Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 2, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

02:23:42

Ep. 93: Underdetermined Law Stuffs - Viva & Barnes LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good evening, people.
	Good evening from everyone, from everyone.
	Good evening to everyone from my new lair, my new studio.
	Oh!
	My mother-in-law's studio.
	This will be probably the last stream, not forever, just for this holiday vacation, from my mother-in-law's studio.
	I don't mind it, actually, all that much, except it's a little cold because it's in a room that's not heated.
	So I'm actually wearing...
	I believe this is my wife's slipper.
	And, hold on.
	I believe this is my mother-in-law's slipper.
	They don't fit.
	They don't fit either, by the way.
	I have them on my toes, because at least it'll keep me warm.
	Sweater.
	Beautiful lighting, but I don't like the camera on my computer.
	Mic check.
	Audio's good.
	Everybody?
	Oh, that's right.
	It's a new year.
	And it's starting off about as badly as the last one ended.
	Hold on.
	Pinky out.
	I can't find my Peter Rabbit ceramic cup, so I went with one of my mother-in-law's...
	I believe it's a curling?
	You know what?
	I have no idea what this is.
	And in case this has, like, some...
	Let's see here.
	There we go.
	In case this has some hidden meaning and it's related to the monarchy in a way that I didn't know...
	I have no idea.
	I just took a damn teacup that I saw there.
	Run, Viva, don't be so nice and naive.
	Well, I think I may have loosened up a little.
	Okay, this is the intro rant.
	I'm not going to go over the lost stuffs because I want Barnes to be around when we talk about the sheer lunacy in Canada.
	But I'll go on a rant.
	Yeah, I'm angry.
	I mean, I remember a while back, you know.
	I used the term being angry as though it was...
	I didn't use it as though it was a bad thing, but people perceived that to have been my intention.
	There is righteous anger, and then there is uncontrolled anger.
	There is justified anger, which is more of a reasonable response versus frothing rage.
	You know, road rage, I guess, is a form of anger.
	Alec Baldwin displays something of a form of anger, I guess, in a rage format, which is unjustified, disproportionate.
	And by and large, undirected.
	But I'm angry.
	End of story.
	I'm angry at what I see of modern society.
	I'm angry at what I see of society as a whole.
	Not just putting up with this, but seemingly justifying it.
	And now you see my last two vlogs, which was the Viva on the Street before they revoked their restriction on dog walking.
	I take for granted everybody has already seen it, but if you haven't, two nights ago, I did a Viva on the Street vlog three nights ago, talking about the new curfew lockdown measures in Quebec.
	And New Year's Eve, I wasn't drunk, people.
	I was relaxed, and it was late, and I was enraged.
	And when I get enraged, I tend to bring out my humor side.
	New Year's Eve, I'm tweeting at our Supreme Leader, Sunset Thief, New Year's Eve Thief, Holiday Wrecker, Home Wrecker, Civil Rights Wrecker, Francois Legault.
	Look what's going on!
	I'm nine kilometers from the New York border where I am.
	Maybe, I don't know, more or less.
	I'm not nine kilometers from New York City.
	But I am...
	I cannot...
	I can fly my drone into a foreign country from where I am, in theory.
	I've never actually flown it that far.
	And it's a different world out there.
	It's a world of actual freedom, even though stuff is ugly in New York City.
	In certain states, it's uglier than other states.
	But you would think that we are in a province that has a geographically located, a geographically, what's the word I'm looking for?
	Evolved.
	Like the Madagascar Islands here, people.
	We have a version of COVID that is so bad, our provincial response has to be draconian, even compared to the other provinces in Canada.
	You know, unheard of, tyrannical compared to our free brethren down south.
	Where was I going with all of this?
	So I tweeted out, you know, comparing what's going on in New York State, New York City, to what's going on in Quebec.
	People appreciate this.
	We're under curfew now, 10 to 5 in the morning.
	As of this morning, you couldn't walk your dog during curfew.
	Science.
	Restaurants are shut down.
	You can't have private gatherings in your own home.
	And I understand that sounds a little, that is already over the top.
	But I was just talking with my wife and I said, we understand what that means.
	No private gatherings in your homes.
	Restaurants are shut.
	Gyms are shut.
	Movies are, if you ever went, they're shut.
	That means you cannot see people unless it's outside.
	You cannot socialize.
	You cannot be human.
	You cannot have a life.
	You cannot see family, friends, loved ones.
	You can't even go to church if you're not vaccinated.
	You can't do that because you just physically can't do that.
	You can't have anyone outside your family bubble in your house.
	Private gatherings are outlawed.
	Restaurants are shut down and all entertainment is shut down.
	That means people are forced to live in isolation.
	And what happens when you're in isolation?
	You become easy to manipulate, easy to make.
	We all suffer from anxiety, some of us more or less than others.
	Anybody knows that when you are alone with your own thoughts and no one to bounce them off of and to keep them in check, they can quickly spiral out of control.
	So much so that you can have people actually saying, yeah, curfew is a good thing.
	We need that to be safe.
	But what you have are millionaires, and I'm not saying this to be hyperbolic.
	Francois Legault is worth 50 million.
	He just sold his house in Outremont for 5 million, bought a 3.5 million dollar...
	Penthouse, apparently, made a lot of money in the private sector that he's shutting down now before becoming prime minister, premier, sorry.
	These people are rich, exquisitely wealthy, elderly, vulnerable, and are not impacted by the measures that they're implementing and imposing on the rest of free society.
	These are the people who are emotionally, spiritually, and physically vested in the decisions, interested in the decisions they're making, and they have Nothing to suffer from the consequences, as far as the policymakers go.
	And then as far as the people who are so terrified, they will berate someone and verbally accost someone if their mask is down.
	Those people have been left alone with their thoughts, and the only people to bounce them off of are the ones feeding them the Kool-Aid.
	And it's a sad, sick, and depressing thing.
	And I say it's...
	Remind me, I'm going to come back to this.
	I'm enraged, but let me get back.
	I'll get some super chats before we get there.
	Seems like you need to buy some...
	Free Justin Timberlake?
	What happened to Justin Timberlake?
	Okay, I'm joking.
	I know exactly what that means.
	No, I have not done well off of Bitcoin or any investment for that matter.
	While I'm looking for the Super Chats, let me just say Super Chats, thank you in advance for the Super Chats.
	YouTube takes 30%.
	It is not a right of entry into the conversation, but I do my best to get to them.
	If I do not get to them and you're going to be miffed, insulted, rooked, you're going to call me a grifter, a riffer, or whatever, don't give it.
	I don't like people feeling rooked.
	I thank you all for the support.
	The less it makes sense, the harder some push.
	Omicron is the...
	Yep, I agree.
	I mean, we know the stats on it.
	We know the stats on it.
	But I'm not a scientist, so I don't give medical or legal advice.
	By the way, other disclaimer, no medical legal advice, election fortification advice.
	You should not fly your drone into foreign airspace.
	The U.S. takes its...
	Oh, no, by the way, I wasn't saying I should.
	In fact, you're not allowed flying your drone within nine kilometers of a border, airfield, landing strip, and...
	Not just the U.S. Everyone takes that seriously.
	Those guys who flew the drone over federal property got in trouble.
	The kids in Ottawa who strapped Roman candles to their drone, Transport Canada opened an investigation.
	So no legal advice, but follow drone laws because they're serious.
	And the penalties are serious.
	Let's see what we've got here.
	Two-time Westie dog dad here.
	Hi, Winston.
	If I couldn't walk my dog, I'd go to jail.
	Segway, but I want to get to one more chat before I, or a couple.
