Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 27, 2021 - Viva & Barnes

02:15:06

Ep. 93: Kim Potter, "Let's Go Brandon" Dad, AND MORE! Viva & Barnes LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good evening, people.
	You'll notice that the backdrop is a little different this week.
	I've got an O-ring lighting, which I hate.
	The audio's gonna be bad.
	The video's gonna be bad, because I'm tethering off my iPhone.
	This is my mother-in-law's art studio behind me.
	This is Winston, the Westie, who is doing very well in the eastern townships.
	He got into a patch of burrs, and he...
	Had burrs everywhere in his fur, which is why he got a bit of a trim on the top of his head.
	How is my audio?
	I'm using the snowball mic, but I'm going to try to keep it down on the table.
	I also started doing push-ups because I decided I needed to get my core strength back to what it used to be.
	And I did 105 push-ups in...
	In a batch, like I did 25, 20, 20, then 15. Started going descending more rapidly than I used to in my youth.
	But I am so freaking sore right now.
	Yesterday, I tried to do more push-ups.
	I could bring myself to do 50. And it's just like, I feel like I'm physically, like my muscles just explode when I start doing push-ups.
	Okay, audio is good, everybody.
	The video is as good as it's going to get.
	Hopefully the internet holds up.
	Good evening.
	And we didn't have a stream yesterday for reasons.
	Nothing terrible, nothing good, nothing bad.
	But we're doing it tonight, and it's going to be a good stream.
	Viva flexing for the plebs.
	Oh, and I'm wearing a sweater because the studio is not fully heated.
	We turned on the baseboards, but it's taking some time to heat up.
	This is my mother-in-law's artwork behind us.
	For anybody who...
	Does not yet follow us on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	I shared one of her works yesterday.
	She does this artwork called Rosemailing.
	Let's see if I can get one here.
	Can't seem to find one.
	Here, here, here.
	Oh!
	Okay.
	I just knocked something over.
	Rosemailing.
	It's a beautiful type of art, and she's the master of it, and it's everywhere all over the house, but she does portraits.
	That, incidentally...
	Right there.
	That's my mother.
	That's actually my mother.
	I don't know why my mother-in-law is making pictures of my mother, and I'm a little spooked, actually, right now.
	So let me just see what we got here.
	So I'm in my mother-in-law's studio because we are down here for the holidays and for an extended period of time.
	Okay, let's see what you can do.
	Can I still do the backflip off the swing?
	Greg and Houston.
	Well, we saw the video of that elderly gentleman.
	Seems to be a grandfather age doing it, and he fist-pumped as he nailed it.
	I got concussed doing it once, so I think I'm done trying to do it and trying to show up for the kids, but I say that now until there's kids in the house.
	Hate slow-moed.
	I got so much more to say.
	I have to put on slow-moed because I try to follow the chat, and if it goes too fast, I just can't follow it.
	Before I get...
	I'm not going to have a rant tonight.
	Tonight's going to be like just cranky old man Viva sipping out of Peter the Rabbit.
	I've been getting cranky.
	And I've been getting cynical.
	And I said it in yesterday's vlog about the January...
	No, the January.
	The Let's Go Brandon dad who is now feeling the wrath of the internet for a joke which...
	As a teenager, I might have done it.
	As an adult, I certainly wouldn't do it just because it's not in my nature.
	And also, I know how the internet works.
	You know, every fear hides a wish and be careful what you wish for because this guy, you know, I don't know if he wanted to be famous.
	It was a funny joke if you're a child.
	Funny if you're an adult even, but not the type of joke I would make.
	And he's feeling the wrath.
	But I said, like, it just makes you cynical.
	It just makes you angry.
	You see the way the world works.
	And I knew that.
	This is my intro rant, actually, before we get there.
	You're late.
	Hang your head in shame.
	Simpsons reference.
	One of the greatest episodes of all time.
	But Master, we need your skilled hands.
	Oh no, that wasn't that episode.
	That wasn't the same episode.
	That was the one when Homer ate the fugu and thought he was going to die.
	The super chats.
	I'm going to miss them.
	I'm going to miss some of them.
	If you feel miffed if I miss your super chat and don't bring it up because I see two that I missed, don't give them.
	YouTube takes 30% of the super chat.
	So if you want to...
	Support the channel.
	The best way to do it.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	Five bucks a month or 50 bucks a year.
	Super sticker, but that's it.
	What was I going to say?
	So the super chats, I try to bring them all up.
	If I don't, and you're going to be miffed, don't do it.
	I don't like people feeling miffed.
	No legal advice.
	No medical advice.
	No election fortification undermining of the democracy of the United States advice.
	Although Joe Biden just put out an interesting tweet today about disenfranchisement to voters, which sounds like more fortification on the forefront.
	Okay, hold on.
	I missed Sheila Hoffman's super sticker and no.
	Okay, so hold on.
	J.M. Reid.
	Did the...
	And I try to read them before I read them so that I don't say something that might get me into the YouTube naughty books.
	Did he give you permission to visit your mother-in-law?
	Happy New Year.
	It's even worse than that.
	We've gotten to the point now in Canada where if you have the sniffles, presume it's Omicron and isolate.
	So, he was on Bannon's show today.
	He's doing great.
	Who was on Bannon's show?
	Oh, the guy.
	Okay, good.
	We're going to get there.
	Opening rant, just to illustrate how cranky I am.
	I see Barnes in the backdrop, but I've got to get this off my chest.
	I can't watch movies anymore.
	I can't watch movies anymore because the new ones make my stomach turn with the nonsense they put in them.
	And the old ones, I think I'm so cranky now.
	I watched Die Hard 1 with my oldest, not the other two.
	They are not yet able to see that.
	And it's still the greatest action movie ever.
	Maybe tied with Face Off.
	Although I think Die Hard's better than Face Off.
	But I've grown so cynical now.
	Did everyone appreciate that the lesson of this movie was the cop who learns to shoot people again.
	The cop from Family Matters.
	The cop who's on the outside who...
	When he was talking to McClane about why he got taken off the street because he had an incident with a kid and it was dark and it looked like a real gun, yada, yada, yada.
	And so he couldn't bring himself to fire.
	And then at the end of the movie, the redemption moment is he learns how to shoot bad guys again.
	And how did the bad guy get down from, let alone the chains around his body?
	How did he get down from the top floor of that building to get out to the front, throw off a blanket and try to open fire?
	And then the cop, who learns how to shoot again, It takes him five shots to take the guy down.
	I mean, maybe that's why he was a bad shot in the first place and shouldn't be having a gun.
	I mean, the whole thing, I'm saying this tongue-in-cheek.
	I'm watching everything, even the stuff I love, with a stink eye of a cynical old man who has gotten cranky and crankier over time.
	I missed a bunch of chats.
	Squeak Van Moosenmeyer says, At what point do the courts and RCMP discredit themselves as agencies that serve the public interest?
	Courts ruling in favor of tyranny, RCMP breaking the law, and acting like thugs?
	I've seen it all.
	I've seen it all.
	I mean, I did a video on it when they pepper sprayed the party, the New Year's party that they broke up last year, or when they pepper sprayed the guy at Tim Hortons for not wearing a mask.
	Pepper spray in the face for health.
	It's a political solution.
	That's what it is.
	I keep saying it.
	And if people don't want to find that political solution, what can you do?
	You can't argue with the majority of people who want to live under this regiment.
	Some people who love the...
	Okay, yeah.
	Can't stand the handle of three words that the left created to try and alter...
	I agree with you, Ryan.
	I mean, I tweeted out Tlaib.
	Tlaib, what's her name?
	Rashid Tlaib.
	Impeach the mother effer.
	And she didn't censor it.
	But yeah, let's go, Brandon, on a Christmas show.
	And then you have Rep Eric Swalwell.
	Rep Eric Swalwell, this is something I didn't say in the video because I didn't want, in yesterday's vlog, if you haven't seen it, check it out, because I didn't want to be too much of a jerk.
	But Rep L Swalwell, Rep Swalwell, Eric Swalwell said, what kind of indecent person does this at Christmas?
	To a man who lost his wife and child at Christmas, no less.
	Now, for those of you who don't know, I'm fairly certain what he's talking about is Joe Biden, a previous wife and a previous child, die in a car accident.
	I think it was around Christmas.
	For Rep Swalwell to invoke that tragedy, to try to shame the guy who said, let's go, Brandon, is itself vilely offensive.
	It's vilely offensive, immoral, and just absolute...
	It's disgusting.
	It's disgusting because it tries to appeal to the greatest of tragedies to try to, in any sense of the word, in some way equivocate.
	Let's go, Brandon, with that tragedy.
	But Swallow has no standards.
	He has no morals.
	He's just a corrupt individual with...
	There I said it.
	Okay.
	So with that said, that was the intro.
	Oh, sorry.
	Last part about it.
	Then I watched the show or the movie Don't Look Up with Leonardo DiCaprio, Jennifer Lawrence, Ariana Grande.
	There was some...
	Oh, Meryl Streep was also in it.
	It got good towards the end.
	I am not going to spoil it for anybody.
	The only thing that made that...
	Two hours, whatever, worthwhile, will last ten minutes.
	Only.
	So, the only thing that irritated me about that is that it's about scientists who discover an asteroid that's going to crash into Earth and destroy humanity, and they have to, you know, solve the problem.
	But the scientists, the elite, cream of the crop, the heroine of the story, Jennifer Lawrence, has to be taking Xanax, has to be smoking weed, has to be, you know...
	They have to engage in activities so that these...
	Hollywood people or whoever makes this normalizes this and makes people think this is what you need to do in order to be great.
	Same thing with Leonardo DiCaprio, so I'm not just picking on Jen Lawrence.
	On Xanax, antidepressants.
	It's like they're trying to normalize that.
	Not that there's anything wrong with it, but to normalize it or even make it admirable to say if you want to succeed and be a genius, you have to have these issues, which are objectively issues that people try to cope with.
	And try to succeed with notwithstanding having them.
	But it's just, I just, it turned me off within the first five minutes and then I was cranky and then I started smiling and then we had to go to bed and then I woke up this morning and watched the rest of it.
	Okay, with that said, people, Barnes is in the house.
	We got a good one.
	We've got a good one.
	Let me break, well, on the menu, Kim Potter, and we're going to talk about it.
	Project Veritas, Ghislaine Maxwell.
	There's an interesting one, Merkel, scoring a massive victory against Daily Mail, I think.
	Very surprising story.
	We're going to get to it because it actually feeds into the Let's Go Brandon dude.
	Is my take wrong that what they did to Let's Go Brandon, the media, was dox him?
	Because there are some attenuating factors and I want to know what Barnes says and if Barnes tells me I'm wrong, not that I defer always to Barnes, but I will reassess.
	Okay, one more here.
	Joe Biden lied about the...
	Okay, so I don't know anything about this and I don't want reading this to be taken as an affirmation.
	Okay, I don't know anything about that, but now I'm going to have to look into it.
	Okay, one more, because I always exaggerate.
	Do you know Mike Oxlong, Esquire?
	I don't, and I don't know if I've just been pranked.
	Is that a let's go Brandon type thing?
	All right, Barnes, how are you doing?
	Good, good.
	Okay, hold on.
	My volume is off.
	Let me try this again.
	Okay, I can hear you.
	Can you hear me?
	I can hear you now.
	Beautiful.
	Now you, Robert, also look like you are not at home.
	I'm in Tennessee.
	And if I may ask, what are you doing in Tennessee?
	Oh, Christmas.
	You know, family and whatnot.
	All right.
	Awesome.
	And, oh, Robert.
	Okay.
	Look, let's start with a silly one for the evening.
	We'll start off in a lighthearted mood.
	Oh, first of all, what do you have in your fingers that you're not going to light, but if anyone's looking for a good Christmas gift?
	Oh, sure.
	Trinidad.
	Limited edition little Trinidad.
	Papa Fidel's favorite brand.
	All right, we got this one.
	It says, anyone else notice that all the loud Never Trumpers are going down?
	Baldwin Cuomo.
	My theory is it's karma.
	When you are filled with hate, bad things happen to you because you pick a fight with the wrong person or you do the wrong thing out of anger at the wrong time.
	Robert.
	Okay, let's just start with the Let's Go Brandon dad.
	The guy from Oregon who calls the...
	I mean, the whole thing is so preposterous.
	He calls in...
	The President and the First Lady.
	She's called the First Lady.
	That's my problem.
	They're tracking Santa's sleigh, and it's a live call-in, and this guy doesn't think he's going to get in.
	He calls in, has a two- to three-minute cordial conversation with the President and the First Lady, and then talks about his kids, yada, yada, what they want for Christmas.
	Biden tells them, get the kids to bed.
	They have to be in bed.
	It's so sweet and natural.
	It makes my teeth want to fall out.
	And then at the end, he says...
	And let's go, Brandon.
	And then Joe Biden says, yeah, let's go, Brandon.
	Jill Biden looks like she's about to, you know, crap herself.
	She's so angry.
	And then he posts.
	So these are the key factors.
	That's what happens.
	He then posts the video on his end recording in his house to a YouTube channel, which seems to be his kid's channel, because he wanted to get it out there, make sure everybody knew it was him.
	And I don't know, in case anyone wanted to steal it.
	His wife took to Instagram and posted a message saying, I think my husband just said, let's go, Brandon, to the president.
	Then the media, I guess, calls him up, asks for an interview.
	I don't know under what conditions he does it.
	I don't know what he discloses during the interview, what they find in their sleuthing.
	Maxine Bernstein, I believe, is the journalist.
	Blue checkmark.
	Works for the Oregon Live.
	Runs a story.
	Brian Stetler.
	And you know what?
	It's become condition.
	I just say Stetler now.
	He amplifies this.
	Robert, is there an argument in any meaningful sense that this is tantamount to doxing or...
	Well, I mean, it may be doxing in the colloquial sense.
	I mean, legally right now, there's no cognizable cause of action for doxing.
	Legally, it's only if there's been an invasion of privacy.
	And there's probably not a legal invasion of privacy claim present.
	But it is, in a colloquial sense, doxing.
	It's at least more doxing, or as much doxing, as what led Project Veritas to be removed from Twitter for simply videotaping a public figure at a major public media while he was on a public sidewalk.
	And Twitter said that violated their doxing policies.
	Well, if that violated their doxing policies, then quite clearly what the media did to the Let's Go Brandon guy violates their own doxing policies.
	They're both in the basement.
	Canada, U.S. must be at war.
	Yeah, we're hiding out.
	But here's the question in law, I guess, is when someone becomes a public figure, what qualifies as making them a public figure if only, what do they call them, a sole purpose public figure?
	This guy doing what he did, even if he didn't post it to his YouTube channel, he's made himself a public figure?
	Well, what they call limited purpose public figures.
	But that often varies by court.
	Much like actual malice, it's very much eye of the beholder.
