any day of the week of federal crime.
	And it's because of this dramatic expansion.
	One of my favorite parts is RICO.
	If you bring a civil RICO case, the courts dramatically shrink your ability to sue.
	But if a criminal RICO case, basically all that required is, did you ever use an email?
	Did you ever make a phone call?
	Did you ever use FedEx?
	Did you ever use the U.S. Postal Service?
	And if you did, and you did anything bad, bam, it's got a crime.
	Even though the crime might be just a state crime.
	I agree with you on that, but the question is why...
	I don't agree with that principle, by the way.
	I agree with you.
	That's what they're doing, and it's terrible.
	The reach of the federal government is a...
	It's awful.
	It goes back to 1942 when the court gave the federal government unlimited, basically said you could do whatever the hell you want and use the commerce callers to do whatever you wanted.
	And this statute saying that, hey, if you give a girl some alcohol, all of a sudden you violate a federal statute.
	It's interstate because you got this alcohol from across state lines and now the federal government has a right to charge you.
	It's insanity.
	I'm not disputing that.
	But my question really is why there would be a difference on conspiracy versus substantive.
	Because conspiracy is easier to allege broader complaint.
	I mean, the way the criminal law works, it is easier to convict on conspiracy than it is to convict on the substantive offense.
	But why could they consider more evidence, though?
	But why would they be allowed to consider evidence for A and not for B?
	That's my question.
	The one and three question, the juror is saying, can we convict on one and three?
	Yeah, but not on two and four.
	And my thought on that is that maybe it's because conspiracy, you don't need to have completion of the crime.
	With Annie Farmer, you don't have completion of the crime.
	And that's why, because she's 16, so it's not a crime.
	Technically, it's not a crime in New Mexico where the minimum consent age is 16. So maybe that's why you can't convict for transporting minor and state lines on Annie Farmer.
	But there is conspiracy to try and engage in criminal activity.
	Because I guess they could have led to it.
	There were steps taken in buying tickets or whatever other steps were taken to convince her to come by saying she'll be a chaperone or things of that nature, which theoretically could have led to her engaging in illegal sexual activity.
	I'm very confused.
	Well, you just pinned it.
	In other words, you don't have to complete the crime to have conspiracy.
	That's how it's easier to convict on conspiracy, which to me is counterintuitive, but it's easier to convict on conspiracy than a substantive offense.
	I view it as like physically, the conspiracy is a wide and ongoing thing, and then there's a place where it becomes a specific crime.
	And if you can connect the person anywhere across the whole conspiracy, even out of the time frame, even far away from the actual thing, they're part...
	Of the conspiracy that led to this act.
	And so it's just a lot easier.
	And basically, I don't understand, not being a litigator, of course, I don't understand all the ins and outs of it.
	But I will say that most, you know, drug cases that are brought here plead down to the conspiracy charge.
	They get charged with...
	You know, the substantive crime of selling X weight of crack and conspiracy to sell crack.
	And they plead out to the conspiracy charge and a much reduced guideline sentence.
	And it happens like all the time.
	And the judges are just like, so you're pleading to a lesser included offense.
	And it's like the substantive one is thrown out all the time.
	Yeah.
	What was Chuck Berry arrested for?
	Violation of the Mann Act, Robert?
	I mean, I don't remember.
	Wasn't that what Jack Johnson was also targeted with?
	What's the Mann Act?
	The Mann Act, I'm asking Robert, I believe it's a transportation of underage minors for sex across state lines.
	Now, there was an aspect of that that had an ugly racial undercurrent in terms of the legislative history.
	Right.
	But you think it would come up in this particular case because this seems like a violation of the Mann Act.
	Yes.
	Right?
	But they decided to really limit what they charged, in my view.
	In my view, there was a lot more charges they could have brought here.
	They could have brought RICO charges in certain instances.
	They chose to...
	Really keep this narrow.
	So, in my view, so that certain big names would not be necessarily...
	Let me ask the whole group.
	If Epstein was alive, would she be on trial today, Joe?
	No.
	Anybody?
	I think she would be.
	I don't know.
	I'm asking the question.
	It's just that it would be adding additional names, but if they were both alive, they would be on trial together, and it would be...
	Totally ignoring anybody.
	I would say no.
	And the reason is because she wasn't charged out of the gate.
	If they planned on charging her with Epstein, they would have charged her, I think, with Epstein.
	Why are there no charges against Sarah Kellen?
	That's what I'm curious about.
	Because they don't want this case to go any further than it has to in their mind.
	Any case that brings anybody out suggests this is much broader than a perverted boyfriend and girlfriend trying to serve her perverted boyfriend.
	Other names, other people, other participants, other co-conspirators, other connected parties all change the dynamic, and they don't want it to go there, whatever their reason.
	My inference is a negative inference about them protecting privileged people.
	Other people can have other interpretations, but put it this way.
	I mean, we predicted this before the trial started.
	This is what was going to happen.
	Is she getting her money's worth out of her defense, Robert?
	Relatively.
	How much is the money?
	What do we estimate that her defense costs?
	$10 million?
	I have no idea, but she offered up $22 million for bail and couldn't get out.
	I'd be surprised if it was that high.
	I heard seven, but I don't know where I heard that.
	Man, they milked her good then.
	By the way, I just looked at the Mann Act.
	It's not age-related.
	It's just straight out transporting a woman for the purposes of illicit sexual activity across the state line.
	I'm going to have to turn myself in right now because I have done that.
	A lot of people would.