	God willing, I will be moving to Taxa to do my LLM.
	I love the idea of practicing civil rights law.
	Can Barnes recommend Texas law firms to work with?
	I don't know.
	We're going to bring him in in a second.
	I just saw him pop into the background, but I need to finish my intro rant.
	So it seems Mr. Dossier's story about leading a charter school was also a fabrication.
	We'll get there.
	I'm not sure what that is.
	Leatherman78, Viva, before you respond to any naysayers giving you a hard time about doing something, you are doing something.
	You are educating people.
	Education is the best way to solve these problems.
	Thank you, Leatherman.
	I'm looking at the wrong thing again.
	Thank you, Leatherman.
	But here's my deal.
	People say, Viva, do something.
	What they are actually saying is, Viva, go out there and break the law.
	And what they're saying is, Viva, go out there and unlawfully protest.
	Get arrested, make a stink, yada yada.
	I'm going to say this as many times as I have to.
	The answer to that...
	For me, it's no.
	And I never suggest it to anybody else for two practical reasons.
	First of all, you are telling someone to risk what you don't know that they can risk.
	You're telling someone else to sacrifice risk themselves.
	If you're doing it anonymously from your keyboard, that's one thing.
	And if I'm doing it from a position of influence with the protection of not actually having to follow through on my advice to others to be unlawful, that's also the same type of hypocrisy.
	That's one reason.
	The other reason?
	It's counterproductive.
	When Francois Legault comes out and says nobody's going to be able to walk their dogs between 10 and 5, I'm not a theorist person, but part of me says, is this not something that is almost deliberate to needle, to rub in your face, to say you've suffered for two freaking years and now this is what the trust...
	Part of me thinks that that is to instigate a response so they can then weaponize and exploit that response for further measures.
	Look at the rabble.
	By the way, that was the word I was looking for.
	I think I said this already.
	Rabble.
	Look at the rabble.
	Don't even know that we're here to protect them.
	And when we tell them to stay home between 10 and 5, they lash out and break the law and do bad things.
	So we need to come in with more military presence.
	We need to come in with more laws.
	We need to prohibit more things.
	Because they can't protest in front of hospitals because they've abused that.
	We can't let them do anything because they just don't know.
	This lowly citizen class has no idea that we're out for their good.
	And they lash out when we try to tell them what's good for them.
	So more telling them what's good for them.
	So the two reasons never will.
	And I was so tempted to go to the protest last night, 10 o 'clock at night.
	I will watch and I will empathize with those who are there.
	But when people tell me to go out and, you know, do unlawful things, that's part of what I think.
	And the other part of what I think is that they are actually people on the other side trying to get people to do something bad so they can then weaponize it and exploit it to further promote the exact same tyranny that they're promoting right now.
	The response has to be a groundswell from the people, lawfully and non-violent.
	In the same way the groundswell about the dog-walking idiocy caused a change within 12 hours, A groundswell of all the rest of the idiocy.
	It's not because they withdrew one element of their idiocy, Francois.
	Oh, now you let us walk our dogs from 10 to 5, but the curfew stays?
	No.
	An upswell.
	What's the word I just said?
	An upswell?
	That's not the word.
	Swelling up of anger and public mockery of these fools.
	In government, who while they say trust the science, act in a way that is not just unscientific, it is absolutely insanely idiotic.
	I was watching You Don't Mess With The Zohan earlier today.
	Wildly inappropriate, but my goodness, I'm still watching it with the family.
	That movie was more logical and made more sense than what we're seeing out of this government.
	It's insanity.
	It is unscientific insanity and they need to be mercilessly mocked if for no other reason than to wake up the rest of the people who are saying, okay, so they walked back, pun intended, on their no dog walking.
	The rest of it's okay.
	No.
	Once a government does something so stupid and so reprehensible as prohibiting walking of a dog between 10 and 5 in the morning while locking you in your house in isolation, while shutting down New Year's, once they do that...
	There is no coming back from that stupidity.
	Every decision they have ever made is suspect to be questioned.
	Some decisions might be right.
	A broken clock is right twice a day.
	That is to say, a non-functioning clock is right twice a day.
	A clock that gets one minute wrong every day is not going to be right twice a day.
	Mocked.
	Shamelessly mocked.
	And so that people can see that our emperor is naked and, my goodness, is it not a sight to behold.
	Okay, considering having Dr. John Campbell on the sidebar, he's a great, really follow the science.
	Yeah, the science on YouTube is not something that can be discussed with any degree of predictability, except for that it will predictably get you in trouble.
	So, Cameron K. Vessi, what's up, Cameron?
	I want to get you a Up Dog Viva.
	Okay, well, with that said, people, we got a good, good show tonight.
	Mahatma Gandhi.
	It's...
	When you do that which they expect you to do, they can then exploit it.
	It's a game of chess, people, and it's not a very 4D, 5D.
	It's, yeah, go out and break windows.
	They're going to come with more police.
	Break more windows, they're going to come with more police.
	So you have to pick the fight when you know that you're ready to win it.
	And that's a political battle, and it comes from a groundswell, was the word, groundswell, of public opinion so that these people, everyone points the finger at them like the Simpsons.
	Everyone points a finger at them and says, you guys are naked, and now I'm saying that you're naked.
	Because when you said, trust the science, you then came out and said, no dog walking 10 to 5, and then you took back that science?
	And now I believe you're on the vaccine passports?
	Probably as unscientific and stupid as that?
	Okay.
	Missed a lot of chats, people.
	Missed a lot of chats.
	But hold on.
	Pinky out.
	Robert, I'm coming in.
	Be ready.
	Robert, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	Robert.
	While we're on the subject, let's start with the ADAC in Canada.
	I'm going to ask you the questions about this.
	You've seen the videos.
	You've seen the tweets.
	What is your perception, looking up at the border, of what is going on in Canada?
	In your wildest dreams, could you have ever seen this happening?
	In Canada, sure.
	Unfortunately, I mean, your prime minister is just, his tolerance is running out for you people.
	He wanted to make that clear.
	I mean, can you imagine that the so-called liberal prime minister...
	Of a Western government talking about how he's tired of being tolerant of dissidents and outsiders.
	So it's an interesting time to be alive.
	But at least Francois figured out he needed to shut down that Vivo on the Street guy.
	Take away that dog excuse.
	But Jordan Peterson retweeted you, Gadsad, and all of a sudden the Quebecois leader decided to reverse himself on at least that little bit.
	It is extraordinary.
	How in the world can walking your dog by yourself outdoors constitute a threat to anyone?
	I mean, but this is what happens when the judicial branch fails.
	It's not a surprise that the executive branch will fail.
	They'll always grab power when they have a pretext to do so.
	The legislative branch has mostly been asleep at the wheel, but the worst thing is that the judicial branch is the branch supposed to step in and fix this, and unfortunately, in large parts of the entire Western world, the judicial branch has proven itself utterly toothless and useless.
	But at least there's signs that it still has a bit of a heartbeat here in America.
	Yeah, no, it's imposing a curfew, then allowing you to walk your dog and saying that that's a compromise is the equivalent of pooping on your chest, scraping half would often tell you the rest is a candy bar.
	Well, that's not exactly the analogy I was thinking of, but nice visual there.
	Now I'm...
	Oh, yeah.
	Okay.
	No, no, it's...
	Robert, you are a thousand percent correct.
	It's the judicial branch failing.
	People saying Viva file lawsuits.
	If you're saying that, it's nice that you're a new face to the channel.
	Not that I filed the lawsuits, but we've gone over them.
	In Quebec, they sued for the curfew last year.