	You're seeing wide discrepancies between courts.
	So, for example, in the case of the Sandy Hook cases involving Alex Jones, even though several of those were victims of a tragedy, but then several used that opportunity to present their arguments on gun control and politically advocate, created nonprofit organizations, and you name it.
	Despite all of that activity, Texas courts said they weren't public figures at all.
	So you see a wide and wild discrepancy, often, frankly, that appear to be politically motivated, about what is and isn't a limited-purpose public figure.
	I'm involved in cases right now where someone is defined as not...
	Being a limited purpose public figure, even when they fit every historical traditional definition of it.
	But again, it's usually politics that shapes the court's perceptions of that.
	It's too much discretion, unfortunately, in allowing the judicial branch to define what that means and doesn't mean.
	And I guess the question is also this.
	Where is the distinction between, I guess, doxing in the colloquial sense or invasion of privacy?
	This is going to bring us into Meghan Markle in a second.
	So the dude did it.
	He posted it on YouTube channel.
	His wife posted it to Instagram.
	Where does the line get drawn at what is now newsworthy in terms of this individual versus what is Invasion of Privacy saying where he works?
	I don't know what the full details of his kids that he disclosed during the call, but now we all know everything we need to know about his kids, where he worked, where he works, where he's from.
	Where does the line of newsworthy events to be reported on cross over into Invasion of Privacy?
	Well, and there we have inconsistent standards, because as an example, again, Project Veritas was suspended from Twitter for merely videotaping a high-ranking press official on a public sidewalk.
	And they said because it was simply near his home, which was private information, that constituted doxing.
	So if we're going to apply the social media standard that Twitter applied to Project Veritas, this clearly fits the definition of doxing.
	If we're going to say doxing is something more limited to what would be a cognizable claim for invasion of privacy, then we've got a very different issue.
	And so it depends on...
	I don't think this reaches invasion of privacy.
	I do think it reaches what some standards of doxing have been.
	Okay, interesting.
	I'm going to bring this up here.
	We love for your white pilling, but don't begrudge you getting blackpilled the more you're exposed to dark truths.
	Your journey is shared by many.
	My two cents.
	Leave the white pilling to Robert.
	He's been fighting longer and stick to Red Billy.
	Well, I have been on a bit of a tear on Twitter these days, and I feel bad with every tweet, but these hypocritical liars do not stop being hypocrites and liars.
	And I've had it.
	I've had it with Rep Swalwell trying to lecture me on morality when this dude is having an affair, which is fine.
	I mean, a lot of people do it.
	With a Chinese butt!
	It's not the affair per se.
	A lot of people have marital issues and none of my business.
	With a Chinese spy, talking about using nukes on citizens.
	When he's on the Intelligence Committee, isn't he?
	So, Rep Swallow, don't lecture me on that.
	The other one, Jim Scudo.
	Was it Jim Scudo who said, I want to try something new, only posting nice stuff on Twitter?
	Dude, you spent the last five years being, and not just blackpilled, inciting hatred against a demographic of the United States.
	But now you feel bad and you want to have a nice week and show that you, virtue signaling at its finest.
	Okay, so my take might have been morally correct, terms of service correct in terms of some platforms, but legally, give me the benefit of the doubt, legally arguable.
	Well, legally, it's just that we need clarity on what is and isn't doxing and when it is and isn't legal legally, and we just don't have that.
	There are some legislatures that are looking at passing legislative language, and I think that's a good idea because it needs probably to happen because that's an area – I mean, in the Covington cases that I've seen, I'm trying to establish it as a form of invasion of privacy and other aspects under existing common law torts, but that's because there's no existing common law or statutory law that clearly addresses getting to the core of the problem, which is basically using someone's...
	Otherwise, private information to harm them because of their perceived political or other beliefs.
	And because that's the distinction for me also.
	It's not just, okay...
	Personally, I don't think where somebody works is typically relevant to a social media post, unless contextually it's relevant.
	But when they say where they work, for the left that talks about Trumpian dog whistles, and maybe there are...
	Everybody has dog whistles to some extent.
	When they say where the guy works...
	Father of four, small town Oregon, and they name the small town.
	Those are dog whistles, as if to say, you know what to do, and blue check marks get to wash their hands of it, because we're not doing anything.
	This rhymes, Robert, with certain things that have previously happened historically.
	Am I getting too black-pilled, or is that just red-pilled?
	Well, yeah, I mean, it's what's newsworthy and what's not.
	I mean, why is his address newsworthy?
	Why is his town newsworthy?
	Why is his employer newsworthy?
	None of those things are really newsworthy.
	So I think that's where people find it problematic.
	When they're disclosing things that appear to have no newsworthy value, but whose only value is potential harm to the individual.
	I think that raises...
	And if he was in a position of public...
	I get if his employment was newsworthy because he's a public official.
	Okay.
	But he's not.
	So that's why there's problems with what...
	This approach.
	Everybody knows what their goal is.
	CNN went after the older lady on her front porch and so forth, while Twitter rushed to their rescue when Project Veritas simply talked to one guy on a sidewalk.
	You're seeing the lack of clarity and consistency from everybody involved, whether that's the law or social media giants or corporations or the press themselves.
	At least the press should come up with standards.
	Historically, it's been Whether it's newsworthy or not, to disclose information about an individual that's otherwise private.
	Clearly, they're not really applying that standard because they were just enraged, but they made the story a bigger story by doing this, the Barbra Streisand effect.
	I mean, the guy brilliantly trolled Biden into saying F himself on national TV on Christmas Eve.
	And maybe, I think the guy had a kid whose name was Brandon, if I'm not mistaken, but maybe Biden thought he was talking about that guy that he brought out a little while ago to try to do the U-turn on Let's Go Brandon.
	No, no, Biden doesn't know where he is.
	He almost said, Happy Easter.
	And that was the bigger problem, is that Jill Biden immediately knew when he said, Let's Go Brandon, she immediately knew.
	Biden repeated it.
	Now, I would forgive Biden because occasionally I have misread a joke.
	I remember the one joke about the purebred.
	Dog and the duck in the park and I didn't get it.
	And everyone's like, oh, whoosh, that went over your head.
	It happens.
	But when it happens too much, you got to start asking some questions.
	And by the way, they disclosed not only where he worked, as if to say, dig up some dirt on his policing.
	They say where he currently works, family business, so they can try to go after tax issues.
	I mean, it's seek and destroy.
	And they know exactly what they're doing when they do it, but they cloak it in benevolence.
	And the problem is...
	He did poke the bear by doing that joke.
	The question is going to be now, does this just descend into all-out tribal warfare of the worst kind, which is where it seems to be going.
	But Robert, I guess...
	One of the all-time great troll wins in history.
	It was quite funny.
	But then to moralize it, it's a Christmas thing.
	He said, F you Biden on a Christmas thing when children were watching.
	Dude, first of all, he didn't.
	And the fact that everybody hears the F word when he says, let's go, Brandon.
	I mean...
	That's because you did it, people.
	You did it, and I'm going to talk to us, the blue check marks who try to lie about what they said.
	You made that term up.
	So let's just change it.
	I love Joe, and every time we say it, we're saying, let's go, Brandon, which we're saying that never ends.
	And a good segue into another, I will call it an inconsequential story, but it's interesting because I'm curious as to what the impact is going to be in the States.
	Meghan Markle scoring a big victory against the Daily Mail.
	I don't know how they acquired the letter, but they acquired a letter that she had, a handwritten letter that she had sent to her father, basically asking her father not to be quiet publicly, contained a bunch of other stuff.
	I don't think the details are important, and I don't really know them.
	She sued, and it was not just for invasion of privacy, creative argument that I thought was interesting, copyright infringement, because basically she has an original work that she created that they are republishing without her consent.
	For monetary gain.
	And I didn't read the judgment.
	I read as many articles summarizing it, but it sounded like the court basically said you win on both fronts.
	It was an invasion of privacy because there was nothing newsworthy about this.
	And it was copyright infringement because this satisfies the criteria of an original work.
	If I missed any important details, Robert, let me know.
	What's your take on the argument?
	The copyright infringement is an interesting argument.
	Yes, it is.
	And it'll be interesting to see how much it expands in other spaces because there was another place where the kind of, I don't know if it's revenge porn is the right terminology, but women were filmed doing things that they didn't realize were going to be used in other ways.
	They sued, and their main theory to prevent this kind of trafficking abuse that kind of took place was that they owned their own image.
	They owned their own copyright, and the mechanism by which that was supposedly transferred was illicit.
	And that was a creative mechanism to deny someone the profits of trafficking.
	And this is another way to deny media the profits from trafficking in invasions of privacy by asserting a copyright protection.
	And so I think that was a relatively novel theory.
	I haven't seen it utilized very often in these kind of cases.
	And because it wasn't a defamation, because it wasn't what was false, what was published.
	It was a true letter.
	But, you know, I'm not a Meghan Markle fan, but I thought her position was probably the right position in this particular case.
	And it was an interesting...
	And, you know, she got the Daily Mail to write basically a big, long apology on the front pages and all that.
	So, you know, a big win against the tabloid press in Britain.
	But particularly the copyright theory is an interesting one.
	And it's one...
	Because that could apply in a broad range of context.
	Well, so...
	Interesting thing, because I had discussed this.
	This was back before the vlog was the vlog, before we met, Robert, when the EUCD was revising its European Union Copyright EUCD, whatever the D stands for.
	And one of the things that they were talking about was applying copyright to newsworthy events where videos of otherwise newsworthy events could be taken down from the interwebs if someone validly exercised copyright over them.
	And one thing I had mentioned at the time, or floated as the real risk, is if, hypothetically, let's just say a video of Justin Trudeau breaking his own COVID rules or doing something even worse.
	Well, no, it couldn't be Trudeau.
	It has to be someone European.
	The other, Angela Merkel.
	Angela Merkel.
	Angela.
	A video of her doing something totally contradictory, immoral, whatever, surfaces on the internet.
	And I said, hypothetically, if she acquires the copyright to that video from whoever took it, and then she can basically take it down when any time anybody publishes it on the internet.
	I said, well, that seemed to me to be the bigger risk in all of this is buy the rights to an otherwise new, very important event, and then copy strike it so that it can't be seen on the interwebs.
	Is this one step in that direction?
	Yeah, it sure does seem that way.
	And now the other question is this.
	Could this argument not also...
	First of all, Meghan Markle, I believe it was on appeal.
	So she's basically one and one.
	They published not an apology, didn't say sorry, but they published a correction, a retraction.
	They linked to the judgment.
	They said, this is what the court said.
	Didn't apologize, but that's as good as you're going to get.
	And I'm reading this and listening to this, and I'm saying, my goodness, is Biden's daughter.
	What's her first name now?
	Ashley in it.
	Ashley, is Ashley Biden going to get some ideas about this?
	Because assuming that she did not lose her diary on purpose, could she not also make the argument that her diary is an original work that's copyright protected?
	Yeah, I would assume so, absolutely.
	And I mean, there'd be some question about abandonment, not just losing it, but did she abandon it?
	But assuming she didn't, then yes, she would, I think, have copyright claims under this same theory.
	And then the only question is what is and isn't fair use, and so on and so forth.
	That's a good transition into speaking of what happens when you get it by illicit means, which was kind of what happened in Meghan Markle's case, but it's clearly what happened in the New York Times and Project Veritas' case.
	I'll give the rundown of the facts.
	I think everybody watching knows.
	I got the judgment.
	The judgment's been available, but they've scored another victory.
	The 30,000-foot overview a year ago.
	An anonymous tipster contacts Project Veritas says, hey, we've stumbled across Ashley Biden's diary, and it contains some very sordid...
	When I first read it, what was that movie where the British lady was talking about a diary that was handwritten?
	I think it was Bridesmaids.
	A very sordid, handwritten diary.
	Very sad to read, and by all accounts, it was.
	They contact James O 'Keefe and say, we've got Ashley Biden's diary and some other goods that she left, some other personal property that she allegedly left in a...
	Airbnb or someplace where they stayed afterwards and found it.
	They were doing these negotiations through counsel, which is weird.
	James O 'Keefe, Project Veritas, says, we can't vet this.
	We can't verify this.
	We don't want to publish it.
	So take it back.
	And they just said, whoa, we're not taking it back.
	The lawyers would not take it back.
	So James O 'Keefe turned it over to the authorities, FBI.
	That's a year plus ago.
	A year later, FBI raids two former journalists from Project Veritas.
	A week later, raids James O 'Keefe, steals, takes his phone.
	A bunch of other stuff happened.
	But they basically said, we are exercising warrants and seizing your phones, computers, and data from journalists because you're in possession of an alleged stolen diary and other personal goods.
	Apparently, the FBI then leaked that information to the New York Times, who was...
	You know, got the notification when James O 'Keefe was being raided.
	Then published some confidential information that they got from the devices, allegedly.
	James O 'Keefe got a couple of court orders.
	This judge, I forget his name now, but it's good.
	That ordering New York Times to not publish any of the solicitor-client privilege information they got off the cell phones.
	I might be mixing up some facts.
	I don't think I'm not.
	But bottom line...
	The judge now basically reaffirmed that the New York Times cannot publish this information, must destroy the digital and hard copy versions, and return the originals to Project Veritas.
	Take it from there, Robert.
	Yeah, I mean, it's a big win for Project Veritas.
	I mean, basically what it looks like is you have the FBI colluding with the New York Times to go after an adversary of both the FBI and a perceived adversary of the New York Times.
	I mean, a definite legal adversary of the New York Times because Project Veritas is...
	Successfully sued the New York Times, seeking relief and remedy, and they have successfully exposed large parts of the Biden administration for various malfeasance and misfeasance, as the case may be.
	And here you have the FBI acting like the private police of the President of the United States, rather than independent law enforcement body, trying to find out who in the world had access to and published any aspect of the President's daughter's diary.
	I mean, it's extraordinary how they're, it's like the Clinton email scandal.
	They're more obsessed with how the Clinton emails got out than what was in the Clinton emails.
	They're more concerned with how Ashley Biden's diary got disclosed than what was in the diary implicating the President of the United States in illicit conduct.
	And so the, but big win, and this is their third big win to a certain degree, because they got past a motion to dismiss in the New York Times case and got to some discovery before the Court of Appeals shut it down.
	Then they secondly got to a special master appointed to prevent the FBI from just rummaging through their private privilege and confidential files.
	And now when the New York Times had seized their attorney-client privilege materials, they went again with the New York Times being required to give back those materials, destroy any copies they have, and not publish any of them.
	And so it's a big win on all three fronts for Project Veritas.
	My concern is that people are just going to write it off as a bias or partial judge.
	The law was pretty clear in each of those cases.
	Someone said here, 63 Rambler says, isn't the letter the recipient's property?
	That's a good legal question.
	Well, from a copyright perspective, probably not.
	The copyright is by the person who wrote it rather than the person who received it.