	I'm just going to stop one thing here.
	I'm just going to stop one thing.
	I'm wearing pants, people, okay?
	So we're going to dominate 80 people watching you guys from a bar on the beach.
	We have an open bet which one of you are not wearing pants.
	I always wear pants because you never know when you're going to die.
	And when you want to die, you want to be wearing pants.
	So who's the tubing?
	I'm fully dressed.
	I had one question.
	I want to explain about, by the way, the difference between the Mann Act and these statutes that are being charged.
	These crimes are obviously decades old.
	The Protect Act, which was passed in 2001 or 2003, I'm not sure.
	It extends the statute of limitations for sexual crimes involving minors.
	From the traditional 10-year period to throughout the life of the victim.
	So that's why you can't have, it's not just like a Mann Act, but it's actually specifically 18 U.S.C.
	2422 and 2423, and they're applying it to the crimes as they relate to minors.
	It seems as if, by the way, Judge Nathan sort of limited that and said, to the extent that there's a crime involving prostitution, I'm not going to account for this being a crime that has an unlimited or a lifetime statute of limitations.
	I'm only going to apply the Protect Act to these statutes.
	That's how I'm reading her decision in the motion to dismiss, the 12-part motion that was filed.
	Do you guys have any thoughts on that, Matt?
	I'm asking, next door in the Kevin Spacey case, do the same laws apply next door?
	In that one, I'm just trying to think that one through.
	I guess I'm...
	There's something that came to mind that I wanted to say, and it has to do with the defense team.
	I didn't get out an answer of whether she's getting her money's worth.
	She has these two...
	Laura Menninger has been defending her in the case against Jufre.
	She comes in from Denver.
	But then they ended up, and I'm sure this happens in a lot of cases, they hired this Bobby Sternheim, who's a highly respected, but she's on the CJA panel here.
	I see her in the magistrate's court all the time defending whatever crack case comes down the pipe.
	What is a CJA?
	So basically, it's probably the truth in other districts.
	You have a federal defender's office that is set up to defend indigent defendants, who are the majority of people that are brought in here.
	And then sometimes they have a conflict.
	And so you have a pool of private attorneys.
	Many of them are solo or semi-solo practitioners in lower Manhattan.
	And they're good lawyers and they get put on the panel.
	And so, therefore, they get called in.
	There's always a CJA lawyer on duty every day.
	And it's still not clear to me how it's decided who gets the federal defender and who gets the CJA lawyer.
	Like federal defenders, you're going to get a social worker, you're going to get a translator, you're going to get a full panoply.
	Some of these, the CJA guys are very good lawyers, but they're basically working out of like a two-room office on Lower Broadway.
	For those who don't know, CJA lawyers get paid crap.
	I'm not sure in the federal system.
	I think they might do better.
	I know that the state guys are paid terribly.
	These guys are running around all the time.
	I have a sense they're paid better.
	The panel is run by the federal defenders.
	To get on it, you apply to the federal defenders.
	They're kind of like understudies.
	The federal defenders let them know what's happening with COVID in the jail system.
	But there are some CJAs that both take these assigned cases.
	And then also are for hire for pay litigants.
	Most are.
	For example, there was a Panamanian drug son of a president brought in on money laundering charges in EDNY.
	He goes through, you know, he Googles around and he hires a guy that usually is a CJA lawyer, but is also like this gun for hire.
	And so Bobby Sternheim, everyone's...
	My experience with her has been that she's been a CJ lawyer, that she's been one of the pool that defends and does very good defense, sometimes multi-defendant, crack cases, gang cases, and that they said, we need somebody that knows this system well and that knows the judges and the procedures, and she definitely does.
	And so she's, to me, she's done a much better job than the other guys they brought in.
	Maybe it's just kind of being on home turf.
	Paliuca, I think Joe, he's a vicious cross-examiner.
	He's really gone into the gutter in terms of trashing the witnesses.
	He's been the assigned kind of hatchet man.
	Yeah, he was.
	It's clearly his personality.
	I mean, he doesn't mind.
	You know, I live tweeted and people were like, what a pig.
	And it's like, well, he's doing, I mean, that's right.
	I didn't think he was that best, though.
	Yeah, I'm not sure that it is.
	I thought Menninger was way more effective.
	I thought she was the toughest.
	She and Everdale were the toughest on the side of the defense.
	That there's someone who their questions were resonating.
	I thought it was interesting that Laura Menninger, she was the one who handled closing arguments.
	She really addressed the white elephant in the room.
	She's like, you might look at my client and think that she's Cruella DeVille.
	And Devil Wears Prada wrapped into one.
	But that does not mean that she's ever been involved with sexual abuse of minors.
	And that is what everyone looks at her and thinks.
	Everyone looks at her and thinks, yeah, she's Devil Wears Prada.
	She's Cruella de Vil.
	After you hear Juan Alessi talk for 10 minutes, that's exactly what you picture.
	And I thought she did a very effective job.
	She decimated.
	Jane there.
	I mean, on that second day there, when she was questioning Jane, the first witness, she really killed her credibility there with like four hours of questioning.
	I thought that she was able to come across a little bit more relatable than Jeff Paliuca.
	Maybe because she's a woman and she's questioning.
	Joe and Matt, what's your prediction of the outcome based on what you know right now?
	He doesn't like to predict, but I'll tell you, I'm expecting extended.
	I'm expecting decades worth of convictions.
	I don't think that this is going to be, I don't think it's going to be acquitted.