	Claimed it was a constitutional violation on an injunctive basis, so different criteria, presumption of validity, yada, yada, yada.
	The court said no.
	They sued on the face masks.
	For kids, not for adults, the elderly, long-term.
	They sued for kids.
	The court said no.
	However minimal the risk, the risk is there.
	They sued federally on the quarantine hotels.
	Court said no.
	Those are fine too.
	They sued...
	What else do they sue for?
	Everything.
	Everything.
	The one they haven't sue for yet is the vaccine for air travel and train travel.
	But don't expect them to overturn that either.
	The judicial branch has failed.
	It is a trifecta of incestuous government figures all looking to bonify their power.
	I don't even know if that's a real word.
	You've got the government electing their medical appointees who give them advice.
	It goes to the courts.
	The courts say, well, the experts said so, so who am I to say this to the people who appointed them?
	It's a circle fest of judicial executive overreach, and it's gotten us to where we are.
	Oh, okay.
	Hold on a second.
	I saw a red super chat here.
	Let's just do a couple more.
	Now, we have a good menu tonight.
	Kim Potter.
	No, not Kim Potter.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Kim Potter juror talked.
	Explain just how scary juries can be, particularly in the Twin Cities right now.
	We got Kim Potter, Ghislaine Maxwell.
	We've got...
	She's about to Epstein herself pretty soon.
	It will be a sick, sick reality if we get there, but we'll get there.
	Tom, if we can tweet out, I don't public shame people who say no or who don't respond, and I also don't grovel or beg, but my goodness, would Tom McDonald be the gift of a millennia for me.
	Okay, now hold on one second.
	Where was that?
	This one right here.
	Boom.
	Cass Arthur says, All men recognize the right of revolution, that is, the right to refuse allegiance to and to resist the government when its tyranny or its efficiency are great and undeniable.
	Henry David Thoreau.
	Beautiful and well put.
	All right.
	But Robert, I guess, you know, while we're on the subject of the judicial branch failing in Canada and allowing this insane tyranny to flourish, you want to give us the update on these vaccination lawsuits, the mandates lawsuits in the United States?
	Because there were some big decisions.
	Yeah, so there were two decisions that came down on the Head Start mandate, one in Texas and then one today in Louisiana.
	The Louisiana opinion I put up at our board so people can read it for themselves and highlighted it so you don't have to read all of it.
	You can read some of the best parts.
	It has some great rhetorical statements in it.
	That's at vivabarneslaw.locals.com board.
	But it's by the judge who also struck down, I believe, the Medicare mandate and maybe the same judge who also was one of the judges who early on struck down an attempt at an educational vaccine mandate.
	So they made a lot of good points.
	So it was a very robust ruling, and his ruling was for 24 states concerning the Head Start mandate.
	So about half the country now, the Head Start mandate is already DOA.
	And the basis, I mean, it's extraordinary.
	And what these, they're making, judges are making some good points, which is refreshing to see because their point is that if the federal government...
	Has the power under the guise of a procurement standard or performance standard or workplace standard can impose conditions on what your private medical treatment can be, then there's no limitations.
	And we essentially no longer have government by three branches of government.
	We have government by the executive branches, edicts and decrees like the royal governors of old.
	And so we're seeing some good language on that record.
	So that was a very good ruling.
	And really what it does is it pushes to a culmination the two big ones that will be heard this week at the United States Supreme Court on the 7th of January.
	Oral arguments will be heard on the Medicare mandate and the OSHA mandate.
	A lot of amicus briefing has already been done on it.
	There's literally hundreds of briefs that have been filed in one way, shape, or form.
	Robert, if you could explain, who are the amici?
	In these cases, are they on both sides of the debate?
	Yeah, they are.
	Sadly, the AFL-CIO has become a pitiful shell of itself while it's failed its workers for the last half century by aligning itself to the Democratic Party with no limitations on it in such a way that the Democratic Party has effectively gutted their private sector union base by shipping the union jobs offshore, particularly to China.
	With the World Trade Organization, but also NAFTA, all passed by Democratic presidents, pushed through by Democratic presidents.
	Barack Obama promised to reverse them.
	He didn't.
	He ended up expanding similar trade deals with Colombia and elsewhere that continued to Korea and whatnot to expand the problem rather than limit it.
	And the only guy who actually kept his word on trade policy was Donald Trump, who did, in fact, try to reverse parts of NAFTA.
	He did and tried to reverse parts of what was happening with China and partially succeeded.
	But the AFL-CIO is actually writing briefs in favor of mandates on their own workers against what their workers, I'm sure, would vote for privately if they were given the option.
	And so it's a sad, sad shell of itself.
	And it's because the professional class as a class has taken over even the positions of power within union management.
	So union management doesn't represent the blue-collar worker anymore.
	It represents the professional class prejudices.
	I experienced this firsthand as a young law student at the University of Wisconsin, where I represented the Wisconsin law students in a graduate student strike.
	And I got to see these other so-called union leaders explain to me that their goal was to serve a bunch of constituencies who weren't part of the union and didn't care to be part of the union.
	And they explained that their goal was to help educate their own members as to what was good for them.
	This is the mindset throughout.
	But on the good side, most of the Amici briefs, these are friend of the court briefs written by people who are not parties to the case, have been written in opposition to the Biden vaccine mandates by a wide range of groups in private society to joining the states who are the lead challenge to both of these Medicare mandates and the Biden OSHA mandate.
	And so we'll see.
	Now they're also bringing the federal contractor mandate has already been enjoined.
	Now the Head Start mandate has been enjoined in half the country.
	The federal employee mandate has not yet been enjoined, but there will be implications for all five of those mandates.
	Well, by what the U.S. Supreme Court does this week, and you'll get a good clue.
	I believe the oral arguments are going to be available by audio.
	The U.S. Supreme Court, like all other federal courts, still refuses to allow video evidence inside the courtroom, which I think is deeply problematic.
	In fact, I think it's unconstitutional.
	It's depriving people of open access to the courts with the modern technology that we easily have available to us.
	And it's foreign to the whole history of public trials, which used to be literally outdoors.
	It wasn't even indoors.
	So everyone could come and see and watch, and that was the point.
	It used to be the whole community in some places was the jury.
	So that's similar to what the elder tribal system kind of still is.
	It's the elders that preside, but in many Native American tribes, in my view, they have a better system of justice than we do in many contexts.
	But we'll see.
	So by the nature of their questions...
	Generally speaking, which side gets more questions tells you which side is going to lose.
	That may seem counterintuitive, but they actually usually ask fewer questions of the side they want to win.
	And Justice Thomas has been much more vocal of late.
	He used to never ask any questions.
	He's asking questions on almost all of a lot of the more recent hot topic issues, some that we'll be getting to later on the issue of whether innocent people should stay locked up in prison because the state says so, as the Arizona Attorney General is propounding to the U.S. Supreme Court.
	But we should know by the nature of the questions where certain justices are going.
	And the assumption is that Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch, by their prior comments, are going to say that the Biden administration does not have this power to issue vaccine mandates, whether it's OSHA, whether it's Medicare, whether it's Head Start, whether it's federal contractors.
	Calling these things performance standards, administrative standards, financial standards, procurement standards is ludicrous.
	It's just ludicrous.
	It shows how dangerous it is.
	Because if they could win on these, it's not just vaccine mandates that will be at issue.
	The federal government now will be able to declare anything they want, anytime they want.
	They'll just call it a performance standard.
	They'll just call it an administrative standard, a procurement standard.
	Climate change politics will be enforced by federal edict, executive department edict, if this doesn't win.