	Very interesting.
	I wonder how many people will threaten to publish their vids if the person in it doesn't buy the copyright.
	So James O 'Keefe, it's another win.
	So in theory, if anybody believes that the New York Times is ever going to...
	The only time the New York Times and others will delete their stuff is when they don't want it to be found again, a la bleach bit and wiping with a cloth.
	I would never in a million years believe that the New York Times will ever permanently delete and destroy all copies they have, ever.
	But there's a corridor to saying they have to, so who knows?
	The question that I had was, as relates to...
	It wasn't the destruction.
	I forgot the question.
	Oh, Robert.
	It was the illicit means by which they obtained it.
	They, by the way, failed to explain to the court.
	They could not give any legal explanation as to how they lawfully obtained these records.
	They had no explanation for how they got these records.
	I mean, their attorney-client privilege communications between Project Veritas and their lawyers that were illicitly seized.
	By the FBI.
	So everybody really knows it was the FBI that illicitly seized this information, then illicitly leaked it.
	And it shows they were in collusion with the New York Times to violate the constitutional rights of Project Veritas.
	And the New York Times just got caught and assumed because they're the New York Times, they're above the law.
	They think the First Amendment is a special right of the New York Times to do whatever they want.
	And they were proven wrong once again when Project Veritas took them to court.
	You reminded me.
	Thank you.
	It was the issue as to...
	The solicitor-client privilege.
	So New York Times says to the court, it's newsworthy information.
	We want to publish it, and you're violating our First Amendment media rights.
	But the flip side of the argument is, this is solicitor-client protected information.
	It's privileged information.
	And so I guess the question is, in law, when would privileged information, solicitor-client, which is protected, ever be able to be lawfully disclosed?
	Obviously, without the authorization of the interested parties.
	Like, when would solicit a client information that had been lawfully procured in so far as the person who wants to publish it did not participate in stealing it?
	When could that be published in the ordinary run of things?
	Usually only with the permission of the client.
	Otherwise, there has to be some breach of attorney-client privilege in the sense of conspiracy to commit a fraud, commit a crime, certain very limited exceptions.
	But otherwise, unless the client waives it, the client controls it, it's not something that can be disclosed.
	So if the attorney does so, that isn't the attorney's legal right.
	That information is still privileged according to the client.
	I'm going to read this because we're going to get back to it later.
	Well, in general, there's no requirement to have a spiritual leader agree with you or anything like that.
	And you can remind them of that.
	I mean, it's sad that you would have to remind a public aid legal organization of that.
	Welcome to the way of the law these days in terms of who are the lawyers.
	But yeah, there's...
	And for more information on that in terms of language and lingo that people can use, letterheads at VivaBarnesLaw.com Locals.com.
	You can see a template of a religious exemption there that people can continue to utilize.
	And there's no copyright asserted as to it.
	Well played, Robert.
	Well played.
	And we got...
	This is my first Super Chat ever.
	And it's just so I can hear Viva say ambiance.
	I adore you both.
	Thank you for all you do.
	Thank you very much, TLC, The Learning Channel.
	But I don't think that's what it stands for.
	I think it's your...
	I imagine your initials.
	Yeah, the baseboards have...
	I'm looking at the light and thinking it's the camera.
	The baseboards have finally heated up enough in here that I can take my sweater off.
	So James O 'Keefe, he's gotten that order.
	Robert, people are going to ask, in the practice of law, you're James O 'Keefe's attorney.
	How on earth do you verify that New York Times has destroyed their digital and hard copies?
	You get someone to attest to it under penalty of perjury.
	The editor-in-chief of the legally responsible person so that they could risk prison if they lied.
	That's how you really enforce something like that.
	So you get Dean Baskett or one of the others to do so.
	Oh, by the way, speaking of...
	I think it's Dean Bouquet.
	Yeah, it looks like Baskett to me.
	So yeah, and then there was another video on Project Veritas.
	Confronting Dean...
	I think it's Dean Bouquet.
	I don't know who got it wrong.
	It doesn't matter.
	Dean Bouquet in the airport and Dean Bouquet actually accuses Project Veritas of having to do things to raise money.
	I mean, these people see all of their sins in others and they so lack self-awareness, they can't even rationalize that they might be seeing their own sins in others.
	People sometimes say to me, Viva, be careful.
	Confession through projection.
	I was like, dude, you don't need to say that to me.
	Every assessment I make of others, every time I call someone else a name, I ask myself, is it true of myself first?
	And I deal with myself more honestly than I deal with others.
	So Project Veritas, they've got that victory.
	Their depositions of Bouquet or of New York Times have been suspended pending the appeal of their previous decision?
	Yes.
	The Court of Appeals stepped in to save and salvage the New York Times from itself.
	Temporarily.
	We'll see what they do, ultimately.
	But, I mean, what they've done a good job of is bringing a lot of these cases where they can in Westchester County, where they're getting a more impartial judicial pull than they would typically, unfortunately, from the Southern District of New York, where they're currently butchering the Ghislaine Maxwell trial.
	Oh, I guess we'll get there, and then we're going to do all the pending trials.
	But let me say this.
	Did I hear Robert write, last time you discussed Assange, when he said that he still...
	Has one more appeal.
	Could it be possible that Julian can win and remain in the UK?
	Yeah, it's up to the British Supreme Court, or the highest court of Britain, which I believe is called the Supreme Court.
	New York is the worst.
	The Supreme Court is the lowest level court in New York.
	The Supreme Court of New York rule, that doesn't mean that.
	It means that's the trial court.
	But I believe it's called the Supreme Court of Britain.
	I had a discussion with the Duran.
	About that case that people can find at theduran.locals.com as well.
	They're also on YouTube.
	And they know the lawyers handling Julian's case, and we went into some detail there.
	And Duran is D-U-R-A-N, and it's amazing.
	We had them on a sidebar one time.
	Fantastic stuff.
	I'm going to bring this one up because it's one of the questions people have been asking.
	If the FBI can go after PV for having stolen info, why can't they go after the Times for having illegal info?
	I presume you're...
	Tom Nelson, I presume you're referring to Mary Trump's unlawfully procured...
	Mary Trump's or the tax returns before that or, you know, I mean, so many other things.
	I mean, it's extraordinary, the mindset.
	Jonathan Turley had some good pieces on this.
	He wasn't entirely thrilled about the Project Veritas ruling because he doesn't like anything that does smack of prior restraint.
	Well, at the same time, clearly has serious problems with why the FBI is even going after Project Veritas in the first place, that that itself is the bigger.
	Problem, the bigger risk from a freedom of the press perspective.
	Well, and the question is, why won't the FBI go after the New York Times?
	They are allegedly working in cahoots with the New York Times, allegedly communicating allegedly unlawfully or potentially unlawfully procured information from O 'Keefe's own cell phone.
	Yeah, that might be why.
	It's Project Mockingbird in real time, but it has a different name right now.
	We just have to call it Project Veritas.
	Oh, I made that up on purpose.
	All right, and we've got, come on, peeps, almost 8,500 watching, 1,000, 6,000 upvotes.
	Hit the like, Merry Christmas, Happy New Year's, Bronze and Viva.
	And if and when we hit 10,000 on YouTube, oh, sorry, we are simultaneously streaming on Rumble, but because I'm on my, I'm tethering off my phone here.
	Yes, it's pink, and yes, that's a Brooklyn Nine-Nine sticker that we got our kids for the holidays.
	I can't go back and forth, so I apologize if I'm not getting anything on Rumble, but we are simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	Hope you're having a wonderful holidays, and thanks for spending some time with your locals family.
	Thank you for being there.
	I just spat on my computer.
	Locals, thank you for being there.
	It's been great.
	What was your kid's favorite Christmas gift?
	One of my daughters got...
	Lonely Island merch, which was great.
	They got so much stuff.
	Remote control cars.
	Not the good remote control cars.
	Just the stuff that, if it gets destroyed, you don't cry.
	We've had a good one.
	We've had a good one.
	But I did play on the Oculus VR thing today.
	It's the coolest thing ever, and I need to get one, but apparently they're back-ordered, so we can't get them.
	It's the coolest thing ever, and I didn't get nauseous.
	I was boxing.
	I'll post that video to locals.
	Me doing virtual reality boxing on the Oculus.
	Not Oculus Rift, but Oculus whatever.
	Amazing.
	Do you have to move your arms?
	Yeah, but it's a full-body workout.
	That's not why I'm sore.
	I'm sore because of the push-ups I was doing, but it's a full-body workout, and I don't care if the kids do that so long as they stay active, but the other one's just with the remote control.
	It's not exercise.
	Hold on, hold on.
	Let me bring up a couple of chats here.
	I've missed a few.
	I'm wondering when supremacy in the Constitution will take hold.
	First overrides the fourth, fifth overrides the tenth, etc., etc.
	Robert, what does that mean?
	Well, I mean, just when there's competition between right of freedom of press and the First Amendment versus right not to have your material searched without probable cause under the Fourth Amendment, you know, due process under the Fifth Amendment versus delegation to the states or people under the Tenth Amendment, etc., that sometimes those constitutional rights come in conflict.
	To some degree, that's the case in the Project Veritas case, but not fully.
	The freedom of the press has never entailed the right to elicit access using government agents illicitly seizing attorney-client privilege materials as an example.
	This is not like Pentagon Papers where somebody leaked something that was a whistleblower.
	This is the FBI misusing its power to seize somebody else's records and then giving it over to the New York Times in collusion.
	They're basically in collusion to violate Fourth Amendment rights.
	The freedom of press has never stretched that far, as much as the New York Times pretends it does.
	And you imagine that you have that happening right now between FBI and Project Veritas and New York Times, but Assange and what was provided to him and published, you know, someone said, does Assange have any, the last super chat there, does he have any chance at, you know, a successful appeal to win?
	Assange is a broken man.
	He's a broken shell of what he used to be.
	I don't think, I don't know if...
	Or that he can ever heal.
	And so they've done what they wanted to do, even if he wins on the merits in principle.
	He's a broken human.
	And they've broken him.
	To make a point, and I think they've made the point.
	Good evening, Viva and Barnes.
	O.T. Overtime question for Barnes.
	End of the world bourbon and cigar.
	Okay, O.T. Overtime question for Viva.
	Same scenario drink of choice and pairing item.
	Thanks for all the work you do, Robert.
	Pappy's.
	Pappy's 23 would probably be the bourbon of choice.
	And the, you know, pre-folixera cognac would be the liquor of choice.
	But the, which is, you know, the folix, that's a long story.
	And then cigars, you know, almost any Cuban cigar, but probably a pre-Cuban, pre-embargo, 1950s Cuban cigar when they really, really made them well.
	You know, like Monte Cristo No.
	2, 1959.
	You can still get them at a shop in San Francisco, actually.
	Well, I know what my newfound best drink ever is.
	It's a very old Bunabane.
	Best thing I've ever tasted in my life.
	But realistically, it would be a steak and a martini.
	And it doesn't even have to be good meat or good gin.
	It just has to be a barbecued steak with martini after a round of golf.
	So that's my ideal.
	But I can't do that anymore these days either.
	All right.
	Can Trump sue all the people that threatened the lawyers for his election vote challenges, go after them for tortious interference?
	How can one interfere legally with hiring a lawyer?
	So, well, technically, I mean, the Dershowitz suit brought by, I think, Mike Lindell kind of does that.
	It says that the Dominion lawyers abused their power in how they went about things and basically alleges kind of a RICO conspiracy.
	To interfere in part with access to the courts on behalf of those people that were challenging aspects of the election.
	So there's aspects of that that's already pending.
	And then, you know.
	We got the court for the Veritas case did also order that New York Times sign an affidavit confirming the election.
	Okay, very good.
	And by the way, if anyone's accusing the court of being biased, they did also stay the depositions pending the appeal.
	So it's like, you know, they're...
	Giving a bit on both ends, but no, Project Veritas has been kicking butt.
	It would be very disturbing if you could have a media organization conspire with the government to steal somebody's records in violation of the Fourth Amendment and their other liberties and privileges.
	I mean, when people tell me that the New York Times made the wrong decision, I'm like, do you understand the consequences if they ruled in favor of the New York Times?
	You know, it's basically people don't like Project Veritas and like the New York Times who say that in my experience so far.
	It's kind of like the people.
	Who celebrated and jumped up and down when Andy Ngo was sued.
	And all it took was one conference call with Harmeet Dillon and all of a sudden that lawsuit went bye-bye because it was, as we predicted, a crap lawsuit.
	Give the details because I need to refresh my memory in real time.
	So these were the people that were suing on copyright claims that they had uploaded video on Twitter and elsewhere, and Andy Ngo had properly sourced them and used it to highlight the craziness of Antifa riots.
	And a lot of these were pro-Antifa-embedded journalists, or actually Antifa activists disguised as journalists.
	So they brought a copyright infringement suit against Andy Ngo.
	From the get-go, it looked to me like there wasn't a credible claim for it for multiple reasons that we detailed at the time.
	Well, apparently, they recognized how bad the case was because they dismissed it.
	They had one conference with Harmy Dillon, then dismissed the lawyers, ran in to dismiss the case as quickly as they could.
	There would have been a fee-shifting provision, I imagine, somewhere in there.
	Could have been, but not normally.
	But I mean, there could have been, you know, probably Rule 11 motions brought on some of the legal theories that they were arguing.
	But whatever it was, they clearly recognized how they got their little round of lefty media because the same, you know, the BuzzFeeds, the Daily Beast, Huffington Post, who are glad to glam onto this suit against Andy Ngo, won't do a big story about how the suit was summarily dismissed by their own lawyers because of how bad it was as a follow-up story.
	But it was another prediction proven true.
	I mean, we said that that was likely to get dismissed, and by their own lawyers dismissed it.
	Fantastic.
	I mean, it's fantastic.
	I hadn't heard about that, but yeah.
	Enjoy your pre-Christmas show with others.
	Keep up the good work.
	You are doing a great job.
	Thank you.
	Have a blessed New Year.
	Thank you very much.
	You too, Eldon.
	Taylor, interesting avatar.
	I think I know a little bit more now about things because of what happened recently.
	You know, the recent stuff we've been discussing.
	That pre-Christmas show last week, Was with Matthew Russell Lee, Inner City Press, Eric Hundley, Joe Nierman.
	Nate Brody was in but was playing the robot from internet issues.
	There was one more person I'm forgetting.
	Inner City Press, Joe Logic, Mark Grobert, and Eric Hundley.
	Yeah, that's right.
	Mark Grobert, who's not with Eric Hundley.
	That was amazing.
	And that YouTube turned around and monetized that after I deliberately unmonetized it.
	I mean, that was like...
	I was like, okay, good.
	Go watch that stream.
	Three and a half hours.
	Maybe it's white pill.
	But it's mostly black pill and red pill.
	Someone had asked what the pills were.