	I think the broad net that the judge has allowed to convict, I think that we're going to be seeing 20 plus years.
	And it could be six or six.
	It really could be six or six.
	Wow.
	Okay.
	You won't know that until sentencing, right?
	I mean, you won't know the sentencing.
	We won't know the duration, but some of them have minimum.
	Minimum periods of not less than 10 years.
	So I think the maximum she could get is 35. The conspiracy charges sort of fold into the substantive charges.
	Does Viva realize that he's muted, or does he not know that?
	Do you think we're ignoring him?
	I just swore five times nobody heard it.
	I said, goddamn mother...
	Joe, bottom line, you're predicting conviction and then sentencing.
	Yeah, so I'm predicting convictions...
	Multiple convictions, I would say.
	At least three to four convictions.
	How many charges are there, Joe?
	Six?
	Six.
	There are two other perjury charges which will be held for another trial.
	But there are six that this jury is delivering over right now.
	And I think there's going to be multiple convictions.
	And when the judge sentences, I think we're going to see a sentence of two decades or longer.
	Here's a question.
	Do you think if Allison Nason is confirmed and rises to the Second Circuit, will she keep this case for sentencing or hand it to somebody else?
	That's a great question.
	Hand it.
	She's got to hand it.
	She doesn't have to.
	Judge Sullivan is still handling every case he ever had.
	This guy is on the Second Circuit and he's dealing with crack guys that backslide.
	Matt, I've made my blind prediction and I'm going to go and defer to whatever Robert says.
	Robert, what do you say?
	She definitely can keep it.
	I think it'll be interesting to watch if she does.
	I think she does.
	Most judges want these kind of high pro...
	I think she does the maximum possible sentence that she thinks would be affirmed on appeal.
	Well, here's the question, though.
	Because of the attention to this case.
	Does her role as a member of the Second Circuit now make it less likely that an appeal by Maxwell would be successful?
	Because now all of a sudden...
	I know a lot of people think that, but...
	She wouldn't hear the appeal.
	And there's always conspiracy theories about this.
	The reality is Maxwell's so politically unpopular, it's hard to see her any aspect, even the plea issues and the rest, getting set aside on appeal.
	But I say that after it looked like...
	Matt, did you follow...
	I heard something about the New York Court of Appeals raised questions about Harvey Weinstein's conviction.
	Yeah, yeah.
	And it seems like a pretty serious...
	I mean, it's sad that that...
	What is the issue?
	Before you get there, two things.
	Robert?
	I'm going to diverge.
	I'm saying that Judge Nathans will not adjudicate on sentencing.
	That's my prediction.
	I'm an ignorant bum.
	But if I'm right, I get to say that.
	So do they really wheel it out at random?
	They always do it at random, right?
	In federal court?
	It's all amazing.
	Certain political cases.
	Magically, supposedly a random wheel.
	A lot of my cases and a lot of other cases I've followed.
	Magically ends up on certain kind of judges, it seems.
	But I'm sure it's purely random.
	It's just coincidence is what it is.
	Usually Grumpy says, great sidebar.
	Subscribe to America's Untold Stories.
	You've got someone paying to Griff better both than you and Mark.
	No kidding.
	No, thank you.
	You're right.
	You're right.
	It's must-see YouTube.
	Good logic, too, but he's missed on.
	Happy Christmas and Hanukkah from Australia.
	Thank you very much, Usually Grumpy.
	Now...
	First of all, I'm going to screenshot that.
	It might be one of the best chats I've ever had.
	What a great avatar.
	I totally forgot what we were just talking about.
	Oh, Weinstein's sentencing.
	His whole trial they're looking at throwing out.
	They're looking at throwing out the whole conviction, right, Matt?
	Yeah.
	I'm going to hold back there.
	There's also trouble in the LA case, Robert.
	There's also some discussion in the LA case.
	Oh, really?
	There's a lot of infighting there.
	Oh, really?
	On Harvey Weinstein's LA case?
	Yep.
	Of course, in LA, you could throw a rock and hit a Harvey Weinstein, but that's another story.
	But hold on.
	Go on, Gruber.
	What are you talking about, sir?
	I can't discuss it this time.
	Well, son of a gun.
	You can't bring it up.
	Hey, we've got to have a reason for a repeat invite, dude.
	I mean, Jesus.
	We have to do 10 episodes on Harvey Weinstein in L.A. Three hours in, I have not vacated my bladder.
	Unless we have anything more to discuss tonight, gentlemen.
	I'm going to have a curtain raiser for a now outmoded case.
	Michael Avenatti.
	He just came up.
	There was an article about him today.
	There was an article about him today in Apple News.
	I want Matthew to know I'm urinating in my pants right now.
	I'm going to hold on.
	I'm watching you.
	Dude, just turn off your camera and go run to the bathroom.
	Everybody will keep talking, I promise.
	I have a tube and a bottle.
	Hit the mute button, by the way.
	Hold on.
	While he's gone.
	Go ahead and go, Veeb.
	I've got to tell a story.
	It's funny as hell.
	On the Sean Atwood.
	On the Sean Atwood stream, Robert Green was coming out, major, major famous author, and he was like, I didn't know if I was going to come on or not.
	Can I go to the bathroom?
	And Sean's like, okay.
	So he turned off the camera, and he goes off, and Sean's sitting there talking, reading some chats, and all, and you hear this.
	He pulled a naked gun.
	He pulled a naked gun.
	He had his AirPods in, and he went to the bathroom.
	He forgot to unmute.
	There was something more recent.