	So everybody should be paying attention to whatever they think about vaccines because this is about the power of the federal government to circumvent the executive branch, to circumvent the other branches of government entirely.
	Is the idea of framing it as a performance, you know, whatever the terms were, is that an idea to circumvent the weak basis in science, or is that a way to circumvent so that it falls within the ambit of the laws that they are invoking to enforce this?
	Both.
	Because the other thing that stands out if you read the cases, and one reason why I put them up at the best versions of these cases at the board, at the vivobarneslaw.loucals.com board, is so people can see for themselves what evidence is cited.
	And once again, what is typical, now this was different than what happened in an Oklahoma case, but for the most part, the government has completely failed to present any evidence in support of its position.
	So part of it is that they're circumventing the notice and comment.
	This is about the executive branch being able to use emergency powers to unilaterally impose the widest range of obligations on people without going through the legislative process, without going through the judicial process.
	And without going through the democratizing aspect of their own executive branch process.
	The Administrative Procedures Act was supposed to make sure there was citizen participation and citizen discussion and citizen input into executive branch actions.
	And they completely circumvented that as well under emergency exception language.
	They didn't follow notice and comment.
	They didn't allow citizen petitions.
	They didn't address the right to petition government.
	That's the fifth right that Justice Barrett forgot about in her Senate confirmation hearings.
	That was not the most rewarding sign of a future great justice, though apparently our dear ex-president is still...
	Celebrating that choice, but that's another story for another day.
	But this is big because it's not just about the power of the federal government to issue vaccine mandates and what happens with vaccine mandates downstream, that a lot of people legally, politically, financially, economically are going to follow this.
	A lot of big corporations, if they see these mandates fall aside, they're not going to argue with their employees.
	A good number of them will.
	So that's part one.
	And then part two is it's about the executive branch being able, in the latest decision by the federal court, That enjoined the Head Start mandate in 24 states, said the very idea of the separation of powers is at stake.
	He quoted Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine in his decision.
	It's like, this is about whether we have a functional democracy or a de facto monarchy.
	So maybe he was watching Aviva's rants about the dear, quote, Quebecois dictator.
	But it had a lot of that language in it.
	And he's right.
	That judge is absolutely right.
	And that's a credit to Trump.
	That was a Trump appointee.
	His district court appointees have been much better often than his appellate and Supreme Court appointees have turned out to be.
	But this is about the power.
	Do we have a tripartite method of government or not?
	Is there an emergency exception to our entire functional structure of government or not?
	So it's not just the vaccines that are at issue.
	It's the future of American government and constitutional government that's at issue.
	And that's why winning this is massive.
	And I hope we do.
	I believe we will.
	But people are really going to be looking at the tea leaves as to the assumptions the three Democrats will vote to uphold Biden's mandates, that Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas will vote to strike the mandates.
	And so it's where is Roberts?
	Where is Barrett?
	Where is Kavanaugh?
	Two of the three being Trump appointees.
	I'm still banking that all three of them actually end up striking down Biden's mandates, though for different reasons.
	I think Kavanaugh for reasons of federalism, Roberts for reasons of the Commerce Clause, not wanting it to be expanded in this manner, and Barrett because there's just way too much pressure from too many of her conservative colleagues on the bench.
	Basically, it's something like 20 to 2 conservative judges have said that these mandates are not constitutional, are not statutorily authorized, are not legal.
	And on many grounds, you know, the failure to go through notice and comment, the failure to allow for citizen petitions, the failure that the law just doesn't authorize this period, and serious doubts about whether Congress could authorize this.
	You know, a great opinion would say the federal government has no power of vaccine mandates, period.
	But at a minimum, if there is any such power that's possibly there, it has to go through the legislative process and the adjudicatory process after that with the executive branch simply in the role of enforcement, not the role of legislative and adjudicative branch altogether.
	It's sort of like what's going on in Canada in that we have this constitution which protects us and it says the laws, your rights can't be violated but for a law that is specifically passed to violate them, but none of this has even gone through a law.
	At the least in the states, maybe it's gone through more of a process, but still nothing of the process itself.
	They've completely gutted it.
	I mean, even the limits on the executive branch have been completely ignored.
	I mean, simple notice and comment.
	I mean, well, why is it they couldn't go through notice and comment?
	We're almost two years into this pandemic.
	They couldn't go through notice.
	Robert, if they're going to pull a Legault, they don't want the people being exposed to misinformation.
	So don't give them any.
	Just trust us.
	We know what we're doing.
	You'll have congressmen like Congresswomen like Marjorie Taylor Greene and prominent doctors like Robert Malone suddenly kicked off of Twitter for so-called COVID misinformation.
	Which is extraordinary.
	I mean, I think both of them have libel claims potentially available to them.
	It's interesting.
	I mean, they suspended Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of mRNA technology, which is the basis of these experimental gene therapy drugs that are, in my view, mislabeled as vaccines.
	They had to redefine the word vaccine to fit them in.
	They didn't fit the definition of vaccine.
	Robert, Robert, nobody thinks you're crazy.
	When did they redefine what a vaccine meant?
	Most recently.
	Twice, but most recently right before and right at the time they're announcing these vaccines.
	So, because historically a vaccine was that you give, is that it's sterilizing, inoculating against the disease.
	This doesn't do that by the admission of the CDC and the FDA and the World Health Organization.
	So that's not in controversy.
	Unless, you know, you write for the New Yorker or the AP, then maybe you don't know it.
	But to the rest of the world that actually follows this, this is not in question.
	I mean, you can just track in Denmark, and the Omicron variant actually had a higher infection rate, according to recent studies, of the vaccinated than the unvaccinated.
	So, you know, there's still debate about whether it may act as an effective therapy.
	Does it reduce the risk of hospitalization?
	Does it reduce the risk of death?
	In truth, there's conflicting studies available on that.
	Malone got into trouble simply for quoting Pfizer's own clinical study and just pointed out that according to their own data, their own data had more people suffering more severe harm that were vaccinated than unvaccinated.
	That was what their own clinical...
	He goes, you can argue causation.
	You can argue, you know, maybe there's an explanation that's independent of the vaccine's efficacy.
	But his point is that historically, when that happens, we don't approve the drug for that purpose.
	But yet we have here.
	Here's another thing.
	Let me just bring this one up so I don't forget it before it goes.
	Mr. Barnes, are you representing any law enforcement officers or firefighters in Cali under duress due to losing their jobs due to the vaccine mandates?
	I'm looking at that.
	There's over 200 individuals, 200 different employers that have requested I represent them in suits.
	So realistically speaking, I've taken on Tyson Foods.
	It was the first one out of the gate.
	We're looking at how many others we can pick up.
	I'm in discussions with the Unity Project to figure out how we can coordinate legal strategies.
	A more effective path may be if there's a central storing house of legal research and writing, and a lot of other lawyers take up some of what you could call the grunt work.
	And some of us that are deeply in the weeds on this provide sort of the overarching coordinating strategy.
	The strategio role in the old Greek government style might be the most efficacious mechanism because realistically I can't take on.
	It's literally thousands of people that have requested.
	It would be over 200 employers being sued.
	I'm already going to be suing Tyson in about a half dozen states.
	Tyson Foods, of course, after begging to go to federal court on the grounds that they are a federal agent, moved to dismiss on the grounds that, no, no, they didn't really mean they were a federal agent.
	They're a federal agent for purposes of federal removal so they can dodge the accountability of a local elected Tennessee state court judge, but they're not a federal agent for purposes of federal liability.
	And they're figuring, hey, if it works for Big Pharma, maybe it can work for Tyson Foods.