	We talked about it last week.
	The Matrix was the Matrix.
	Not this crappy version of the Matrix.
	The Matrix 4. They should have left on it.
	No need to produce another Matrix film the way they produced this.
	They were bragging about how they were going to take back the red pill from the right.
	All they did is take back the profits from the movie maker.
	No, they further compounded that red pill because, holy crap, they want to undo what they did because there's a lot going on in the...
	Is it the director of The Matrix who...
	I say this not to be mean and there's no but.
	There's politics behind The Matrix.
	So go look into the director's issues as to how the movie had been weaponized by a political side that the director did not want it to be weaponized by, which explains everything.
	But no, so it's blue pill, go back to living in ignorance.
	Red pill, you've woken up.
	Black pill, you have become cynical and believe everything is doomed.
	White pill, you've become optimistic.
	And mix them all together, you get a brown pill, and that's called a duty in the morning.
	So with that said, the anti-fascism riots have stopped now that fascism is in place.
	Oh, and by the way, that's what I wanted to say earlier.
	Fascism, from what I understand as the actual definition, is the marriage or the merger or the incestuous relationship of big government.
	Big tech and big media.
	And that is from, you know, the Project Veritas.
	That's what we're living through.
	We have literally the government acting as the president's secret police to seize a diary, which was very unfavorable, published, I believe, on the national file, if I'm not mistaken.
	So you can read it.
	I've never read it and I won't.
	You have intelligence working with the media hand in hand to seize, leak, publish information.
	And then you have them basically...
	Carrying this out at the wish of the big government, which is, I think by the official definition, fascism.
	Well, it's interesting.
	Speaking of interesting collusion between the government and the media, more evidence of the insanity of the Whitmer entrapment case came out this week as the defendants moved to dismiss the case entirely.
	On governmental misconduct grounds and entrapment as a matter of law because the facts keep getting more and more extraordinary.
	And that was another example of what we predicted at the time when other people were not, was that this case smacked of entrapment and it turns out to be even worse than some of its harshest critics thought it could be.
	I'll lay down the facts because I don't know the latest updates.
	Whitmer, Governor Whitmer, allegedly a plot to kidnap Governor Whitmer.
	And when we first heard about it, six people were arrested.
	I'm not saying this to be mean people, and there's no but to this either.
	They looked like people who would be easy to frame.
	I'll leave it at that.
	They looked like easily exploitable people, both for demographics, both for stereotypes, whatever.
	And we talked about it at first, and we were like, okay, it looks convenient, politically timed, conveniently timed, and we had a discussion.
	And I remember having a discussion with someone in my personal...
	Private Circle, who I will not ever mention, says, watch out.
	When you have these discussions, you lend ideas that will empower, promote conspiracy theories.
	But you need to know this stuff before you can make a comment.
	And then lo and behold, there were, I think, 12 or 13 people arrested.
	We now know that there were at least 12 to 14 informants.
	There were paid informants.
	There were FBI agents.
	There were more people involved in either...
	Investigating, promoting, orchestrating, and planning this event than actual people willing to participate in this event.
	And it's come out more and more over time.
	Great.
	I forget the reporting.
	Great reporting being done on this.
	Fudging the line.
	When is it infiltration versus when is it entrapment or orchestration?
	And it only got worse, I guess, Robert.
	What's the latest in the Governor Whitmer alleged kidnapping plot?
	So they've moved to dismiss it on two grounds, that its entrapment is a matter of law, that the court can find that under the facts have been developed, and then secondly, that it's a case of outrageous government misconduct.
	It's very hard to get dismissals on either one of those grounds, but dismissals have been granted in the past on those grounds.
	Now, what really stands out in this particular instance is the degree of detail of facts that they have.
	Basically, it's like that meme, that meme where you have a tall character with a big stick, and he keeps trying to get the small character to do something, and they impose different things on it.
	But at one point, it was the FBI trying to get a little Pepe to, come on, do a little insurrection for me, come on, that kind of thing.
	Well, it turns out that basically, every time the FBI informant brought up the idea...
	In four minutes, brought up the idea of kidnapping Whitmer.
	The other people that are being charged kept saying, no, that's a dumb idea.
	We're not interested in that.
	That's going to cause problems.
	No, well, why would we do that?
	So they kept pushing and pushing and pushing, and it really is now clear that not only was this a case of...
	It's a case that there never would have been any attempted kidnapping but for, or even a thought of kidnapping, but for the government informants.
	Because it wasn't just that they came up with the idea.
	It kept getting rejected by the other so-called criminals.
	And they kept, you know, no, no, you got to do it.
	No, no, you got to do it.
	No, no, you got to do it.
	It was the FBI created a crime to catch themselves like that Spider-Man meme.
	You went with the, like, you know, be more funny, be more insurrectionist meme.
	I was going with Spider-Man pointing at Spider-Man pointing at Spider-Man saying, you're FBI.
	No, you're FBI.
	It's atrocious.
	It's atrocious.
	What was the other?
	Oh, no, it leaks into January 6th.
	What you're describing, Robert, is, hey, guys, you want to go out and kidnap Whitmer?
	Not really.
	I could think of, I'd rather go fishing, but you really want to.
	And then you got, going to January 6th, you have the video.
	The revolver did an investigative piece.
	It's amazing.
	You have people.
	If I had to guess who looked like CIA or intelligence, I wouldn't know.
	But apparently the crowd did because they were literally chanting, fed, fed, fed.
	When the guy was saying, we're going to storm the Capitol.
	And the crowd says, are you, dude, that's, they use the R word, which I don't use because it's cancelable.
	They said, dude, that's R-E-T and then carry it on.
	We're not doing that.
	And he says, no, we're going to storm it peacefully.
	And then the crowd was chanting, fed, fed, fed.
	And lo and behold, I think this guy's name is Ray Epps or Ray Ebs.
	An instigator not being charged with the events of Jan 6, who by all accounts was the one leading it, literally with a bullhorn, or at least one of three bullhorns.
	That's what you got in Whitmer.
	You have literally people saying, who wants to do this?
	We have a good life.
	It's a modest life.
	We have a good life.
	We don't want to do this.
	And then they get duped into it.
	What's the protocol for that type of motion to dismiss for entrapment?
	Do they suspend the trial?
	Have separate pleadings?
	Is it written pleadings?
	How would it work?
	Well, they've already brought the motion to dismiss in the briefing, so the government will respond.
	They'll get a chance to reply.
	Presumably, there'll be an oral argument.
	If evidence is disputed, there'll be an evidentiary hearing.
	And it's up to the court.
	I mean, if the court was being conscientious about this, it would dismiss, because this is entrapment as a matter of law.
	This is also outrageous government misconduct.
	As a general rule, courts defer to juries in this context, which I don't think they should do, but it's what they do do.
	Yeah, exactly.
	That's what this whole case is.
	What we predicted from the get-go has been proven true in spades.
	And it's extraordinary.
	It's one of the worst, most egregious entrapment cases.
	And is it a coincidence that key people connected to it ended up being part of the January 6th investigation by the FBI?
	I mean, you really have to raise questions about all of this.
	And there was more transition into the January 6th case.
	Hold on a second before you get there.
	First of all, everyone out there, if I hear Robert say doo-doo, I'm making a doo-doo joke.
	And if I hear him say doo-dee, I'm still going to make a doo-dee joke.
	This is interesting.
	This is important.
	I think I might be wrong, and you might be right, Greg UW.
	You use black pill too, literally.
	Black pill means no hope, no possibility of a positive outcome in your mind, complete doom, no possibility for betterment, not something I see.
	I appreciate that, which is why I should not use black pill ever, because I don't think I have black pill in my body.
	I do think there will...
	I don't think that...
	I don't have a black pill.
	Well, even then, even then, I still have my red pill, or my white pill, which is...
	A canoe and a body of water.
	A canoe and a body of water that traverses one from tyranny to freedom.
	People have to appreciate what's going on in the Whitmer case.
	I've got to do two follow-ups this week.
	One on Project Veritas, The Judgment, and two on Whitmer now, because that's nuts.
	But it goes right into Jan 6. And the Jan 6th, you read the Revolver article.
	I think, I don't know when I did the video on that.
	I don't know what day of the week it is anymore.
	But that revolver, I mean, the magazine is described as a conservative or liberty-loving liberal magazine.
	Write it off however you want.
	Write off the hyperbole in the descriptions as, you know, who was, what they were doing versus how they were doing it.
	You can read the article and say, oh, I see bias.
	Fine.
	Facts are facts.
	And when you have multiple unindicted co-conspirators who were arguably, but not arguably, the most active, prolific, what's the word?
	Domineering actors in this play who are erased from FBI watch lists and not prosecuted.
	Robert, how do you make sense of any of it?
	Who is Ray Epps?
	Be civil guy?
	Who is the dude on the bus with the, you know, never Trump that gets pulled over the day before for firearms and weapons that we never heard of?
	How does this happen?
	What do you make of it?
	Yeah, I mean, if people had seen the first hush-hush at vivabarneslaw.locals.com, it was about this and predicted this over almost a year ago to the date.
	Which was that this had the same hallmarks as the Whitmer case, that there was some other sourcing involved or complicit parties in terms of accountability or responsibility for what occurred than what the institutional media narrative was.
	And Darren Beatty, who's the editor and founder of Revolver, along with Julie Kelly at American Greatness, have gone to great lengths to document and detail this and show this every place that they can.
	And now Darren Beatty is friends with Amanda Milius.
	The movie director, documentary director, Plot Against the President, which also helped predict some aspects of this, if you had followed it or watched it.
	A very good documentary that we recommend.
	It's not a surprise.
	They're hiding a lot of intel.
	They're hiding a lot of information.
	They're coercing pleas with...
	Barbaric conditions that people are under detention for.
	I mean, so much so that foreign governments like Russia are making fun of us for the conditions in which we've locked up people in the January 6th cases.
	As they should.
	As they should.
	Because the Jan 6th business, I will not say blackpilled now, that's a red pill.
	Because when you find out what they've been doing to those people, who they've been locking up, someone on one of the videos said, Viva, less propaganda, more facts.
	You focus too much on the grandma getting locked up.
	I think, first of all, that's a fact.
	And they locked up a literal graph, more than one.
	But, you know, the three instigators, the guy on the tower saying, move forward.
	Ray Epps, who's basically the night before doing this entire thing.
	The dude in the black shirt who's on a bus that says, stop the steal the day before.
	Dude, if there's going to be an FBI hippie bus that's undercover, it's going to look like that bus, which is a school bus spray painted with Stop the Steal, Go Trump Go, or Trump 2020, whatever it was.
	I lost my thought.
	I got a journalist who were embedded with people that seemed to know things in advance.
	Oh, yeah.
	So it's extraordinary.
	And then you have all this video footage that they're hiding.
	Just a little bit of it came out.
	It looks like, again, the people that died that day.
	Died at the hands of law enforcement.
	Not only the Ashley Babbitt case, but now it looks like someone else may have actually not died from natural causes, but from Capitol Police physically assaulting the individual.
	And that's from a Julie Kelly story that's in American Greatness this week.
	And again, you know, there's 14,000 hours of footage still unavailable to the defendants who have now been in jail now for a year, going on a year, full year.
	Without basic rights and without basic remedies available to them and being treated under barbaric, torturous conditions while they're denied access to the evidence that they need to defend themselves.
	And with more and more evidence that this was all one big entrapment plot and one big political trial.
	It's an amazing thing where it was in the...
	Oh, it actually goes back to the Let's Go Brandon dad where someone accused me of having a double standard because when Carl...
	Carlson Tucker?
	Tucker Carlson was accosted by that guy in the fishing store.
	I said, it's amazing that the internet could figure out that this guy was related to intelligence within 20 minutes.
	And then someone said, oh, Viva, you support doxing when they go after Tucker, but not when, you know, they insult the president.
	And I said, you know, first of all, what I found amazing was not that they doxed the guy, was that the aggregate knowledge of the internet could find out that this guy who accosted Tucker in a fishing shop was related to intelligence.
	And you go to the Jan 6 incident, where they have, I don't know how many tens of thousands of hours, how many thousands of hours of video footage they have, that they have not released.
	And that they have not made public.
	Because if they make it public, you would get every weaponized researcher on the internet doing what Revolver did with what they had publicly available, which is tying all of these players into actual locations, actions.
	And misconduct the day of.
	And Revolver did that despite all this stuff not being publicized.
	Despite all the video not being released.
	And if they did that, the knowledge of the internet would not dox these individuals and say where grandma worked so you can go, you know, ruin her life.
	But rather, who were the players and what are their connections?
	How and when are those videos ever going to get released?
	We don't know.
	I mean, I think they're hoping to coerce everybody into pleas so that they don't ever have to release it.
	The only people that go to trial not have the degree of sophisticated representation such that they demand it as a precondition of access to conducting a trial.
	And this all comes in the context of the January 6th committee issuing wide-ranging subpoenas for people's financial information.
	Telephone records, the records of journalists, the records of members of the press, the records of vendors, the records of people connected to the president, the records of anybody connected to nonprofits that opposed any aspect of the election.
	They're using it as a pretext to do a massive information intel gathering.
	And to such a degree that now there's, you know, I think over a dozen.
	Lawsuits have been filed challenging these subpoenas.
	And you have federal prosecutors who are former federal prosecutors who are now media legal commentators and law professors like Barb McQuaid and some others out there misstating what the law is.
	They're saying, oh, any record in the possession or custody of a third party, you have no right to privacy, no right to oppose.
	We can seize it anytime we want it for the government.
	That is not the law.
	That has never been the law.
	There is no general third-party exception universally applied.
	It's very contingent and conditional.
	And in this precise context, you have the absolute right to file.
	In fact, it's the only time you can contest a subpoena to Congress is when it is to a third party.
	Because those are your records, and you get to contest whether Congress even has the power to issue that subpoena, whether that committee has the power to do so, whether they conform to congressional rules, whether it's limited to a legislative purpose, and whether it violates other constitutional rights, because the Fourth Amendment applies to Congress just like it does every other part of government, which these people are trying to pretend it doesn't.
	But it gives you an idea of the scary scope of it.
	You have these kind of legal commentators out there saying things like, if it's at a...
	Third party's possessions, we can come seize it and steal it anytime we want.
	And that was a high-ranking national security prosecutor, now high-ranking law professor and media commentator saying this kind of dangerous stuff.
	But at least there's a massive fight back and pushback by a wide range of people whose records are being looked at.
	But the fact that it's financial records, bank records, phone records, email records, clearly they're trying to put a map together.
	Anybody who opposed the election on the grounds that...
	Anybody who opposed issues related to the election was part of the January 6th insurrection.
	And that comes into the latest coup attempt by the most corrupt elections lawyer in America, one Mark Elias, who left Perkins Co.
	under suspicious circumstances.