	I think it was Bernie Sanders' joke where it was on late 90s.
	There's a fart in between the pee.
	First of all, I have no issue with bodily functions, so good for him for owning it.
	Let's go, Brandon.
	Yeah, exactly.
	I'm going to pee myself.
	So, Matt, what was up on Avenatti?
	No, no, I was just going to say that it's coming.
	It's coming back.
	There was the Nike trial.
	Now there's going to be the Stormy Daniels trial.
	It is going to happen.
	It's sort of like he's asked for a jury questionnaire.
	He said it's a very high-profile case.
	The judges said, like, you might not be as high-profile as you once were.
	I'm proud of this one.
	He's gotten a free lawyer.
	Back to our discussion of federal defenders and CJA lawyers.
	He pled poverty.
	I put in a filing saying that the affidavit should be unsealed, that it's a matter of public interest.
	And it was unsealed, largely unsealed.
	Some was sealed.
	Family, like child support and stuff, was sealed.
	But the number of companies that he owned were sealed, and several of them got...
	Paycheck Protection Act loans.
	So I felt, journalistically, and the judge here, Judge Furman, this is a very legal Schmeagel thing.
	He's written, I think, to some administrative body for federal criminal law, saying that these CJ23 forms should be public as a matter of rule, so it doesn't have to be determined.
	On a case-by-case basis.
	Because the argument that I made is like, Avenatti wanted his confidential.
	But when you cover the MAGCOR here, people's finances are disclosed routinely.
	In verbal back and forth with the judge, they're like, judge, assign me to him.
	He only makes $1,000 a month.
	It's off the books.
	They say all kinds of stuff that shouldn't be public.
	So why not Avenatti?
	Can I stop you?
	Because people are thinking you're saying CGA.
	But you're saying CJA.
	CJA is Criminal Justice Act.
	I guess that there's a Federal Criminal Justice Act.
	Saying that you have a right to appointed counsel.
	And my understanding, it may be that in some states, they don't even have enough federal defenders.
	I know that in D.C., because of the January 6th cases, they're totally outgunned.
	So they brought in, like, everybody and his brother, including federal defenders from other districts.
	But here, mostly people get a federal defender.
	But if you're in a multi-defended case, they can't represent more than one client, for example.
	So if you have, and they often do, a 20-defendant crack drug case.
	Federal Defenders takes the lead guy and they run the discovery for everybody.
	And then 19 other solo practitioners each get their client.
	David, share my screen if you would.
	Yeah, and I'm going to stop here.
	By the way, in Canada, CJA stands for Combined Jewish Appeal, which is a not-for-profit, which is not what you're talking about, sir.
	I'm not going to make it just the Morales Guild.
	Yeah, Morales Guild.
	There we go.
	Come back to me.
	I'm going to pee in my panties.
	Yeah.
	I want to thank you for having me.
	I have to run.
	Okay, so stop.
	Before you run, Joe, where can we find you?
	And what are you doing for the rest of the week?
	I stream nightly, Sunday to Thursday from 10 to 5. And tonight I'm having a debate with the leftists.
	Which leftists, sir?
	His name is Justin Horowitz.
	He's from Really American.
	So I urge you to check that out.
	He has $350,000.
	Jew versus Jew.
	I was thinking it, but I wasn't saying it.
	Well, don't worry, Mark's here.
	Let's face it.
	If I'm going to be debating the left, it's always going to be that, right?
	It's Mossad versus Mossad.
	It's like Spy versus Spy.
	Spy versus Spy.
	Okay, so everyone knows where to find Joe.
	When this is over, I will put the links in.
	I can't put them in yet because the stream's not over yet.
	Joe, go for it.
	Thank you for having me.
	Thank you for coming in.
	It was wonderful to see you again.
	Happy Hanukkah.
	Well, Hanukkah's over.
	Just happy holidays.
	Enjoy your Christmas, everyone.
	Merry Christmas, Joe.
	Merry Christmas.
	Merry every Christmas.
	Okay, get out of here.
	I'm going to add to the stream.
	Eric Hanlees, have I?
	Anyway, I wanted to bring this up because right on time, Matthew.
	They're obviously trotting this out.
	Now there's this feature in Political Magazine, all of a sudden about Alvinati, and they're talking about how he has an old people phone, the Jitterbug.
	Remember the Jitterbug, the late night TV?
	It's like, your grandma can have her own cell phone, but he now has the Jitterbug phone.
	So I'm not sure what the deal is on this, but it looks to me like we've got some people working to help his image out a little bit and kind of push things around.
	It came out 1 p.m. today.
	Okay.
	I mean, it also goes back to, and it's not to be mean-spirited, but the idea of getting publicly paid legal counsel, if you actually have the money to be hiring a PR consultant, is an interesting one.
	Good point.
	Yes, it is.
	And this is a guy who, by the way, just for everybody to remember, this guy is infamous for defrauding the system.
	I mean, the amount of liens he has, the amount of tax judgments that we're facing.
	Robert, Robert, Robert.
	There's another David Boyce connection, too.
	I live-tweeted the Nike trial, and that was all about...
	Oh, right.
	Boyce Shiller represented Nike, and they wired themselves up, and they lured him into their office in Hudson Yards, and he said, have you ever held a client's bulls in your hands?
	It was like a famous...
	I put the audio up.
	It's a secret to Michael Clayton.
	I can take off $10 billion in market cap.
	Mark Garagos was there filming with his phone on the table.
	Wait a minute, I know.