	So we'll see.
	Tyson Foods has been one of the most vicious companies in this respect.
	Firing people who had legitimate religious exceptions, who had been working for over 20 years, loyal to their company.
	So for people out there wanting to know what they can do constructively, I would skip by Tyson Foods for a while.
	Maybe skip it altogether.
	And Purdue Chicken, on the other hand, has not fired anyone.
	In fact, I had conversations with the widow of the founder of Purdue Chicken, and we may have some other developments on that front coming forward as well.
	But yeah, there are firemen and cops that have sued.
	There have been successes also.
	A variety of school districts in California tried to jump the gun.
	And tried to issue vaccine mandates for young students.
	They all lost in court, even in California courts.
	And the reason they lost wasn't on the substantive issue of vaccine mandates, but that under state law in California, they have to go through the state process.
	They can't do it unilaterally at the city and county level.
	But that was still an important win.
	Good lawsuits brought by a lot of smart people.
	The ABC soap opera actor that my sisters used to watch a lot when we were young, they were always watching General Hospital.
	The soap opera is still on the air.
	Bobby Kennedy has brought suit on his behalf.
	And then, of course, Children's Health Defense is looking at how we can sue for the emergency use authorization being illegal for children and also looking at the potential Bobby Kennedy is looking at whether or not he needs to bring legal action for some of the libel that's taking place towards him because of the success of his extraordinary book about Mr. Fauci.
	That has Mr. Fauci crying and whining on his New Year's Eve party.
	So we'll see how all that goes.
	And then the last update is a very, very old judge.
	That was a George W. Bush appointee in Oklahoma.
	Said that the Oklahoma National Guard can have a vaccine mandate forced down their throat by the Defense Department despite the objections of the Oklahoma National Guard itself and the Oklahoma Governor and the Oklahoma Attorney General.
	You knew how the decision was going to go.
	You could probably guess it just by how old the judge was.
	I mean, what you have is you have people who are susceptible to COVID issuing rulings on people who are not susceptible to COVID.
	And, you know, you get these really old judges who are the only ones really vulnerable to potentially to COVID risk, demanding that three-year-olds and eight-year-olds and everyone else in between, including people who volunteer to defend their country in the National Guard.
	Get a vaccine they neither want nor need in their own opinions of their own medical treatment.
	And he refused to recognize.
	Now, that's going to go up on appeal.
	But you knew how he was going to rule because it was all about...
	I mean, here's one of the dumbest analogies that I've seen that the media started with.
	More people have died from COVID than have died in all the wars America fought.
	Well, since those wars were not fought on American soil, the more relevant standard is how many soldiers have died from COVID-19 versus how many soldiers have died from war and conflict.
	And there the number, of course, is pales.
	But the judges don't cite that because they know that would make a mockery of their ruling.
	But you have judges that are clearly terrified of COVID, saying governments can do whatever they want and ignoring their own constitutional obligations and the constitutional structure to get there.
	Those analogies drive me nuts because they're stupid, disingenuous, dishonest, or all three.
	Where Brian Stettler of CNN at one point says, oh, we had another 9-11 of COVIDs this week.
	I don't remember what it was.
	And I was like, first of all, if you want to do that, two 9-11s of just daily death occur in the United States every day.
	If you want to just put things in perspective, like death is a thing.
	It occurs.
	To take hyperbolic comparisons, which are causally unrelated, temporally unrelated, it's not just irrelevant, it's overtly, deliberately misleading and dishonest.
	And those analogies, they're just stupid.
	And going back to my opening rant, once you know what they have...
	At least on one occasion included in those deaths, you might want to ask another question about all the other ones.
	I've been looking into the excess deaths for 2021, 2020, because that should be the only statistic that actually is the baseline.
	And when they break down excess deaths to, when they break it down between COVID-related excess deaths and non-COVID-related excess deaths, you should start asking yourself some questions.
	And especially, how is it excess deaths went up in many of the places that got the most vaccines?
	Compared to the year when no one was vaccinated.
	Robert, let's not ask that question.
	But the question has been asked.
	But we'll get there.
	Everything comes out in the wash, and time is a good washing machine.
	So this will come out.
	But when Biden gets on air, I don't know when it was this week, and says, the COVID response or the COVID solution is a state issue now.
	Does that not come out and sort of undermine his federal attempt to shut the virus down?
	Do any of these lawsuits invoke that?
	As any form of an admission that it's a state issue, even coming from the president's own mouth, even if he didn't know he said it?
	Well, I'm sure it will partially come up because those kind of statements, I mean, Democrats continue to make dumb statements in the press because Trump's challenge to the January 6th subpoena for his privileged records under executive privilege.
	He raised the fact that a Democratic congressman went into detail about, in fact, the chairman of the committee went into great detail about his intentions of using these records to try to get Trump criminally prosecuted or to hurt him publicly in the court of public opinion politically, which is precisely what he does not have the constitutional authority to do.
	And so, of course, his evidence was utilized in a supplemental briefing before the U.S. Supreme Court about why they should take the case.
	Because the D.C. Circuit has proven itself utterly unreliable in enforcing constitutional privileges if it involves a conservative cause or perceived conservative cause.
	But either way, I don't always tune in to oral arguments, but I will be tuning in to the oral.
	Maybe we'll even do something live January 7th to listen in to these oral arguments because they're so consequential.
	This is about the future of vaccine mandates, but it's not just that.
	It's about whether the future of the tripartite mechanism of government we have will stay alive or will be dead.
	But can you imagine, Robert, like, it's a legit thing.
	Do we have to worry about live streaming these arguments where they might say something, a la Dr. Robert Malone, that will get people who rebroadcast it struck from the platform?
	I mean, this is how nuts, Orwellian, and dystopian the future has become.
	Well, when YouTube is...
	Taking down Joe Rogan's interviews.
	One of the biggest people who helped monetize YouTube was Joe Rogan.
	And Joe Rogan's interview, I don't know if it was Dr. Peter McCullough or it was with Dr. Malone.
	Robert Malone that got pulled.
	Within a day or two.
	Why are they so scared of the founder of the mRNA vaccine, a man who himself has taken this vaccine, from telling people what he knows about the risks of this vaccine for different groups?
	Why are they so terrified of one of the most well-respected, well-regarded medical experts in the world?
	Robert, the question I have is...
	Okay, I made it as a joke, but if YouTube...
	Is taking down the discourse of certified licensed doctors.
	Is there ever an argument like, who files this complaint?
	Is it quasi-legitimate, reasonable to expect it could ever be made?
	Is YouTube not dispensing of medical advice without a license by suppressing the discourse of licensed medical officials?
	Well, there was a suit in South Carolina that's now up on appeal because it got removed from state court to federal court where they argued that the various private employers involved were practicing medicine without a license in issuing these vaccine mandates in the first place because they're overriding the opinion of your doctor.
	They're not saying if your doctor says for you to get it, then you have to get it.
	They're saying that you have to get a period, even if your doctor says maybe you shouldn't.
	And so the other issue I'll be talking with Steve Kirsch and some other people about, also maybe connected to the Unity Project.
	And in fact, this Wednesday, our sidebar, we will have Chris Martinson, who's peak prosperity.
	He's done a lot of detailed, deep dives into this.
	An extraordinarily well-educated individual who just got into this space because he saw what was coming.
	He's always been a very strong civil liberties advocate his whole life.
	He's talking about a guy with, you know, BAs and PhDs and all the rest.
	And so he'll be discussing some of what he's done in terms of what he's unveiled in this process.