	Mr. Elias, who's been sanctioned for his frivolous activities in election law just within the last year, is plotting with Democrats to try to misuse the 14th Amendment.
	to keep control of the House in 2023 by expelling anybody they think was part of the insurrection under the House.
	We're going to get there in 30 seconds.
	I just want to bring this one up.
	First super chat, you two are our go-to tune-in.
	Please tell us, not viewers, how you two have started collaborating.
	Don Boniche, put in the terms Viva Fry and Barnes, and then...
	Organize it by chronological order.
	You'll see our first stream.
	It started with salmon.
	And my goodness, has it blossomed into something beautiful.
	David, you must try Viva Chicken.
	One day, my first taste of freedom will be Viva Chicken.
	There's also some sort of new drink, Viva Tequila.
	So I was like, that might be an interesting sponsor, Viva Tequila.
	I hope Mateo is not being serious here.
	You better be sarcastic, Mateo.
	Robert, when I did cut you off, it was about the congressional hearings.
	Oh, sorry.
	What they want to do with...
	Get back to the congressional thing for a second.
	This Congressional Jan 6 Committee, bipartisan being led by Dick Cheney's wife.
	His daughter.
	His daughter, sorry.
	Did Dick Cheney shoot somebody on purpose or was it an accident when he went duck hunting?
	Nobody knows.
	I think he shot him in the face.
	The guy had a Darth Vader reputation for a reason.
	Okay, so it's Liz Cheney.
	It's his daughter.
	She's the Republican on this committee.
	Robert, I know I learned from you, but then people are going to accuse me of just parroting what you're saying.
	These congressional committees, why do they exist?
	What is their purpose?
	Because...
	Some people are saying, good, the Congressional Committee should investigate wrongdoing by their political adversaries.
	But my understanding is that's never what the Congressional Committees were intended to be for.
	So what are they, history-wise, and how are they being abused?
	They're the legislative branch.
	So in the past, when they've tried to hold people in contempt and actually tried to arrest people, they were able to sue the sergeant.
	And they said the Congress members themselves were immune from suit under the Speech and Immunities Clause, but...
	Their agents were not.
	So the sergeant at arms was not immune for his false imprisonment claim because they said Congress has no contempt power.
	That's just a judicial power.
	The same is true of these subpoena powers, just a judicial and executive power.
	And I don't think they should have ever been allowed to have subpoena power, period.
	But the court said, yes, you have subpoena power for the purposes of investigating issues necessary for pending legislation.
	I always had a problem with that.
	That was an invitation to trouble.
	I mean, to the degree the legislative branch wanted to hold the executive branch accountable in some ways, frankly, that's what the impeachment power I thought was for.
	And maybe pursuant to that, you could issue subpoenas, but not just general subpoena power.
	Well, the current limitation constitutionally the courts have imposed is that it has to have a nexus to legislation.
	And also it has to be a legitimate committee.
	And here there's major problems of whether or not it's a legitimate committee.
	The nexus to legislation, where is that written?
	Where is that in the rulebook?
	So that's just the Supreme Court has said, yeah, we're going to say that Congress, as a legislative branch, has the powers of the executive and judicial branch in issuing subpoenas.
	And we're going to say that if you're the one subpoenaed, you can't even fight it in the courts like you can every other subpoena on the planet Earth.
	So, I mean, I have problems with both of those rulings, but that's what the court said.
	But then they said, but don't worry.
	We won't allow this to be abused because it can only be done for legislative purposes.
	Can't be used to target people.
	Can't be used as a bill of attainder, which is prohibited under the Constitution.
	Can't be used to punish people.
	There is no right of legislative punishment, what a bill of attainder is about.
	And so don't worry about that.
	That's the limitation.
	And most of the time, Congress actually does stick with that.
	But this committee was formed.
	Clearly not for legislative purposes.
	If it was for legislation, they would have assigned it to an existing committee.
	They created a special committee, and they didn't even abide by the terms of that committee.
	Congress voted on those terms.
	It said it had to have a certain number of minority members.
	The minority members had to be in consultation with the minority leader.
	They had to have a ranking minority member.
	It has none of those things, because Pelosi didn't want to go along with who they wanted.
	Who the Republicans wanted on the committee.
	She didn't want Jim Jordan on it or anyone else.
	And so she decided to do something that's never been done, in my knowledge, in the history of Congress, which is to completely ignore the minority party and completely ignore all the rules of the committee's own creation.
	And historically, the way that's enforceable is they don't have subpoena power then, because they're not a legitimately formed subcommittee of Congress in the way that subpoenas are issued.
	Now, whether these courts are going to care is an open question.
	I think, unfortunately, we'll see politics again come in play.
	But hopefully somebody steps into the breach at some point and puts a limit to this.
	Circus.
	Because that's increasingly what it looks like.
	And some of us said this was inevitable once the courts gave Congress his power in the first place.
	They should have dramatically limited this to impeachment only or when they're exercising judicial authority as they have limited, like in impeachment, under the Constitution to do.
	In every other context, they don't.
	And I don't think they should have ever had this authority.
	I'm going to say one thing.
	When you say doo-doo, I think of doo-doo.
	When you say duties, I think of duties.
	And when you say subpoenas...
	I think of something else.
	I hear the word in my head because I'm a sick person.
	Robert, are you involved in any of the Jan 6 litigation?
	Not yet.
	I mean, the significant problem is they have nowhere near the resources necessary to mount a competent defense.
	You're talking about 14,000 hours of video that have to be reviewed?
	Just do the math on that.
	I mean, that's seven people working full-time for a year to see it all.
	The average lawyer or legal assistant bills 2,000 hours a year.
	That's on the high side.
	A lot of them bill less than that.
	That's 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year.
	Given that, I think that's the hard part.
	What I have recommended to people is that there be some centralized amicus type that helps everybody but doesn't represent anybody.
	Once you represent one person, you're conflicted in representing a whole bunch of other people.
	So what would be easier is if there was one central place where everybody's forming templated briefs, templated motions, templated discovery requests, is reviewing all of the information and providing detailed insights about it.
	And I think that'd be a more effective way to coordinate.
	There's very few historical examples like this of a politically motivated prosecution where thousands of people are being targeted for criminal prosecution.
	That's very unusual.
	And all of them are broke, basically.
	Mimi says, thank God for you guys.
	I gotta tell you, Robert, my white pill moment was on the Jan 6th when it happened.
	And we were talking, and then we did a stream.
	I think it was the day of.
	Yeah, that night.
	Because I was in D.C. Luckily, I did not go.
	And you mentioned that we don't...
	I was invited to attend another thing by some high-ranking White House people.
	That's why we watched it all unfold on screen.
	And I'm saying, if we're black-pilled, Robert, some might say, you were invited for nefarious purposes.
	You want to know Flyless.
	Well, people might have wanted me down there for that reason.
	That's absolutely true.
	But I didn't...
	I mean, good for Alex Jones.
	He went down there to try to stop people from doing it, and yet it hasn't stopped them from harassing him and harassing people connected to him.
	I mean, Owen Schroyer's facing...
	Completely ludicrous charges related to this solely to smear Alex Jones because they know he was one of the key people that stopped it from getting bad or from getting much worse than otherwise would have.
	And then the only reason that they probably never expected that because so many people have a caricature of Alex Jones.
	They think he's the character from Homeland when he's nothing like that at all.
	And so it was probably his people that night calling out that guy as a fed.
	Calling out that guy as a fed was hilarious because this is a guy in a crowd.
	It would never be my reflex to call out somebody who's a fed.
	They did it.
	I want to bring this up because AJ Cook says, check my exclusive at National File.
	We broke the diary story too, where I published video of Sean McHugh organizing Jan 6 breach.
	In custody, but not for conspiracy.
	No MAGA connection, but has conviction for statutory.
	AJ Cook.
	Let's screenshot this.
	Boom.
	Very interesting.
	Yeah, there's a lot of, I mean, it's so, I mean, the public defenders are trying to bring in people from outside to help, you know, people, you know, there needs to be sort of one central, you know, location for a lot of this.
	Yeah, the Viking, yeah, that guy got a harsh sentence.
	And I agree that the court's eagerness, all these liberal judges in particular in D.C., their eagerness to punish these people is discouraging and deterring.
	They're the DOJ's goal of having them all plea without ever seeing discovery.
	And so the evil of the rules, by the way, in D.C. are that you're supposed to provide the discovery material in order to be able to meaningfully plea.
	But I think that's, I mean, it's incredible, the scale of what's happening.
	But that transitions into Mark Elias' idea.
	Robert, just so everybody knows what I was just doing, this is as Canadian as it gets.
	I took off my boots.
	My feet are warm enough now, so I took off my boots.
	Oh my goodness, that's what I was doing under the table.
	Sorry, Robert.
	If people want to help the Jan 6, I'm almost reluctant to ask the question because it's asking how they can help.
	I don't know of one right now.
	I know Matt Brainerd was doing some stuff.
	I know Julie Kelly was trying to do some stuff.
	I know some other people were trying, but I don't know of one right now.
	That has what I'm talking about.
	And I've been focused on the vaccine cases, so that's consumed most of my spare time.
	People have reached out to me on January 6th.
	The problem with representing any one individual is that can create conflicts where you can't represent anyone else.
	And it's clear that the people that are reaching out, the cost of doing this kind of defense is frankly very, very high if it's going to be competent.
	So that's the problem.
	There's no way any of them have the means to it.
	So I'm trying to figure out some alternative solution that could meet everybody's concerns.
	So we'll see.
	I know John Pierce is representing some people.
	I have no confidence in John Pierce still.
	That hasn't changed any.
	But it does...
	You see the political nature of it and what's happening with the committee and what's happening with the grand jury and what's happening with these criminal cases and what's happening with how they're being treated in jail in that you have a guy like Mark Elias using it as a pure pretext to try to seize control of Congress, saying they're going to accuse random Republicans or whatever Republicans they want of being insurrectionists or of aiding and abetting an insurrection and invoke the 14th Amendment to prohibit them from sitting in Congress.
	I try not to get blackpilled, but this is where I might get blackpilled when I see people trying to do this.
	But I want to bring this one up.
	Theo Faster says, I have zero sympathy for a Jan 6 rioter, but a grandma taking pictures with a flip phone and walking quietly through the Capitol?
	Well, Theo Faster's 3.0.
	Then you do have sympathy for a Jan 6 rioter because a Jan 6 rioter.
	But Robert, so Mark Elias now is basically trying to say, Any politician who doesn't do what we say they have to do about this, decry it, dissociate from it, condemn it, lock them up.
	If you oppose us trying to bring down the hammer of the law, you're one of them.
	How is this not McCarthyism?
	How is this not McCarthyism in real time?
	No doubt.
	It shows where the left is that they only care about power, that they're embracing this idea.
	Outside of the...
	Civil War context, the only other time this has been invoked was to target critics of war, people that were wrongfully convicted under the Espionage Act because of its misapplication.
	I mean, it was used to lock up Eugene V. Debs, for crying out loud, just for opposing World War I, another one of the wars we entered based on lies.
	But so it's a bad idea in the first place.
	But I mean, although what the 14th Amendment said is under Section 3 that somebody that had joined the insurrection Or rebellion could not have a position of power unless two-thirds of Congress said they could.
	That's all that, it was clearly applicable to a very limited historical context.
	And the idea that, and in fact, at the time, the Supreme Court, in a circuit opinion, not a binding opinion, because back then individual justices rode circuit, so they would issue solo opinions.
	But it was the Chief Justice, Samuel Chase.
	Said that this was not a self-enforcing provision and said, in fact, so the only clear law on this says that you have to have been criminally convicted of rebellion or insurrection.
	And even then, you have additional due process rights before you can be removed or denied office.
	That was a case, you can imagine the implications of what happened was, after the Civil War, you had states that didn't have functional governments to a certain degree.
	To what degree the governments existed, you had Confederate officials.
	So you had a bunch of people that got convicted of crimes.
	And some smart lawyer said, you know what?
	That judge who convicted us was part of the Confederacy.
	And under the 14th Amendment, they don't have the power of office anymore.
	So they brought habeas petitions and said, all our convictions are invalid because that guy was part of the Confederacy.
	And the 14th Amendment, when he made his ruling, he was one of those disbarred officials, if you will.
	And they, of course, for practical reasons, there was no way the U.S. Supreme Court was going to go along with that because they weren't going to free every criminal who got jailed from 1866 to 1868.
	And so Justice Chase came in and said, no, no, no, that isn't what that means.
	That's not a self-executing, self-enforcing provision.
	Somebody has to be criminally convicted of rebellion or insurrection first, and even then they have to do process.
	A legislature by itself couldn't even do this, so on and so forth.
	So that's the only case law that's out there.
	And it totally rebuts everything Mark Elias and Harry Litman and some of these other lefty lawyers are out there saying, oh, we can just by a majority vote say that anybody we don't like that we're going to accuse of aiding and abetting the insurrection can't sit in the House.
	And this has also been litigated in a second context, which is it was originally, by the way, it was writs of quo were run to.
	I can't, you know, it's like W-A-R-R-A-N-T-O.
	It's a little tongue twister, which people were actually asking about that in the elections contest, but that's tough to get in ways people thought or more or less not as achievable as people thought.
	But there were special laws written to try to deal with this after the Civil War and to deal with the issues raised by the Supreme Court justice.
	The other context in which this arose was Adam Clayton Powell.
	They tried to get around expelling him because the House agreed that they could only expel somebody for something they did while they were a member of the House, not for something before they were a member of the House.
	So they decided, well, we can just not cede him.
	We can exclude him.
	The power of exclusion rather than the power of expulsion.
	U.S. Supreme Court said you can only exclude someone for the limited listed grounds of qualifications in the Constitution, aid, citizenship, residency, etc.
	Arguably, this Section 3 doesn't apply to that.
	That Section 3 would be grounds for expulsion, and what's important about that is that requires two-thirds vote.
	What Mark Elias is trying to do is misapply the Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
	So by mere majority vote, they can exclude anyone they don't like and claim they were aiding and abating an insurrection.
	It's utterly unconstitutional what he's talking about, but it shows how dangerous he and Democratic lawyers are if they ever get control and power.
	By the way, you're on mute.
	Yeah, because I had to cough and I don't want to start rumors.
	Although I may have to pee and start another rumor.
	But Robert, so someone had said, why Trump hasn't spent a penny on helping these people?
	And I brought this up because I think this is a very on-point answer.
	Andrew, Trump can't give the money because he would be aiding and abetting if they charge anyone with insurrection and that will preclude him from running.
	They would have to convict and impeach, which they failed to do.
	And I don't think that's why he's not.
	He doesn't want to be associated with them, period.
	And even though he's going to do a speech apparently on January 6th, he wants to keep the election issues alive but not be connected to the January 6th.
	Occasionally he has said he's spoken out for them, but it's just been very, very okay.