	And Avenatti was saying to them, you know, I'm going to screw you.
	You come through it.
	Who cares about my client?
	My client's just some basketball coach.
	Throw him a million.
	I'm here.
	You pay me and Garibos to run an audit of Nike for racial discrimination.
	We don't do any work and we're out.
	It was unbelievable.
	Matt, 10 million consulting fee.
	Settle with my client and then pay me a 10 million consulting fee.
	To do an audit that will never be done.
	And they even said, if you hire someone else to do the audit, to do an actual audit, that's fine.
	But you have to pay me more than you pay the person doing the audit.
	Where did Mark Garagos get out of it?
	At the same time, Nike is no angel.
	So to me, that's the kind of, I like, it's totally a plague on both your houses.
	I would like to say one thing.
	Whenever I see Mark Robert leaning into the mic, I'm about to pee my pants.
	When he does it, I know something bad is coming.
	David, just go to the bathroom, man.
	Just go.
	I'm holding it in.
	Whatever.
	Matt, why do you think...
	Gergos was not prosecuted.
	I know.
	Honestly, that was one of the first things I kind of covered in this detail since I came.
	So I don't know.
	Obviously, he's a good lawyer.
	I mean, I don't know.
	Did he hand somebody his name?
	Is it true that Avenatti put a target on his hat?
	He didn't, at least in the audio that they put his, obviously, his evidence in the case.
	He wasn't as, what he said wasn't as outrageous.
	I mean, it definitely seemed that Avenatti, it basically seemed like Avenatti kind of like got the angle on it and then brought him in.
	As sort of a bigger name, maybe to say it's legitimate to charge these prices.
	But he was right there.
	I mean, he was within this.
	Oh, guess what?
	Garagos is also a Smollett.
	Right.
	Remember that?
	The guy he managed, he manages to be around.
	Him and Gloria Allred are like on a perfect, you know, bowling team.
	Yeah.
	The pair of them are like a whole league of their own.
	Yeah, that one, it definitely came up at trial, but to no avail.
	To no avail.
	Avenatti was, you know.
	Was Garagos working for the feds, Matthew?
	Right.
	Yeah, I mean, I don't know what he gave them.
	There was this other controversy here because they went after all of these basketball coaches and Adidas for their scam.
	But in the case of Nike, which was really no different, they came to the defense of Nike.
	So this was one of my...
	You know, it was one of these, like, so what was the difference?
	Why was, by the same prosecutorial office, Adidas was portrayed as this sleazebag sending, you know, sending cash to recruit to these basketball programs, and Nike was, like, the victim.
	I mean, Avenatti was sharp.
	Matthew, that's kind of like, that's like the government going after freaking Apple and its co-conspirators on behalf of Amazon, who had 90% of the market.
	Right.
	It goes back to this question of why I haven't predicted the outcome.
	I really like the trees.
	I found that that Avenatti trial was really well lawyered.
	He had these guys up from Florida that were like...
	He put on a really great defense, and they were constantly showing the duplicity of the prosecutors, how they chose to do what they did, how they kind of entrapped him.
	And again, I want to contrast it to Nathan.
	I mean, I guess Judge Gardethy, who was the one who handled that case, he ran a hell of a trial, but he didn't allow...
	He didn't have five pre-motion conferences.
	He ran it, and he really ran it, and I think it's a bulletproof conviction.
	Wow.
	Yeah, I agree.
	I agree.
	Wow.
	I would just like to say...
	He was going to be president of the United States, wasn't he?
	Yeah, according to Brian Stelter.
	More important than that, I've relieved myself.
	And we can go another three hours, people.
	We're at a half a ricator right now.
	I'm going to give you a tip.
	I'm going to give you a conspiracy tip just for you up there.
	Eric Garcetti, the feds are closing in on Eric Garcetti, the mayor of Los Angeles.
	He is in total limbo right now with his nomination to the ambassadorship of India.
	His staff has moved on.
	He is a man without a country.
	He goes to an office once in a while.
	He's still the mayor of Los Angeles, and the noose is beginning to tighten.
	Hold on, hold on, Mark.
	Where was there an episode about the corrupt mayors of Los Angeles?
	Oh, yeah, we did a little bit about it on America's Untold Stories.
	Yeah, America's Untold Stories, talking about William O'Dwyer to Eric Garcetti.
	Goes back to Mayor O'Dwyer and Truman.
	Who allowed him, O'Dwyer, the corrupt mayor of New York, to become the ambassador to Mexico in 1952.
	And that's the same thing they were attempting to do with Garcetti under Biden.
	But Ted Cruz had some other ideas and has held up the nomination.
	And now the noose is starting to tighten on Eric Garcetti.
	I want to do this right now just because it's happened.
	ViaBarsLaw.Locals.com isn't it the avatar on...
	Robert!
	Where'd you go, Robert?
	I snorted.
	I just became my father.
	No, you became Mark.
	Mark snorts all the time.
	I snort all the time, too.
	It's legal.
	Two things I think we can conclude tonight, people.
	You can all say it in the chat.
	We're doing this again.
	We might be doing this again more often than we think we're doing it because this was amazing.
	I said...
	Matt was going to have more in common with Robert and Mark than with me and Eric.
	But maybe with Eric.
	This was beautiful.
	It's December 22nd, people.
	While you are all celebrating Christmas in the free country and the free world, we might be down in lockdown, hunker down, whatever town that's going to happen here.
	I want to bring this one up.
	This was great.
	I almost feel better when it's demonetized because I can actually swear.