	But part of what's happening, and Steve Kirsch has been talking about others, is that doctors are routinely being threatened now.
	That if they do what Robert Malone does, if they do what Peter McCullough does, if they go out and broach any dissent on this opinion, on any issue related to COVID-19 and indifference with the federal government.
	Or with other so-called public health authorities, then they will be under investigation and could have their license suspended.
	And so we have to look at potentially bringing litigation on that as well.
	Some of us have always been critical of licensure authority because it's always going to end up being abused, and here we are.
	I can confirm, Robert, you have been complaining about that at least for the two years that I have known you.
	Complaining, criticizing it.
	Well, as my brother and I discussed on the sidebar, and if you want a great New Year's gift, you can get my brother's book, Gordon Barnes' book, How Do We Know?
	It's a great, great, fun little discussion.
	He has a range of characters around a range of popular topics making philosophy accessible.
	But as we discussed on the sidebar with him, I've been complaining about this since I was a kid.
	Because my father was railroaded out of accounting because he didn't have a certain certification or licensure when he was a better bookkeeper and accountant and tax preparer than 90% of the so-called licensed credentialed class.
	When we had George Gammon on last week, there were a couple people saying, well, he's not a licensed professional financial advisor.
	I was like, thank God, because if he was, you'd been losing your money and everything else.
	It's these licensure professional class people that are the problem.
	And because they dominate the judiciary by definition, we're seeing what that looks like.
	Governance by the professional class is an inevitable, inescapable disaster.
	The last time they had a peak of power outside of the communists who dominated communist governments overwhelmingly by the professional class, not the working class.
	The people who most regretted the fall of the Soviet Union initially was the professional class, not the working class of Russia or the other former Soviet countries.
	We're seeing, you know, it was World War I. I mean, when a professional class was at the peak of their power to a large degree, the so-called progressive era was often a professional class-dominated era.
	A lot of Victorian colonialism was done in the name of the professional class and by the professional class.
	There are people who think they know better than everyone else because they read something in a book, but they don't understand the world as it really exists, and they're the worst people to manage and govern the rest of us, and we're seeing that in live time.
	Kenneth Miller has reminded me, this is the next Mercer.
	We've got Viva Fro coming as soon as we get the graphic done, but we needed one that is both More Robert than Viva.
	I don't want to read this.
	That was an echo.
	It doesn't matter.
	Forget the echo, people.
	Okay, I'm bringing it up.
	The argument of practicing medicine without a license, how does one file a complaint?
	Hypothetically, without inciting people to file complaints or seek litigation, what would be the mechanism to file a complaint for someone who's practicing medicine without a license?
	And could there even be the argument?
	That this is what YouTube, or at the very least, the decision makers within YouTube, are doing by suppressing the speech of actual licensed doctors.
	Well, yes.
	I mean, like what happened in that South Carolina case, ultimately the court rejected it for its own reasons, but they've said otherwise in a lot of other cases.
	I mean, for example, they were going after anybody who promoted vitamin D, silver.
	Vitamin B, vitamin C, other health, getting sun.
	Anybody who was promoting that at the beginning of COVID was targeted for federal criminal investigation by Bill Barr's Department of Justice.
	Remember everybody, Bill Barr's father is the one who first hired Jeffrey Epstein.
	Just a little side point.
	On the grounds, in part, that they were practicing medicine without a license.
	Also, in part, they were false advertising under FDA rules.
	Now, of course, we know That certain vitamin deficiencies are a strong correlation with your risk factor for COVID-19's severe consequences.
	So it turned out a lot of these people were the ones that were right, not Fauci and crew, once again.
	But it's amazing that they've applied different standards when it's their preferred people doing it.
	So, I mean, clearly, every employer is practicing medicine without a license.
	When they're forcing their employees to have a certain medical treatment on the grounds that they think that's what's better for them medically, they're not equipped to do that.
	Now, I dislike licensing in general, so I'm never going to be the big patron of pushing that as a theory.
	But it is practically what they're doing, and it's definitely what they've accused others of doing when they don't like what their opinions were.
	All right.
	Okay.
	Well, we'll see.
	I mean, I just find it fascinating.
	There is a debate, and it goes back to whoever can track the Wikipedia entries of Robert Malone's participation in mRNA.
	We've discussed it.
	I just feel the need to constantly bring up the flip side argument, which was that the Wikipedia was updated to add him as the creator of mRNA technology where he wasn't, so they had to remove it to be truthful to the history.
	And this is when you literally get into...
	Casualties of war.
	The first casualty of war is the truth.
	And you never know who to...
	Robert, is that Bud Light or is that Monster?
	No, this is a Dr. Pepper Cherry Zero.
	Okay, I'm sorry.
	Which is my favorite thing with regard.
	I thought it was Bud Light.
	My entire perspective of you is about to change.
	Thank goodness.
	Oh, yeah.
	God bless, but no.
	American generic beers are not my thing, I'll put it that way.
	Unless it's Pat Blue Ribbon, because that's just too American not to drink.
	Well, that is iconic.
	Wait a minute, what about targeted litigation of the fact-checkers who are presenting opinion as medical fact but practicing medicine without a license?
	I mean, that's really already happening.
	There's a bunch of suits on those grounds in different contexts.
	I mean, Stossel's in different contexts.
	He has his.
	Candace Owens has hers.
	Bobby Kennedy and Children's Health Defense have sued Facebook on these grounds.
	So all of it is there, but that may be another angle as well.
	But speaking of misinformation lawsuits, so Twitter has suspended.
	I mean, this Orwellian language is amazing.
	Has permanently suspended, which I think is called canceled, but they don't want to call it canceled.
	It's called banned.
	It's called just perma-banned.
	A suspension, by definition, is temporary.
	I tweeted it out, and I think I'm right, linguistically.
	So Twitter, fact check, false.
	I don't know what Marjorie Taylor Greene, right, is who you're going to talk about?
	What does she say?
	What does she do?
	I have no idea.
	I just see it happen.
	And this continues a pattern.
	You know, Instagram did it to Bobby Kennedy on the grounds that Bobby Kennedy was supposedly spreading misinformation about COVID when, in fact, all he was doing was quoting from the government in peer-reviewed publications.
	Then they did it to Dr. Robert Malone right before he was going to appear on Joe Rogan.
	And then he did it, and then they did it because obviously Malone was being very effective.
	People can look up the Unity Project.
	He's part of the Unity Project, one of the medical leaders of that project, to get accurate information out there about protecting legal rights, particularly in the children's vaccine context.
	And now they've done it to Marjorie Taylor Greene, a congresswoman, after, of course, they did it to the President of the United States.
	But the difference is the President of the United States, they didn't quite lie about him.
	Because what they've gotten to the pattern of doing now...
	It's not just banning someone, for which they have Section 230 immunity functionally, but they go a step further, and they make false statements about them.
	And they say that they had to remove them because, quote, that person was spreading misinformation about COVID-19.
	And to me, that's a factual statement.
	Now, I know what they're going to hide behind, the same thing Facebook is hiding behind, saying, oh, really, this is all protected opinion.
	But that's not why they say they suspended him.
	They suspended him because they said this person shared factually false information.
	Well, what was factually false?
	They don't identify it.
	That's because it doesn't exist.
	And because the information that was being shared, to my knowledge, by Marjorie Taylor Greene, again, comes from doctors, other medical professionals, other people who studied the data, just basic information that they don't want out there.
	But the fact that they can suspend anybody, and basically they suspended her because she's very effective on social media.
	But it's showing how, you know, and everyone who was paying attention knew Twitter was going to get much worse once Dorsey was gone.