	He clearly isn't going to lift more than a finger for it.
	He's busy on his old man's tour with Bill O 'Reilly praising vaccines at the moment.
	He sounds like a guy that needs to check into a nursing home rather than run for president again.
	You're going to make me pee in my pants because I have to go to the bathroom.
	I'm going to ask this question.
	I'm going to run to the bathroom, take myself out, and then it'll be no more than two minutes.
	Robert, people are wondering.
	Is Trump going to run in 2024?
	Is DeSantis going to run?
	Is there going to be a battle between the two?
	Or is there going to be a reconciliation and an assistance between the two?
	I'm going to take myself out.
	Please carry me over the amount of time it takes me to get to the bathroom and back.
	Go for it.
	So to sum up the exclusion-expulsion grounds, they need two-thirds.
	They only need a majority to exclude.
	They need two-thirds to expel.
	The U.S. Supreme Court made clear they couldn't abuse their expulsion power by redisguising it as exclusionary power.
	And so the 14th Amendment, Section 3, likely requires that they expel, which means they need more than two-thirds votes.
	They're not going to get that.
	That's issue one.
	Issue two is that the grounds for expulsion, according to the only law on the issue, the Supreme Court justice, while it isn't binding, it's clearly persuasive precedent, which is that they need to be criminally convicted of insurrection or rebellion first before they can even be removed from office on those grounds.
	And even then, there'd be a separate due process proceeding that likely needs to involve the executive and judicial branch, which is not available.
	That's not what...
	Mark Elias is discussing.
	And so that 14th Amendment stuff is a bunch of gibberish and a pipe dream.
	That's not going to get anywhere, in my view.
	It's just one last-ditch effort to try to salvage 2022 on the grounds of using the January 6th proceedings as the political cover to do so.
	And so they still want to go after Trump, but they're looking now not at...
	That is the focus to go after Trump.
	But instead, the New York Attorney General and the Southern District of New York and the Manhattan DA, that's Trump's greatest exposure point.
	It's no longer January 6th, legally.
	Politically, his greatest exposure point is in his interview with Candace Owens.
	He voiced a lot of opinions that are not popular with parts of his base.
	He came up with kind of a pitiful excuse for why he didn't pardon Julian Assange and why he didn't pardon or help out Edward Snowden.
	He also didn't really explain why he failed to declassify a bunch of materials, not only concerning the JFK assassination, but just concerning his own Spygate investigation that he had promised to do.
	He kind of gave a weak answer.
	And then he was under the impression about things related to the vaccine that are very much in dispute, and he appeared to be unaware that such information even existed.
	What Candace Owens said later was she said that she thinks today Trump gets all of his information from mainstream media, that he pays no attention to independent media at all, including even places like The Daily Wire and Breitbart, and that he really believes a lot of things based on because the only thing he's digesting on a daily basis.
	Other than Fox, you know, Fox you could maybe say is outside the establishment, but if it's not on Fox, Donald Trump doesn't know it exists.
	Or if it's because he's reading the New York Times, I mean, that's where he's at.
	And I think that politically showed, a lot of people were shocked by the Candace Owens interview because it showed what some of us have been warning about.
	That Trump is completely disconnected politically from his own base.
	That that's what not being on social media has reinforced for Trump.
	The best thing for Trump on social media was not his voice on social media.
	It was him hearing from his base on social media.
	He doesn't hear from them anymore.
	He's locked away down there in his beautiful place down there in Florida.
	But you don't get connected to ordinary people that way.
	He gets some pushback on his old man Bill O 'Reilly tour.
	I mean, you couldn't ask for a more senior citizens tour.
	God bless.
	So it's not a surprise he's out there saying crypto is dangerous and bad.
	It's like, okay, this really sounds like Grandpa, get off my lawn.
	It's not the kind of Trump that people say, well, I can't wait for him to run in 2024.
	It's almost reminiscent of Hillary Clinton.
	And when you are remotely associated with Hillary Clinton, that's a bad place to be.
	Oh, you know what, Robert?
	And I'm going to go back and watch what you said.
	I think I heard it from where I was.
	Does Hillary Clinton run again in 2024?
	I mean, there's rumors of it, but I can't imagine that.
	I mean, it shows you the lack of base, the lack of...
	Backup, lack of a bench that Democrats have, which is partially due to the Clinton Foundation taking out potential competitors.
	But I think these January 6th cases are so heavily political, but they transition into the really big political cases coming up next week.
	Is it next week?
	Yeah, I guess.
	Or January 7th, which maybe that's another Monday away.
	Basically, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided they're going to hear all the Biden vaccine mandate cases at one time, and they're going to hear the Medicare mandate case and the OSHA mandate case, but from multiple parties.
	So I think they've set aside two hours for oral argument.
	My prediction is still that it's going to be 5-4, 6-3 to strike down Biden mandates.
	Biden seems to be implicitly admitting this himself.
	And before he took off for Delaware for New Year's, basically he said, hey, the federal government can't control this stuff, anybody.
	That's up to the states.
	That's kind of a giveaway that even he knows he's going to lose on his mandates before the U.S. Supreme Court.
	But the big argument is January 7th, and if they affirm those mandates, then all the mandates are going to probably get upheld.
	If they shoot down those mandates, then it's probably a crack in the dam that floods and affects all the other mandates.
	So the legal issues don't require that they rule on all the mandate issues.
	Okay, so the broadest of the questions is, does Biden have the power to do it nationally, federally?
	And they're going to hear that on merits.
	Was this an appropriate use of executive authority?
	Do you have to comply with the Administrative Procedures Act?
	Do you have to comply with other federal laws that govern and restrict how these rules are implemented and administered?
	And even if you do have all of that, does the Commerce Clause, the non-delegation doctrine, other things, do they give the federal government this power at all?
	If the court had courage and conscience, it would say the federal government has no power to mandate vaccines.
	Period.
	End of story.
	That even Congress doesn't have that authority.
	I don't know if they'll have that degree of courage.
	I think they'll say the Biden administration did not have the authority under the statutes available to them to implement these vaccines.
	But they understand they need to deal with these issues broadly because there's the Medicare mandate vaccine, the OSHA mandate vaccine, the mandated vaccine, the federal contractor mandated vaccine, and the Head Start mandated vaccine.
	And what's interesting is the Head Start vaccine mandate, I believe, has already been enjoined.
	The federal contractor mandate has already been stopped by federal courts nationwide.
	The Medicare mandate has been stopped in half the states.
	The only one that's currently in force is the OSHA mandate.
	Even though of the judges to discuss it, 20 of the 25 judges who looked at it said that this shouldn't be allowed to be law.
	But it's by the weird coincidence of which panel happened to get it that it's even law.
	And rather than go back en banc to the Sixth Circuit, they want the U.S. Supreme, everybody involved said, screw this.
	Let's go right up to the Supremes.
	We need a nationwide ruling.
	And what we predicted was that they would take this.
	That they would need to take this, and they did.
	And the thing is, they're going to take it, it's going to be, what, three hours?
	It's not going to be like...
	Days or weeks.
	Two hours of oral argument.
	All the briefing will have been done this week.
	All the final briefing that's in, there's amicus briefs.
	There's tons of parties from all over the place.
	You've got hundreds of briefs that are being filed.
	This will consume the court's time for the next two weeks.
	And the big question, I think Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas will definitely say Biden does not have this power.
	I think Kavanaugh will agree with him.
	So the only open question is Barrett and Roberts.
	And I think both of them may actually say the Biden administration doesn't have this power.
	I think at least one of them.
	Okay.
	And by the way, when I said, I won't say the letters again, but I think my phone thought I was talking to it and I missed what you said, but I think I made up what you said.
	James says, what about his family?
	They are all on social media.
	I don't know what you're talking about, James, but I don't want to ignore the chat.
	Thank you very much.
	But Robert, okay, we're an hour and a half in and we haven't even gotten to the headliner.
	You might mean Let's Go Brandon.
	The Let's Go Brandon guy was all over social media.
	Oh yeah, well that's...
	But there's an issue there about whether or not the information is out there versus whether or not it gets amplified by people with millions.
	And what makes it newsworthy?
	Does it make it newsworthy that how many kids he has?
	What his kids' names are, is that really newsworthy?
	It doesn't strike me as newsworthy.
	If he was a politician, maybe I could kind of see it, but I just don't see how it was newsworthy.
	I mean, the same media that said Ashley Biden's diary is not newsworthy is saying that let's go brand him.
	Brandon Guy, where he works, is newsworthy?
	I don't quite see that.
	We'll see.
	They're going to unanimously uphold.
	The next election will be fortified differently.
	Memento more.
	That would be a black pill mindset.
	You can predict this by how many lower courts have been involved.
	The Court of Public Opinion matters, and the other courts matter.
	And if you're Barrett, if you're Kavanaugh...
	If you're Roberts, you've seen 20 of the 25 conservative judges look at this and say there's no way this passes any level of scrutiny.
	And so are you really going to go up against all of them?
	Are two of those three going to say all of the conservative legal academy is wrong?
	Especially Roberts, who said he's wanted to undermine and want to limit Commerce Clause power.
	This is the best case to do that.
	Barrett values the perception she has.
	She likes people to believe that she's a female Scalia.
	Does she want to completely gut that?
	It's one thing to be for vaccines.
	One thing to be for vaccine mandates.
	It's another thing to say the Biden administration has this authority.
	So I think there's very few conservative judges who've gone along with that.
	Very few.
	Now, one of them happened to be on the Sixth Circuit panel.
	But otherwise, and these judges don't come from that background.
	So there are judges to worry about in the vaccine mandate in general, but not to worry about, I don't think, on religious objections.
	I think both Barrett and Kavanaugh will come around.
	They'll say that you have to accommodate religious objections in the vaccine context.
	I'm banking on that heavily in a lot of ways.
	And so my money's where my mouth is already.
	But I think the same will be of, I think the OSHA mandate and the Medicare mandate, the Head Start mandate, the federal contractor mandate will all be struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.
	All right, man.
	Fingers crossed.
	I'm looking at the ring lighting thing.
	It's a camera.
	From your mouth to God's ears, Robert.
	And if anyone sees what I'm doing here, I'm not stroking myself.
	I'm stroking what is keeping my groin warm, which is almost just as bad.
	But Robert, we're an hour and a half in.
	We haven't gotten to the headlining stories.
	Kim Potter.
	Let's talk about Kim Potter, speaking of black pill moments.
	So I remember where I was, exactly where I was, when Rittenhouse was acquitted.
	I was on the stream with Nick Ricada and the invoice, but I remember where I was at a store, which maybe one day I'll talk about.
	I remember where I was when Kim Potter was convicted, and I felt genuinely sad.
	And genuinely sad not because I feel...
	Not because I have no remorse for Daunte Wright.
	Not because I don't feel...
	You play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.
	I said the same thing for Ashley Babbitt.
	Circumstances totally different.
	But Kim Potter was convicted.
	And you're going to have to explain this to people because I've had my troubles understanding it.
	She was convicted under first-degree manslaughter and second-degree manslaughter.
	And the question is this.
	I mean, under Minnesota law, what does manslaughter mean?
	Because my understanding is that it implies recklessness and not negligence.
	Constitutionally, it has to.
	Okay.
	Explain to the world why this is...
	I know how you feel about the decision, so explain how you feel, but then explain why this verdict is bad.
	No other word.
	I mean, I think it's problematic in the sense that the state is trying to loosen the mental state required, the mens rea is what it's called in the law.
	To convict people of serious crimes.
	Because the serious crime, you can do, you know, the average sentence she would do is seven years.
	The state has already said they're going to seek double-digit years for her to make an example out of her.
	And so the concern is that what happens when they lower the legal standard that you can be held responsible for serious crime where you didn't intend the outcome.
	You didn't even know of the possibility of the outcome.
	Because that's what a just a strict liability.
	Or negligence standard would be.
	And the reason why we've always required recklessness or higher is because we say that there's a right of due process implicit, is that you will not be criminally punished in America unless you intend a very dangerous and scary outcome.
	So that's typically what, in the homicide context, that's what we require.
	So criminal recklessness is, I know there's a high risk of death here, and I did it anyway.
	I may not have intended the death to occur, but that's the traditional historical definition of recklessness.
	Now, this judge played loose with it, allowed the prosecution basically in rebuttal to kind of argue that negligence was recklessness.
	I mean, their whole argument was always simple.
	Their argument was, she pulled a taser.
	She pulled a gun when she said she pulled a taser, hence she's responsible.
	If she had pulled a taser, the person doesn't die.
	The counter to that by the defense was, One, she was legally entitled to pull a gun.
	So the fact that she tried to use less force shouldn't be used against her.
	And by the way, so no one accuses me of strawmanning.
	That was not admitted evidence.
	That was an argument by the defense.
	The prosecution would deny that.
	They would say she did not have the right to pull the gun anyhow.
	There was no risk of imminent harm to the other officers.
	They didn't really establish that, I didn't think.
	I mean, the expert testimony and the testimony of the government's own witnesses, the other cops, was that she absolutely had the right to use deadly force.
	They really focused on, she said she was going to use a taser, so the fact that she didn't mean she's responsible for the death, even if she was legally entitled to use the gun.
	They never, I mean, they didn't really flesh that out so much, as far as I could tell.
	They decided to make it simple.
	A taser was supposed to be used, wasn't used.
	She said she called it, she didn't.
	Guilty.
	End of story.
	Whereas the defense was she could use a gun.
	So if she could use a gun, she could use a taser.
	And number one, number two, it wasn't criminal recklessness that she used a gun instead of a taser.
	That was their bifurcated defense.
	The argument is that she pulled the gun so it was reckless to have pulled the gun instead of the taser.
	The argument is that she didn't know she pulled the gun.
	She thought she pulled the taser.
	That's why she said taser, taser, taser.
	Then the flip side argument is...
	It was recklessly negligent to have accidentally pulled the wrong firearm.
	And that's why I have the issue.
	It was a bona fide mistake.
	And then negligence versus reckless, which would be like, I know I'm pulling a gun and what happens is on me versus I genuinely thought I was pulling a taser and what happens is beyond my control because I made a bona fide, genuine mistake that nobody contradicts.
	And that's the issue.
	There's a dog here.
	It's everywhere because I'm petting the dog.
	How do you get...
	My understanding is that everyone understands this to be negligence versus recklessness, and nobody understands the difference.
	Yeah, I mean, I think...
	Including the jury.
	Yeah, I mean, my view is, given the speed with which they convicted on the first manslaughter, we found out later that they had convicted on the lower-level manslaughter very early on, and the only debate was the top manslaughter count.
	It suggests that what we talked about prior to trial, the open question is, could you get an impartial jury in the Twin Cities?
	And I had doubts that you could because of how the Chauvin trial went.
	Not just how it went, but how the jury determined it.
	The complete lack of meaningful jury deliberation, given the serious legal and evidentiary questions that were raised in that very long trial.