	Hold on.
	Shit.
	Whoa.
	Just going hard.
	Going hard, man.
	Come on.
	Do the George Carlin.
	Come on.
	Do the George Carlin.
	Poo-poo.
	I'm joking.
	George Carlin, I can't even do that because those are the shit motherfucker cocksucker tits.
	What was the other?
	What did I tune back in for?
	Robert, the cops are coming to you.
	Get ready for it.
	It's coming.
	Viva versus Sativa.
	Oh, never.
	Once upon a time, I've watched all of the Sativa videos on YouTube.
	Those were good days.
	Okay, so first of all, what's everyone doing over the holidays?
	Let's bring it back to the people here.
	Robert.
	I've got a biker gang coming over for Christmas.
	What does a biker gang mean, Mark?
	You're on record.
	They're members of a gang, a loosely affiliated club.
	That's very interesting.
	Merry Christmas.
	Just one of those, it's like, why did I ask this question?
	Is he serious or is he not serious?
	Have I participated in the crime?
	Matt.
	What are you doing for the rest of the year?
	You've got 10 days left for New Year's.
	What's your schedule?
	I had thought, without wanting to predict the outcome, it seemed to a lot of people this would be over.
	That was my hope.
	As it is now, it's kind of screwed everything up because it's like, not only did they not reach the decision today, they could have deliberated tomorrow, but they're not going to for a variety of reasons.
	So basically, I have to say it's not what it could have been.
	And I also don't know, I don't think Monday they're going to reach a verdict.
	I mean, I think like they just asked for a new testimony.
	So it's kind of, I'm kind of, I don't want to play the victim, but it's this, and I'm blaming Judge Nathan for it.
	I will say, I say only half facetiously.
	I love her.
	Because of the three days she got out of the middle of the trial to go down to Capitol Hill.
	That's why this happened.
	Honestly, if you just move everything back three days, they could have deliberated for three or four days, done it by Christmas.
	Now it's possible they're going to come in Monday.
	There's going to be a juror with COVID.
	There's going to be all kinds of crap.
	And so I'll see you in January.
	You're a partisan hack for blaming her nomination.
	On the delay of the trial.
	I'm like a moth, too.
	It's what happened at the UN.
	People were saying, just stop criticizing the Secretary.
	You've got to let this go, Matthew, with the UN.
	I know, I know.
	Because I feel the need for self-censorship.
	It'd be better to...
	I go out of my way.
	I do it with my phone.
	I'm doing a Twitter video on Foley Square.
	I'm like, but she really is a good judge.
	She did a great job in the jail.
	And it's all true.
	But I feel like it's like the sacred cow.
	No one will say...
	This was blind ambition.
	Like, basically, if this results in any mistrial, that three-day thing would...
	I don't know.
	I mean, I don't know what I would do.
	I don't know.
	Maybe...
	I mean, I can totally see why you would want that job, but I can totally see another judge saying, no, I'll get to that in January.
	Like, that would seem like probably the way to do it.
	And you know what I love is that if it happens, this will be the soundbite later on.
	It will be like, oh, we didn't know we were participating in judging history, but we did.
	Because of the man on the street.
	There's some real conspiracies.
	I mean, there are people out there that are saying one of the reasons that she's being rewarded in advance for keeping it narrow.
	I don't go that far, but it's like, I think when you don't have common lines and everything is redacted, you get what's going to do.
	There's a reason that people believe these things.
	We've said that on this channel.
	Okay, all right.
	Maybe that's where I heard it.
	There was some crazy guy.
	He was filming himself in his car.
	I heard him saying that.
	No, no, no.
	It was something about a dog.
	I don't know where I saw that.
	I just want to make one prediction.
	I want to make one prediction.
	The Super Bowl will not be played in L.A. this year.
	I just want to get that on the record.
	Thank you.
	Because of COVID.
	I will place bets on that, but not on outcomes of trials.
	So, sorry, Barnes should combine his George Carlin with Viva Barnes.
	Okay, thank you.
	Life of Brian, I haven't seen you in a while, and it's good to see you again.
	But now here's the question.
	Earth is infinite, dimensional shape, not flat around.
	Okay, that was not the question.
	Where can we find...
	I'm going to get to you, Mark, in a second, but Mara, Matt, Matt, where can people find you, support you, and...
	And, you know...
	Okay, no, no, it's a good question.
	It seems like everybody here has a real YouTube channel.
	I put some things on YouTube, but I don't have a channel.
	But if you go to innercitypress.com, that's the website.
	I have a Patreon.
	It's Patreon at Matthew Russell Lee.
	I'm on Twitter, Inner City Press.
	I did a sub...
	I'm pretty much like anything that can be put out.
	I'm going to...
	In the same way...
	Somebody had mentioned this.
	Kind of pretty informal novella called Belt and Roadkill about the UN.
	I am preparing one about this trial.
	It's basically ready to go.
	It has two alternate titles based on how the verdict goes called Maximum Maxwell.
	And it's ready to go.
	I don't know if it's going to be, you know, I think the last time we did it afterwards, I think you told me that books are dead.
	So I'm not really doing it for with any idea that it will shoot to the top of Amazon.
	But I think I love the idea of like the day of the verdict.
	By the miracles of technology and low standards, frankly, to be able to have the first book out.
	You'll have it here first.
	This is the scoop.
	The two working titles are either Maximum Maxwell, Not Guilty by Design, or Maximum Maxwell, Minimal Conviction.
	Minimal Time.