	Dorsey was not the source of the problem.
	The whole mindset and mentality within big tech was the problem, for which Dorsey was actually, while too slight, still a restraint.
	Without Dorsey, they're going to go full throttle censorship.
	And so it's why I tell people, you know, the locals is, you know, how long I'll be on.
	Who knows?
	Even though I'm a lawyer talking about law, so it's a little trickier on paper for them to try to get rid of me or people that are in the legal space, it's still coming.
	Once they got rid of President Trump, it was only a matter of time.
	And now they're going to keep coming and they're going to purge everything to where only conformed opinion are allowed.
	And so that's why you need to go to Alternatives to Big Tech to be ready and prepared to make sure you can continue to have your voice heard and hear the voices you want to hear.
	But I think she has a libel suit against Twitter.
	Twitter is not immune from libel.
	Section 230 does not cover that action.
	If they just suspended her and not explained why, different deal.
	Let me play devil's advocate.
	They can't suspend her and not explain why because they have rules and they need to explain why.
	Now, is the proposition or the proposal that they should explain it to her privately and not publicly?
	Well, I mean, they could do that.
	What they used to do is just say the person violated our terms.
	Well, that's real vague, right?
	I mean, there's not a lot of factual statements there, and it's kind of guessing what the terms were.
	When you say something specific, like you said something false about COVID-19, to me, you're now making a factual claim.
	That's not an opinion, in my view.
	That's a factual claim, or not a protected opinion.
	You're inferring to the audience, to the world, that this person can't be on social media because they lied about COVID.
	And to me, the other reason I think to fight these kind of cases, like you could file a suit in federal court in Georgia, and there's no anti-slap law that applies.
	Georgia's anti-slap law doesn't apply in federal court in Georgia, according to the 11th Circuit.
	So you don't have to worry about paying Twitter's legal fees if you get a judge that's hostile to the suit.
	But the other advantage is potentially proving the validity and verity of what you said, using the proceedings to prove that, in fact, you're right about tests, some of these issues.
	With the trial, if they want to argue truth as a defense, we'll put it on trial.
	And you're going to find that the evidence doesn't support them.
	I mean, Twitter is again playing doctor like YouTube is playing doctor and they're not very good at it.
	And I think that's what this would show.
	But I hope Marjorie Taylor Greene pursues suit because I think she has good grounds to do so.
	Well, she would have no trouble raising whatever finances are required, maybe even finding counsel, Robert.
	By the way, What was I just...
	Oh, on the Gab question, by the way, I have a Gab...
	I have two Gab accounts now.
	VivaFry and TheVivaFry.
	Gab or Getter?
	Getter.
	Not Gab.
	Getter.
	Not that I have anything against Gab.
	Getter.
	Which I still hate the name because it sounds too much like Grabber, which would have been just as bad of a name.
	So I have both of my names reserved.
	I just have to figure out which one I want to use if I ever go there, but I reserve both.
	We had 11,111 people watching, and I screenshotted it with the comments in the chat.
	But while everyone's there now, while we're at 11,100 plus, thumbs up.
	Go drop a comment and make chat go crazy.
	But Robert, so they boot Marjorie Taylor Greene.
	Same reasons as the others.
	I'll understand the argument.
	They have to explain why.
	And then, depending on the detail, not enough detail will accuse them of being nebulous and vague.
	Too much detail will accuse them of being defamatory.
	Flip side.
	I mean, just don't block, but just don't ban it.
	Don't suspend temporarily, but forever.
	Well, you know, speaking of the troll rules that these are things that were originally intended for, and they're now clearly being misapplied as political censorship, is that a person is being criminally prosecuted for trolling former Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
	Let's not.
	I'll save you, Robert, so that no one accuses you of straw manning.
	The steel manning is that the troll was a threat on Mitch McConnell's life, suggesting that people were coming to slash throats.
	And that was like, you know, almost verbatim.
	It was coming from an email basically saying like the patriots are coming and throats will be slashed or slashed throats.
	I couldn't get the exact quote, but those were the...
	Because, interestingly enough, I think that quote must not be very sensational because the court opinion failed to quote what he said, which was very peculiar to me.
	And it's weird.
	I had to Google a number of articles to see anyone who actually even remotely...
	They quoted it, but it said, like, slash throats.
	That was basically what was in quotes.
	So the lower court judge...
	If I got the judge right, Robert, seemed to be an 80-some-odd-year-old judge who is no longer sitting, seemed to be who appointed this judge.
	It was a Democrat judge, which is what I found surprising.
	Said that it's protected speech.
	So this does not...
	Well, it was an old-school, probably could have been a Carter appointee.
	Some of the Carter appointees were old-school constitutional liberals.
	So they were liberals, but they were old-school constitutional types.
	And so they had a different approach.
	Some of them struck down Section 230 initially, said it didn't apply in a range of contexts.
	I think their decisions were right, but ultimately they were reversed.
	What's amazing is that a lot of people don't even know this law exists.
	Now, where the law comes from, it was from phone harassment.
	It was not ever written during a time of social media.
	I mean, it's been amended during a time of social media, but the whole original point was they didn't want people calling up, using the phones to harass people.
	So, but the language is really vague.
	Like, you talk about vague statutory language.
	It says you can't use any electronic device, which basically now means the internet as well, to basically troll people.
	If you're doing it anonymously, and you're harassing, abusing, or something else, and it's like, I try to find, has anybody ever actually tried to define what they mean by harassment, what they mean by abuse?
	They haven't.
	To me, the law should be struck down as unconstitutional on those grounds alone.
	You can't have, what does harass me?
	That's way too vague, in my view, to maybe be a criminal statute.
	Unless they define harassment.
	Harassment, to me, has to be repetitive.
	Well, they did, but they don't.
	The federal law doesn't define it.
	There's no court definition of it.
	The jury instructions that are given are vague, are just as vague.
	So it's striking.
	Now, the way they've practically interpreted it in the federal context is they've said it has to be a true threat.
	Now, in my view, they've so rewritten the troll statute.
	That they should say the statute's vague when you have to limit it to say, well, really what they're trying to do is criminalize true threats.
	Well, make the legislature do that then next time.
	Don't let them have this vague definition that says if you troll somebody.
	And all that means is you use electronic device to abuse or harass them.
	People don't know this.
	That's a federal crime.
	Federal crime.
	So I'm sure somebody now is going to be quoting that to go after trolls next time.
	Hey, by the way, Barnes says federal crime.
	Which it is, but the courts have limited its application to what's called true threats.
	And this was a Ninth Circuit decision that came down this week.
	Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a decision a few weeks ago.
	And they're contrary decisions.
	The Pennsylvania decision said that a school kid could not be disciplined for making statements that were in celebration or appear to be in celebration of school shootings while he was at school saying those things.
	They said that wasn't true threat because it wasn't specific enough.
	And here in this context...
	They said that these statements to McConnell were sufficiently specific, or at least a jury could make that determination first, which I have a little bit of a problem with deferring to juries on questions like this, on First Amendment issues.
	The court should be doing that first.
	If something's ambiguous, it should be out.
	It should be indisputable, incontrovertible, imminent threat of violence.
	Because this goes all the way back to the Brandenburg case.
	It goes back prior to that.
	There was a case of a direct threat case.
	Because it's always been...
	Federal crime to, or has been for a long time, to threaten the President of the United States.
	They've expanded, of course, to include congressmen and everyone else.
	And you can see where this goes.
	If they start expanding this and saying, we'll let juries determine whether or not your statement to a politician was a threat or not, you're going to have politically motivated prosecutions brought in front of politically tainted juries and ask Kim Potter how that turns out.