	When you come back that fast, it's a sign that you had convicted him when you sat down.
	And it appears that's exactly what happened with Potter.
	They had convicted her of something by the time they sat down in that jury room.
	And no matter how weak the prosecution, no matter how strong and robust the defense, No matter how much better the defense experts were, it didn't matter.
	And it's something that I've hammered home to people forever, but not enough lawyers take it to heart, which is, you know, what matters the most is who you pick in the jury.
	And what you don't want to be is in the middle of the Rittenhouse case and beg for a new trial when they've already acquitted you or the five charges because you don't have a clue who's on that jury.
	I would have jumped on that if I were prosecution in a heartbeat.
	But I want to bring up Machiavelli too, because I don't know if this is a defense or an attack, but it doesn't really matter.
	I think it's more of a defense for her.
	She's right-handed, though, and her weapon is on the right side.
	So I don't know if that means policy or whatever, like you're supposed to have the less lethal weapon on your less dominant hand.
	I don't care.
	I saw those two weapons.
	When people say, well, one weapon, the taser weighs a pound, and a fully loaded Glock with 17 rounds weighs two pounds, and one is yellow, but one is black, you know, as far as I'm concerned, irrelevant.
	When you are in the heat of an altercation of resisting arrest and people's lives are on the line, you peddle confusion, to use Nate Brody's analogy?
	I don't care that one weighs one pound.
	We're not talking 10 pounds versus one pound.
	We're talking one pound versus two pounds.
	We're talking yellow versus red, black, where by the time you notice the color, it's been fired.
	So, I'm going to take it off, but the question is this, like, how did anyone think that to say that it was reckless implies the knowledge of the risk?
	Am I wrong in that?
	Yeah, no.
	I mean, I don't think they thought it through beyond...
	You know, she's a cop.
	She shot a black defendant who was unarmed at the time and said it was a taser.
	End of story.
	I don't think they thought it through any longer than that.
	Because, I mean, almost everybody that reviewed the trial thought that the prosecution was weak and the defense was strong.
	They had made criticisms on one side or the other at different points, but that was pretty much, even from, like, liberal media lawyers on...
	Law and Crime Network, Court TV, other places.
	I caught bits and pieces from everybody.
	And everybody except liberal, hardcore liberals, were saying not guilty.
	And had problems with it.
	And this just shows you how none of that mattered.
	I believe that if they had meaningfully polled the Twin Cities, they would have found, especially after Chauvin.
	I mean, all the other Chauvin defendants, co-defendants.
	Between this trial and the Chauvin trial, they should poll again, and my guess they'll find is that they can actually find an impartial jury somewhere in Minnesota.
	It just ain't anywhere in the Twin Cities.
	What actually happened with the other Chauvin co-defendants?
	They're waiting for jury trial for this summer, I believe.
	Unbelievable.
	I mean, it's just lynching juries in the Twin Cities.
	They're proud liberal lynching juries.
	Lynching juries are always proud.
	People have this myth that they felt guilty or they didn't know what they were doing.
	No, they weren't ashamed.
	Then to kill a mockingbird type cases that happened in the South, they went out and celebrated afterwards.
	They were proud.
	I mean, that's why the people are smiling at public lynchings.
	These people thought they did God's work lynching this woman who had zero complaints against her until this incident.
	And because she tried to use lesser force against a dangerous criminal who was endangering the lives of Other officers and other people.
	She's now looking at 10 plus years in state prison.
	This is...
	Look, I'm not going back to the pill.
	And by the way, wasn't even allowed bail to go home for Christmas Eve and come back after Christmas.
	So I don't want to use the pills again.
	I'm going to stop using the analogies.
	That's where I got a little nauseated.
	It's not just that the jury came back with what I thought was a wrong decision.
	Fine.
	I'm not on the jury.
	They wanted to get home for Christmas Eve, so they just made sure they came back with that verdict, the hangar.
	I brought up a chat earlier that said apparently someone on the jury was crying when they read the verdict, so maybe that was the coward who caved.
	I don't know.
	Not going to judge.
	A lot of them are.
	I have no problem judging.
	I'm the biggest believer in jury trials in the world, but I'm not one of those people that says, oh, you did a great job, jury.
	Every time they come back.
	That's where I'm going to get to the judge.
	You get the judge, the soft-spoken judge, soft, soothing, ASMR-speaking judge who refers to them as heroes.
	So, you know what?
	The problem is this.
	That, to me, reads as an affirmation by the judge of the decision.
	And if I want to look at a judge, she might be doing the sentencing.
	I don't want the judge affirming the decision.
	I want the judge neutrally assessing the decision.
	Or how about this, ignoring it?
	You did your job.
	Thank you very much.
	Go home.
	You're heroes?
	You're heroes for convicting her?
	What does that empower the judge to do?
	Robert, does the judge sentence?
	Yes, yeah, this judge will determine the sentencing.
	And, I mean, the idea that she couldn't extend bail, through Christmas at least, that's just not, that was hogwash.
	It shows how political it was.
	She was like, oh, I'm not going to do anything different.
	Because the prosecutor said, don't treat this like any other case.
	Name the other case that this compares to.
	Name the cop that's been on the patrol for 20 plus years, never committed a single violation or lead to a single complaint who's been criminally prosecuted for this kind of case.
	This kind of case wouldn't be prosecuted in 90% of America.
	The only thing I would criticize the defense for is not being more aggressive.
	And when you have a political case like this, there's a tendency defense lawyers to want to not talk about the elephant in the room.
	You have to force it right onto the bench because it's your only shot.
	Because the predilection of the judge in a political case like this is to show how strong you are and how impartial you are by hammering the authorities and so on and so forth.
	You have to push back against that or your client's going to get hammered.
	But it was particularly brutal.
	That they came back and she was sent to custody on Christmas Eve.
	People have to appreciate that.
	The judge doesn't just say thank you for your verdict.
	You are heroes.
	She refers to the jury that just convicted this woman as heroes.
	And then the defense moves to have her released on bail pending the sentencing and their appeal.
	They have a robust appeal.
	You'll get into the robust appeal in a second.
	But you have the judge who's in charge of sentencing referring to the convicting jury as heroes.
	What does any reasonable person think that means for sentencing?
	She'll go high is my prediction.
	She'll go over to seven years normal.
	That pissed me.
	That made me nauseous.
	I don't use the word circle jerk often.
	I'm going to use it now.
	That was like, hey, jury, thanks for giving me what I need.
	You're heroes.
	And I'm going to roast this person.
	And then the defense says, let her go.
	She's got a $100,000 bail.
	She's got family in Minnesota.
	She's not a flight risk.
	She's not going anywhere.
	And let her go home for Christmas.
	And the judge says, I can't treat this case any differently than any other case.
	When what she's basically saying is, I'm going to treat this case differently than every other case.
	What are the criteria for allowing a convicted criminal to go home?
	I appreciate it.
	It used to be much more robust because you have a right of appeal.
	It used to be if you have good legal arguments on appeal that you would be granted bail pending appeal when she's not a flight risk.
	And that's it.
	Because the only interest they have in you serving your punishment in bail is securing, making sure you ultimately serve the punishment, the sentence given out.
	The problem is there's a substantial risk when there's an appeal that someone will be punished who is later found not guilty on appeal for whatever reason.
	The sentence is set aside.
	So the way that's supposed to be balanced is in favor of individual liberty.
	Unless the person's a serious risk of flight.
	At this point, you can sometimes consider a threat to the community.
	I've always had a problem with that.
	Post-conviction, there's more grounds for that.
	But I'm still not in favor of that because that opens up a can of worms.
	But he was not a threat to the community, and that was acknowledged.
	So here you had someone that was solely...
	There was no risk of flight.
	It was solely, hey, when someone's convicted in other cases...
	We routinely deny them bail because we've become customary to it.
	And without, you know what word did not come out of the judge's mouth?
	The Constitution.
	Not even a reference to it.
	And that's the problem.
	I mean, I've actually, I had a federal judge look at me when I raised the constitutional objections of the Constitution.
	I was like, am I in federal court or not?
	Yes, the Constitution.
	That's what, what do you think the Eighth Amendment says?
	And yet that's where we're at in this country, that since the Bail Reform Act of 1986.
	In a lot of state analog versions, courts have grown accustomed to denying people bail.
	Now, we've had other bail reform acts that maybe were too liberal in who they released, but I'm on that side, even though my conservative friends are not.
	I'm going to side with individual liberty, even at the expense or risk of the public good, because I think the better public good is individual liberty in the end.
	But that's not a consistent...
	But the left, where's the left here?
	Like, the left complains about misuse and abuse of bail.
	This is an example of misuse and abuse of bail as punishment, as disguise punishment.
	I mean, I've been critical of the Glenn Maxwell bail conditions because they're punishment in disguise.
	People can't convince me they're anything more than that and anything other than that, and that's not allowed until she's been criminally convicted, constitutionally.
	And I have, well, so the issue is going to be not allowed until she's been, or they have been criminally convicted, and then Kim Potter's been criminally convicted, so why let her out?
	Because she has a right of appeal and that conviction may be set aside.
	So unless she's of danger to the, imminent danger to the community or imminent risk of flight that cannot be protected against without conditions of release, and clearly she's not at risk of either one of those things.
	So the, I mean, if she was going to flee, she would have fled a long time ago.
	So, you know, this is a lifelong member of the community.
	Now the question will be, will the police union that paid for her defense also pay for her appeal?
	They refuse to do so in the case of Derek Chauvin.
	She may be a little different.
	So maybe they will in her case, but otherwise she has problems of mounting the legal defense on appeal because she doesn't have the means to raise money for herself.
	If the union won't pay it, she doesn't have it, I don't think, herself.
	And on top of that, she'll be in custody this whole time.
	And probably in isolation because of her being a former police officer.
	When do we find that out?
	How do we find out whether or not she has the means to pay?
	If she asks to go in some form of ask for a public defender or someone else to be appointed for because she doesn't have the means to pay, that would be the sign of that.
	And it's not as clear she can get that on appeal in Minnesota.
	At least I know Chauvin looked like he was not able to.
	So now they've disputed whether or not he really had the means is my recollection.
	And in fairness to Chauvin, Chauvin's was a...
	If there's political hot potatoes, Chauvin's was more of a political hot potato than Potter.
	And Chauvin didn't have a lot of support within the police, or not nearly as much as she did.
	She was a former police union personnel leader and so forth.
	So I just want to bring this up.
	If she needs it, I'm willing to donate.
	If she needs it and we find out, we will make it loud and clear, known to everybody.
	I think she has a very robust appeal because the trial, as was pointed out repeatedly by Andrew Branca, Law of Self-Defense, The judge repeatedly refused to define clearly for the jury what recklessness meant criminally.
	And that, I think, did open up the door for reversal.
	And remember, there's already been a reversal in a prior police shooting case in Minnesota by the Minnesota Supreme Court on correlated kind of issues.
	Chauvin has some of those same issues, and she does too, because they refused to, they were more committed to getting a conviction.
	Then they were clearly defining the law in a limited constitutional way.
	Some say that they were using these cases to expand and loosen the law so that the state has more power rather than less, and that makes it particularly concerning for everybody, beyond just Kim Potter.
	All right, well, we're going to see where that goes.
	When the sentencing, I think they scheduled it for...
	Like March, right?
	I believe so, because they wanted time to do all the briefing because the state wants to do aggravating factors, the defense wants to do departing factors.
	But there's already political pressure on this judge to go high.
	And given her refusal to define recklessness, given her praise of the jury, given her imprisonment on Christmas Eve, that's not the sign of a judge.
	I don't think any judge has the political courage in the Twin Cities to stand up against the current political environment.
	I don't care about Christmas per se, but the idea that this individual, 26 years on the force, not a blemish on her record, was by all accounts defending her brethren, made a bona fide mistake, even if you thought it was negligent, whatever.
	No, you would not put her out on bail where she has no chance of fleeing any more than she did pending the trial.
	But no, can't do that for the next three months.
	Stick her straight in jail.
	No goodnight, no hug to her husband.
	It's terrible.
	I mean, in federal court, repeatedly, after conviction, your bail terms are continued until sentencing.
	And even then, you're allowed to self-report frequently.
	So the idea that this is unheard of is simply not the case.
	Maybe in Minnesota, they've grown accustomed to denying people bail pending appeal, but that's not the custom across the country, nor is it what should be the custom constitutionally.
	I mean, there's Supreme Court justices that have required bail for people that were convicted of foreign arms dealing.
	I mean, you know, I mean, I mean, and with connections around the world where we're not even U.S. citizens, the kind of people who are high risk flight risk.
	And the people like Justices Black and Douglas demanded their release pending trial.
	So because that was back when we cared about the Eighth Amendment.
	We just don't care about much these days.
	And liberals are temporary, you know, only care about it when it serves their...
	Their political interest.
	When it doesn't, they're suddenly mute about it.
	Oh, well, I guess the other pending trial.
	I mean, Ghislaine Maxwell is still deliberate.
	Kim Potter goes to verdict almost right away.
	And in my view, the wrong verdict.
	It's like Kim Potter's the one.
	There's three women up for trial at the same time.
	Kim Potter, Elizabeth Holmes, and Ghislaine Maxwell.
	And Potter's the one you rush to convict on?
	Not Ghislaine Maxwell?
	Not Elizabeth Holmes?
	What does that tell you about where juries are these days in America?
	Ghislaine Maxwell is still up in the air, right?
	There's been nothing...
	Same with Elizabeth Holmes!
	I mean, they've been going four days, five days, however many days it is.
	Galene Maxwell trial, they demanded a bunch more evidence today, demanded more clarity on certain issues.
	In Elizabeth Holmes' case, they've demanded certain things be read back to them.
	So there's clearly split juries in both of these cases.
	And the only question is, which way is it?
	Is it 10-2-11-1 conviction?
	Is it 10-2-11-1 acquittal?
	Is it 6-6?
	We don't know, but the nature of the questions and the length of deliberations would strongly suggest that there's at least a few people on there who think Elizabeth Holmes is not guilty and who think Elaine Maxwell is not guilty.
	It's probably the same kind of juror who would have said guilty in the case of Kim Potter.
	I say this not as a joke.
	I say this because The Simpsons has been a very accurate predictor of the future and very informative to me.
	When Homer was on the jury and they said...
	If you can't come to a verdict, you get to stay at a hotel and you get dinner.
	It's like, I get a free meal and a free hotel?
	Is there any distinction between the conditions for Kim Potter, the conditions for Ghislaine Maxwell, and the conditions for the jury for Elizabeth Holmes that might make it less unpleasant to deliberate for an extended period of time?
	Is there anything?
	Nothing that we know.
	Not that I know of.
	I think in the Potter case, I think they were sequestered once it was jury deliberation time.
	So that can often accelerate jury decision-making because most jurors don't like that, other than you're Mr. Simpson.