	I would just say Minimal Time.
	Maximum Maxwell, Minimal Time.
	First one was better.
	That depends on a non-guilty verdict.
	I don't know what the verdict's going to be.
	It's not essential to the plot.
	There you have it.
	By the way, I like you.
	I know that I like you because you remind me of my father-in-law.
	I like you because you also speak the truth and you're amazing.
	You love what you do and it's a beautiful thing to see.
	Get the book ready.
	Forget hard publishing.
	I feel like it has a lot of...
	It goes beyond what's been said.
	And not to monetize in a sense that it's cheap and tawdry.
	You've done phenomenal work and you know stuff that people don't know.
	And people come to lawyers and they say, I have a question for you.
	Well, you're just giving me an answer.
	Yeah, I'm talking to you after 20 years of studying, practicing, mastering it.
	So that 20 years has some baggage behind it.
	You're doing that.
	So, Matthew Lee, social medias are where?
	You've got innercitypress.com.
	I've got Patreon.
	A lot of people join Patreon during this trial.
	So it's patreon.com slash Matthew Russell Lee.
	You can pretty much find other ways.
	Matthew, the way we see it here.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Good.
	And it's linked on a whole page.
	Basically, I'll do a live tweet, a particular witness or the morning of one of these things, and then I'll put it on a story, then I'll put it on Substack.
	But I see you guys all seem to have developed this YouTube thing, and I've seen the amounts being posted while we're talking, and I'm marveling.
	And how you guys are doing it.
	Oh, don't worry.
	YouTube's getting their cut.
	So is Apple when it's on an iPhone.
	But Matthew, you should be coming on with me pretty soon.
	I think we've been talking a little bit.
	And now, with that said, Matthew, do not be offended.
	I'm taking you out and I'm bringing...
	Take me out, please.
	Mark Grobert in.
	Mark, first of all, your tie looks like it's tucked into your pants, but it's a mic covering it.
	For goodness sake, now I see what's going on here.
	There you go.
	There you go.
	Mark, you're wearing a polo shirt.
	Yeah, it's a polo shirt.
	How can we judge you for that?
	Does Mossad wear polo?
	I'm trying to blend in with the goyim, David.
	Something you know quite a bit about.
	Well, hold on a second.
	I'm going to stop you there.
	I hate that word, Mark.
	I hate that word.
	I know.
	I know.
	I loathe that word.
	Especially goyim Shabbat.
	I know.
	No, no, that's Shabbos goyim, which I also loathe.
	What are the words that you hate?
	Tell me the words that you hate so I can put them on the list.
	Well, they're the only three words that are blocked off my channel, which is the N-word, the K-word, and I have not blocked off the Shabbos, that word, but I do not use that word.
	But I'm still looking at that table behind you, and I only see a Magin David on that table.
	That's what I'm saying.
	Does everybody all see that, or am I going crazy?
	I'm not going crazy.
	I have no idea what you guys are talking about.
	The table right over his shoulder.
	Are we back to Briss again?
	Mark, where can we find you?
	Where can people find you?
	Twitter, at Lord Buckley, L-O-D, L-O-R-D, Buckley, one word, B-U-C-K-L-Y.
	What does Lord Buckley mean?
	Because I've asked myself that question.
	Lord Buckley is a homage to the legendary avant-garde comedian, Lord Buckley, who spelled his name B-U-C-K-L-E-Y, so I'm spelling it Lord Buckley, one word, L-O-R-D-B-U-C-K-L-Y, as a homage to the legendary 1950s avant-garde performance artist.
	Which we're going to do a show about on America's Untold Stories with Eric Hundley, who's right above you on the square above you.
	I'm also the author of a book called Rehab Nation, which you can find on Amazon, Inside the Secret World of Celebrity Rehabs.
	It's selling very well in Japan for some reason right now.
	I have no idea what's going on in Japan, but the book has a lot of tawdry stuff about celebrities who ended up in rehab.
	They don't have a First Amendment, I don't believe.
	There's no privacy there.
	I'm also on America's Untold Stories.
	You can also find us there, me and Eric doing like two shows a week.
	You can PayPal me as much money as you possibly can get your hands on at this point.
	Mark Robert PayPal.
	I will not, no matter what you think, send it back.
	I will use it to buy more books, which is my addiction.
	As I told Eric, I'm in Books Anonymous, a 12-step program for people who are addicted to books.
	So you can find me reading books usually in that chair, which looks like something else to you other than a chair.
	Yeah, I'm based in Hollywood, California.
	This is my vacation retreat here.
	Arizona, the home state of Eric Hundley.
	You can find me at the YouTube channel, America's Untold Stories.
	The book you can buy.
	Twitter, Lord Buckley.
	You can find me there if you want to hook up.
	We'll just keep this going.
	I have no idea where this is going or how you guys wrote me into this, but it seems like something to do, right?
	I don't know.
	It seems like fun.
	It's the blessing.
	It's the blessing and the curse.
	To make a life about learning about that which destroys life.
	I mean, it's a crazy thing.
	I have no idea what that means, but your fortune cookie logic is what I live for.
	It's the Matrix.
	We've all swallowed the blue pill.
	Oh, shoot.
	It was the red pill.
	We've taken the red pill.
	We're out of the Matrix now.
	We can never look back and be part of the Matrix.
	Yeah, we're also on Locals.
	We were supposed to do a live stream tonight, Eric and I, but...
	You asked us to do this instead.
	So there's 5,000 people waiting for us to do a live stream.