	Homer also famously said he always got off jury duty just by saying he hates all people of all other races.
	Pretend you're prejudiced against all races.
	I mean, it's a great way to do it.
	Oh, man.
	Okay, so Potter, we feel the same way.
	I don't know of one lawyer, one of the lawyers in the YouTube lawyer community, who agrees with the verdict.
	I know of some prominent liberal lawyers, but not within the...
	YouTube, or ULaw, or LawTube, whatever it's called these days, community.
	I didn't know anybody within that community, not Nate or other people, who thought that Kim Potter was guilty.
	But there were prominent liberal lawyers in the media who thought Kim Potter was guilty.
	But even there, there was a split.
	About half of them thought not guilty, half thought guilty.
	So that gives you an idea for how bad that jury poll is.
	And that case is a real classic example that if you had no political prejudice coming in and watched the jury, you would watch the trial, most people would have guessed not guilty.
	And would have voted not guilty.
	And it's just a reminder that jurors carry their baggage with them into that jury room.
	And they make decisions with or without you, regardless of evidence.
	A lot of it's theater.
	And that's unfortunately been reinforced, and frankly reinforced now in the Elizabeth Holmes and Ghislaine Maxwell trial.
	Because I think both of these were straightforward convictions based on the evidence presented.
	Ghislaine Maxwell, they took unnecessary.
	If Maureen Comey...
	The only upside to Glenn Maxwell getting acquitted was it should be the end of Maureen Comey's career, because they deliberately chose to dramatically limit the amount of evidence presented, and we're now witnessing the negative effects of that.
	I don't think ultimately it will result in anything but some form of convictions, maybe split verdicts, but some form of convictions.
	Also, Glenn Maxwell still faces perjury trial, so it's not clear she would either get out or...
	But the sentencing risk would go way down on the perjury charges compared to what she faces on these.
	And it would be maybe the most embarrassing verdict in a high-profile case, since a case that I've done, for the U.S. Justice Department, because O.J. was a state prosecution.
	I don't know of a higher-profile loss than losing this at the U.S. federal level or losing the Holmes case.
	Either one of those would be the biggest high-profile federal losses I can remember in a long time.
	Someone said, what did Legal Eagle think of the conviction in Potter?
	I don't know that he's made any public statement about it.
	What was the other biggest conviction, the other biggest screw-up?
	It was leading up to O.J. Simpson.
	It was the prosecutor who...
	Oh, Michael Jackson.
	I think we had talked about that a while back.
	Oh, that was a deserved acquittals, too.
	Well, Michael Jackson and O.J. Simpson are innocent.
	But we'll be breaking down the O.J. case after the new year with the behavior panel debating it in full.
	We just have to schedule it with those good gentlemen.
	And we need to get Dershowitz in if Dershowitz is still game to do it.
	We get Dershowitz in.
	I don't know what he can talk about.
	Wouldn't he be heavily limited in what he could say?
	Because O.J.'s still alive.
	So he couldn't talk about anything.
	It would be attorney-client privilege.
	You know what?
	I retract the offer for Dershowitz.
	Besides which...
	Yeah, never mind.
	Dershowitz also said he thought the Kim Potter verdict was a legal outrage and that she has very robust appeal issues.
	I think it's an outrage just because I appreciate she made a mistake.
	I appreciate some people who have never been in that position say it's an unforgivable mistake.
	Unforgivable versus costing you civilly versus criminal are three very different things.
	No doubt.
	I think people say, I'm a sniper.
	I've played Call of Duty.
	I'm great.
	I always know the difference between a one-pound taser and a 2.1-pound Glock.
	Everybody loves playing backseat driver, Monday morning quarterback.
	But she made a mistake.
	Her reaction was one of someone who made a mistake, who did not do what she meant to do.
	It was pedal confusion.
	And I don't know how they got to that condition.
	I think the public policy impact of this historically has been...
	Cops start withdrawing from anything that could get confrontational.
	Some people welcome that because they think cops are too eager to be confrontational.
	Historically, that tends not to be politically popular over time because it leads to spikes in crime because the people they avoid are not your low-risk people.
	They avoid your high-risk people.
	You're Dwayne Wrights.
	You're people with long rap sheets.
	You're guys with failure to appear, gun charges, assault charge, stuff you don't want to get near.
	In fact, we have seen over the last year in major cities where there has been major either lower police forces, lower police force spending, or just cops withdrawing from high-risk zones is dramatic spikes in crime and the most dangerous crime around.
	I think that's what's probably going to be Coming.
	That'd be part one.
	Part two is if you're a cop with an IQ over 60, you should get the heck out of any major urban center if you can.
	I mean, there's some that can't for seniority and other reasons, for family connections, etc.
	But I think anybody that's looking at starting a career, you're nuts to start your career in a liberal city because you will be made a scapegoat the moment it's convenient to make you a scapegoat.
	And I think that's a second.
	The other...
	Likely reality that's coming.
	Now, Ben Crump will shake out his chunk of change out of this case, chunk of change, like he has in other cases.
	So that grift will go on grifting.
	But I don't think it has positive public policy impacts in the way that even some people that think it might, that say, well, now cops will be more resistant.
	Or the other third thing is the point you made and other people have made, which is they're going to say, you know what?
	Screw using the taser.
	You know, even having it available is seen as a problem.
	I'm just, next time I just pull a gun, and that's it.
	And not only that, they'll accelerate the violence early.
	A lot of people will look at this as a training video.
	And what they'll say is if the first cop had been a lot more violent and physical, this never escalates like it does.
	And so the history of this happening, we had a historical example of this, late 1960s.
	A lot of laws got put in place to restrain cops, justifiably, I would add, because cops were a lot worse in the 50s than they are today.
	They were beating confessions out of people on a routine basis.
	There was probably an overreaction by courts, and that led to cops withdrawing and crime going haywire.
	And the response was, by the 80s, people are willing to just lock people up and throw away the key by the 90s.
	And so the liberals who think this is a great ruling are probably going to rue the day that this...
	She is not your...
	Derek Chauvin is your poster boy for going after him, even though I have problems with that verdict.
	Derek Chauvin was a deeply politically unpopular guy who had a long litany of complaints against him.
	She was someone who everybody in the police force loved who had zero complaints against her.
	When you make her the poster boy or poster girl of your campaign, you're likely getting into political territory that will not last well for you over time.
	And that was the question.
	Has anyone actually resigned?
	Has there been any impact in Minnesota Twin Cities?
	I don't know.
	I mean, it depends on whether they would want to make that public or not.
	Probably they wouldn't want to make it public.
	Maybe some officers would.
	At this point, everybody in the Twin Cities knew the score.
	I think they were just kind of naive.
	But seeing her get convicted will probably shock a few.
	It depends on the...
	A lot of cops think none of this will ever happen to them.
	I've run into cops that way.
	It was the response to the truck driver case.
	It was fascinating.
	Some truck driver is very protective of them.
	Some truck driver is very judgmental of them.
	Some are like, hey, part of the deal is I take myself out.
	I'm a truck driver.
	I got a higher duty and a higher obligation to people.
	Others don't see it that way.
	And so it's interesting, and I think cops react the same way.
	A fair number of cops, I think, are in denial about what's happening politically, that this will not stop, that they will keep adding on these kind of charges if there's a racial element in particular in these liberal cities.
	What I love with the truck driver is everyone's like, oh yeah, I would have taken myself out.
	I don't think the truck driver did what he did because he thought it was going to preserve his own life.
	I just think he panicked.
	He didn't have any better chances of survival careening into trucks than he did careening off the road.
	And bringing this one up, the problem most people have with the Potter case is that they can't understand that once adrenaline sets in, you really aren't thinking about the weight that's in your hands.
	You're just reacting.
	I've been in three serious car accidents in my life.
	I've been at fault for all of them.
	You have no idea what's going on.
	It takes you days to recognize what happened.
	Potter, who's, you know, all she wanted to do was protect and serve.
	Yes, she pulled the wrong weapon.
	It was on her dominant.
	I don't care.
	My theory is, okay, well, they've set the precedent now that if you are violently resisting arrest...
	You're not taking your own life into your hands.
	You are placing the responsibility for your well-being in the hands of the arresting officers.
	And that's basically to say, you can do whatever you want.
	And if you get hurt, it's their fault if they don't react perfectly.
	And that's a very dangerous precedent.
	It's a very dangerous logical precedent.
	And civilly, she was always going to be held responsible, and the city was always going to write a big check.
	The question is whether she was criminally culpable.
	Did she act with it?
	Did she really think this was a likely outcome of what she did?
	And I didn't see enough evidence to say that she did.
	Definitely not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
	And Down Skated says, trucker of 10 years, almost none of us are protesting the verdict.
	The ones stopped were because of dangerous high winds.
	He failed his job, and he had every chance to stop.
	But chose to keep going.
	Downskated, I'm not going to contradict you.
	I don't know what you know versus what he knew.
	When he says he chose to keep going, we might be getting into reading minds.
	And the flip side is, there's millions of people that say they're truck drivers that have signed petitions for his commutation.
	But I have heard that, again, I get really strong polarized reactions from truck drivers.
	Some are very protective of him and say that what they're expecting of him is unreasonable.
	And some are like, hey, we're truck drivers.
	We hold ourselves out to the highest standard.
	Anything you do is on you.
	And I understand that.
	It's the fascinating thing with jurors.
	It's like my favorite question, how to pick a jury, is I ask young lawyers, if you are the prosecutor.
	In a rape case, and the only thing you know is age and gender, who do you pick on the jury?
	And most people think you pick someone on the jury that looks like the victim, age-wise and gender-wise.
	That's actually the worst possible juror in a rape case.
	The best type of juror is an older man, and the reason is because the older man sees his daughter on trial, particularly if he has a daughter.
	And so he judges the guy, says he should have done this, should have done this, should have done this.
	The young woman says, this is never going to happen to me.
	And the way this is never going to happen to me is I'm different from her like this, like this, like this, like this.
	And the survival instinct is strong.
	And that's what you're seeing even truck drivers.
	Some truck drivers who think this can never happen to me because I'm a much better truck driver than this person.
	And I take responsibility.
	Other truck drivers say, this can absolutely happen to me, and thus I have problems with how harshly this individual is being judged.
	And that's what you're often seeing reflected in the jury verdict.
	But we're seeing some very interesting...
	And maybe we'll get something before New Year's in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial and the Elizabeth Holmes trial.
	But I'll tell you, if Kim Potter's the only one that goes to prison of those three, we got some problems in our trial system.
	And I think we can agree with that.
	And truck driver probably has never seen a runaway ramp or used a jake brake.
	That would be negligence on the employer's behalf, and then maybe on his, but...
	Oh, Lookout Mountain, that's near me.
	I just went to Lookout Mountain a few weeks ago.
	He not only had the runaway truck ramp, but an uphill slope and wet grass...
	That must be the one in Colorado.
	There's a Lookout Mountain here in Chattanooga.
	No, man, I get some other people have told me that.
	They said they've looked at it and thought he definitely could have done much more and better.
	My problem wasn't the facts of that case.
	My problem was the way they...
	Prosecutor was interpreting the law.
	Vehicular manslaughter.
	Oh, it's vehicular homicide.
	It's not just...
	And saying overtly, your duty is to kill yourself.
	And if you don't, you've committed vehicular manslaughter.
	Imposing that duty is a whole different animal.
	And I have problems with that as a legal theory, because that goes dangerous places.
	Once the state can lock you up, because they say that you have an affirmative duty and obligation to kill yourself rather than risk anyone else's life.
	Think about our current situation, pandemic-wise, and where they might take that.
	So people should be real hesitant to embrace those kind of legal theories, even if they think morally and factually what that driver did was wrong and was worthy of the sentence he got.
	Not a lot of people think 100-plus years is a worthy sentence, but putting that aside, that was my big problem with the case, is the theory that the state was using the case to propagate.
	All right, now with that said, Robert, before you start the new week with a white pill moment or some white pill stuff, do we have a sidebar this Wednesday?
	Not as of yet, no.
	I may be in transit, may not be, I don't know yet.
	Okay, and if I can, I'll do one.
	There may be other issues that we might discuss later on in time, people.
	But Robert, white pill...
	Give us some optimism so that we do not get blackpilled by what we've been seeing.
	And then, you know, a little New Year's wish, but go run with it.
	Sure.
	So the, I mean, I think the best, you know, white pill or the best good news that's, I think, coming is the U.S. Supreme Court will say the federal government does not have the power in the way that the Biden administration at least has utilized it to mandate vaccines on the whole population.
	And so I think that will be one of the biggest rulings in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court, and I believe they are going to rule that within the coming weeks.
	So that's the biggest upside.
	Okay, well, that's good enough.
	We'll see what we can do for Wednesday.
	I don't know what day of the week it is anymore.
	I don't know what date it is.
	I just know that it's not New Year's yet.
	It's the 27th, correct, today?
	Yes, it is.
	Yes, it is.
	Monday, December 27th.
	We're going to do something.
	Robert, if you can't make it for Wednesday, I'll do something fun.
	We'll make something happen for Wednesday.
	I don't know when New Year's is, but the world has melded into one long, very long Canadian day.
	I think it's Saturday.
	I think New Year's is Saturday.
	Yeah.
	No.
	Yeah, it's Saturday.
	Because my January 3rd trial, the Dustin Heiss-Don Lemon case has been postponed because we were given a right to a jury trial rather than it be a bench trial.
	The bench trial was January 3rd.
	I asked you for a white pill moment a second ago, Robert.
	You did not say this.
	Yeah, we won't get a jury trial in the Don Lemon case.
	I represent Dustin Heiss against Don Lemon.
	And it's not going to be broadcast.
	It's federal, correct?
	Yeah, it's federal court.
	So maybe Matt Lee will step in and watch a little bit.
	Well, but maybe I'm going to come down and watch a little bit.
	Oh, yes.
	Okay, no promises, people.
	I've got family obligations and dogs.
	But so now that it's been a jury, what does that mean?
	Like, when do they decide?
	You've got to do jury impact.
	We'll then decide when it's convenient for a jury trial.
	Okay.
	I would assume sometime in March would be my guess.
	We'll get there, and maybe the world will be free by March.
	But with that said, people, Robert, stick around.
	Wednesday, we're going to have a sidebar or a live stream regardless.
	Sunday, I guess we'll do a New Year's Day live stream.
	It'll be great.
	It'll be the day.
	Yeah, it's January 2nd, so it'll be the day after New Year's.
	Okay, awesome.
	We're going to do it.
	Everyone in the chat, thank you for everything.
	Thank you for the super chats, the comments, the support, everything.
	Merry Christmas.
	We will see each other before, but Happy New Year.
	I'm just going to make sure I can log out while we do this, but that's it.
	Enjoy everything that's coming, people, and Happy New Year.

▲