	Do it on Locals.
	And carry it on there.
	And now with that said, I'm going to just go ahead and bring you out there.
	I'm going to bring on your partner in crime, Eric.
	Yes, a lot of crime.
	Unstructured.locals.com is what he was just referencing.
	I've also got a little channel called Eric Hundley.
	People want to check that out.
	I'm pimping America's Untold Stories like crazy, but you can come by and check out Eric Hundley, too.
	Tomorrow I have a...
	That was a great D.B. Cooper story.
	I didn't even know about that until you interviewed that guy.
	The whole background of D.B. Cooper.
	Mark, is D.B. Cooper the inspiration for the Matrix character?
	I think so.
	That's what I've heard.
	I've heard that rumor, Robert.
	I'm not sure.
	Sorry to interrupt you, but that was a great episode on your interview on your Eric Hundley show.
	Cool.
	And I have people like the Behavior Panel, which I believe is how Barnes discovered them.
	And tomorrow I have Spidey Hypnosis coming on.
	And this guy has been on Penn& Teller's Fool List all over the place on the internet.
	He's a mentalist.
	I just found out I can't talk about it with him.
	The cop that...
	There's been him getting out of a ticket with a cop using mind control.
	It's really awesome.
	I brought it up, and then, of course, as soon as I grabbed him, getting ready for the show, I get an email from him saying, yeah, we can't talk about that because there were ramifications to the guy's career, which I didn't mean.
	But we're going to talk about other things, and he may be doing mind control of the audience in real time on the video.
	Try and check that out tomorrow by 13. That's Eric Hundley.
	And of course, coming up, we have Alec Baldwin all the time on America's Untold Stories.
	In addition to some amazing stories, we're going to try to get another special out for Christmas about America's street games and how they relate in life to development.
	Your children, David.
	The history of America's street games and how they go back.
	Mark, I'll be sure to let my children watch that.
	This is the history of America's street games going back to the industrial revolution.
	Oh, you mean like actual street games?
	Yeah, like playing marbles.
	It sounds like you're saying gangs.
	No, no, no.
	Your kids need to be recruited for some gangs.
	Here's the good list here.
	You can pick the Crips.
	You can pick these guys.
	I'll give you one example.
	When you do this with your finger to shoot marbles, that was actually designed to strengthen your bow and arrow fingers to learn when you're hunting.
	That's the kind of information you're going to get on America's Street Games for the Christmas episode.
	All of the children's games date back to before the Industrial Revolution.
	I'll just tell you that little tip.
	And now while you say that, and I'm still distracted by the Magen David over your left shoulder, I'm going to bring Robert in here.
	What the hell is Magen David?
	Tell us why Mark Robert works for Mossad.
	Would you please?
	I just know that if you have a late Christmas gift that you need to give to someone, there is.
	you can give them an annual subscription to Viva Barnes law.
	Locals.com.
	The gift that gives back all your one.
	Okay.
	And I want to say with that, because Robert is a damn professional.
	This was amazing.
	I could do this any day of the week.
	Cause I I'm absorbing it, Matt.
	I'm absorbing you.
	I'm still distracted by the fact that you remind me of my father-in-law.
	Eric, I'm still distracted by the fact that I think you work for CIA.
	Mark, I'm still distracted by the fact that you're going to get me in trouble with my wife.
	And Robert?
	I'm not distracted.
	I trust you, Robert.
	With that said, people...
	Hold on.
	I hear my wife coming down.
	Here she comes.
	Now's the trouble.
	Marion, you can come downstairs and say hi.
	I'm in so much trouble right now.
	You're only 90 minutes over.
	Not 90. I don't even know if that's a dog or someone eating a carcass of what's going to be me when I get up there.
	By the way, Mark Robert is not a lawyer.
	I'm not a lawyer.
	But I could go another three hours because I'm on crystal meth.
	So I don't care if you guys want to keep going or not.
	Somebody sent me a package of crystal meth for Christmas.
	So I could go all night.
	We may not.
	If we don't see each other for the rest of the year, people, this has been amazing.
	Matt, Eric, Mark, Robert.
	First of all, I'm glad we all met.
	We're going to do amazing stuff in 2022.
	Where's the dog?
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	This is the official end of the night.
	Is this the paralyzed dog or the regular one?
	No, this is Winston.
	Winston's a spoiled one.
	The new mascot.
	The blind boy.
	Don't hate me because I'm beautiful.
	This was amazing.
	Thank you all.
	Robert, we might do a stream Sunday.
	I don't know what day of the week it is anymore.
	I thought I would, but I won't be available then because we're doing a second Christmas that day.
	Nor should anybody be...
	It's Christmas, so if I can squeeze out a family get-togethers and just do something that gives me an excuse to get out of family get-togethers, it'll be amazing.
	Matt, keep up doing what you're doing.
	It's amazing.
	Eric, what you're doing is amazing.
	Mark Robert, you are...
	You're red-pilling in a way that most people don't, and Robert, we will be continuing to raise awareness in the coming 2022, and there will be some sweet stuff to say.
	So everyone in the chat, thank you all.
	If I didn't get to your superchats, I apologize, but thank you very much for the support.
	Share, cut clips, put it out there, and share this one away, because...
	This one will not get organic growth on the YouTubes anymore.
	Without any question.
	Everyone stick around, we'll say our proper goodbyes.
	Everyone in the chat, thank you very much.
	Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and May 2022.
	Have more freedom and goodness than 2020 and 2021 combined.

▲