	Well, so here, I read the decision.
	Did I read the decision?
	I think I read the decision, Robert, because I remember some elements, but they were talking about the subjective and the objective element of the threat, the true threat, which means you might have made something which was physically impossible to be carried out as a threat, but you meant it, the subjective element, therefore it qualifies, or objectively, even if you didn't mean it, it could qualify.
	And you have to have, under true threats exception to First Amendment law, you have to have both.
	A reasonable person has to believe that you could imminently act on that threat, and you have to have subjectively intended that you could imminently act on that threat.
	Especially if we're going to go back to Brandenburg.
	They're undermining Brandenburg by these decisions, because imminence is starting to disappear.
	It's like, how is this guy's statement on an email, imminent threat?
	It was not clear to me how it could be imminent, given the situation.
	For those of us who are not sufficiently familiar with Brandenburg, what was the fact pattern or, you know, a 30,000-foot overview?
	Sure, a bunch of Klansmen said they wanted to go kill and harm black people down the street.
	And the U.S. Supreme Court said, you can't arrest someone on an oscarity basis because it's not imminent incitement, they said.
	It's incitement, but it's not imminent.
	And this combination of imminence, I mean, they did this to Alex Jones.
	Alex Jones got mad at the lawyer because the lawyer put out misleading information, in my view, in the Sandy Hook case.
	Basically, people had bombarded Alex Jones' emails with illicit files in it.
	He had no clue because he'd never opened those emails.
	Anybody who knows him knows he doesn't read email, period.
	But that's just who he is.
	And so that was turned over in discovery by order of the court.
	Every email he ever received was ordered to be turned over, which is insane.
	Yet they pretend he didn't produce discovery.
	Legal Legal is doing his latest legal schmiegel routine, pretending that Alex Jones didn't participate in discovery.
	He completely did.
	That's just a lie by the courts involved and the legal adversaries involved.
	But their excuse there was that his statement criticizing a lawyer somehow was a true threat when it wasn't.
	It was just nuts.
	I mean, it was just him ranting on his TV show thousands of miles away about how he didn't like what these lawyers did.
	And the thing is, in politics, we use hyperbole all the time.
	We're going to crush so-and-so.
	We're just going to kill so-and-so.
	It's not meant as I'm going to go and do some violent harm.
	And so I don't like where they're drawing this line.
	I definitely don't like them saying, eh, we'll let the jury decide.
	You let the jury decide in these kind of constitutional contexts, you're inviting politicized prosecutions.
	I will say I'm not torn on it.
	I'm just reading it, the subjective element, the objective element coming together.
	Somebody who might be mentally deficient.
	It's a borderline statement.
	There's no question it's a borderline statement within true threats jurisprudence.
	It's just, that should be decided by the courts.
	To me, if it's borderline, it's out.
	You protect the First Amendment.
	And that's the interesting thing, is the judge says, it's borderline, so we're going to leave it to the jury to determine whether or not this is a true threat.
	Whereas...
	Let's just take a, one of these days, what's her name?
	One of these days, Lucy, pow, to the moon.
	Is that a true threat?
	Well, he might have meant it.
	It's a threat, so let's leave it to the jury.
	I can understand that.
	But the flip side, Robert, is, I mean, I'm only comparing it to the defamation side of things, where the judge, in some cases, dismisses defamation, saying no jury could conclude that this was defamatory, where in those cases, I would say leave it to the jury.
	I mean, I guess they're totally different, but in a way, at some point, you want to leave the discretion to the jury.
	I wouldn't leave First Amendment issues to the jury because that's where you're going to have dissident speech that's disfavored by the public.
	That's where that's always been a court barometer first.
	That if it's vague, if it's close call, it's an easy call.
	It has to be, in my view, irrefutable imminent incitement of violence.
	Otherwise, it's out.
	And if it wasn't imminent incitement in Brandenburg...
	You know, that tells you what...
	I mean, this guy's statement was nowhere near as bad as the statements made in Brandenburg.
	Well, this guy's statement sounds about...
	I read it.
	It sounded about as bad as the Eric Swalwell threat.
	Yeah, who threatened to nuke out.
	He was going to nuke all of us.
	No, no, no, no, no, no.
	He got a new one.
	He got threatened where someone met...
	Oh, yes.
	That ridiculous.
	Traders should be hung.
	Traders should be shot.
	And he took that as a threat.
	That's the problem.
	And what's now going to happen?
	He's going to refer to the local Biden DOJ federal prosecutor there in the Bay Area.
	What are they going to do?
	They're going to bring prosecution.
	And are you going to get an impartial jury out of the Bay Area for someone who's on the right at all?
	So they're inviting this.
	That's what they want to have happen.
	They want more of these cases.
	Which is ironic.
	The Pennsylvania Supreme Court said much more precarious statements in the school setting couldn't be prosecuted or disciplined.
	Because they said that just doesn't meet true threats.
	Now, I think their interpretation of true threats is constitutionally consistent, but it just shows you the scary signs of where the courts are going.
	But for the Ninth Circuit to do it, and if the Ninth Circuit was truly confident that the statement was inflammatory, they would have cited the entire statement.
	I think it's the only true threats case I've ever read where what the person said is never talked about in the Ninth Circuit decision explicitly.
	And I didn't mean unmask the moment ago.
	I said what they're going to say is you get anonymous threats, oh, get the DOJ.
	Go find out who the individual is.
	Reveal their identity via social media.
	I want to bring this one up because Little Rock we know had some complications from an illness not long ago.
	Hey guys, I was a little late.
	I was prepping for a jury trial next week and jumped on after finishing.
	Happy New Year.
	I got my prosthetic on Friday.
	I guess that's one step of the battle.
	Next step is going to be, I suspect, rehab in terms of learning to operate with it, which is going to be...
	I guess a fun adventure for 2022, Little Rock.
	So congrats and nothing but health and happiness.
	And to the Super Chat question about the Jack Murphy dispute, purportedly Jack Murphy said something that called the quartering a sexual predator, something like that.
	That would be a statement that Jeremy from the quartering could sue on.
	He's not that kind of guy.
	I wouldn't have focused on the issue as much as he did, but everybody wants their soap opera drama, have at it.
	I don't know about Sydney, though.
	Also, let's just say, put it this way.
	If you decide to read all Super Chats, I would not do that.
	We don't do that here.
	We definitely don't do that when they're a guest on.
	I don't consider it polite.
	Somebody spends $5 to say some trollish comment?
	Thanks for the five bucks.
	Still not reading the trolling comment.
	You can do it.
	You can troll me.
	No problem.
	But, you know, not going to do it to guests.
	So I'm not a fan of that as a custom in practice.
	The second aspect is I'm not buying her story, to be frank about it.
	She knew what the statement meant when she first brought it up with him, and she said, oh, I'm sorry, and apologized the first time.
	And then the second time, she doesn't apologize and brings it up again, but she had no idea of its meaning.
	Uh-uh.
	Not buying it, Sydney.
	Sorry.
	And I don't have anything against her.
	I'm just saying that I'm hearing people.
	Now, Jack has plenty of criticisms coming to him for the way he reacted and responded, and that's what people have at it.
	There's also misleading intel there.
	The quartering and some other people, many people that I'm either aligned with or friends with, have assumed who Jack Murphy is.
	I represented him back in the day when he was someone who spent much of his life improving charter schools for African-American kids in the District of Columbia, was fired because he came out as a Trump supporter.
	For illicit, politically prejudicial reasons.
	He wrote a book called From Democrat to Deplorable that has nothing to do with Alpha Male and the rest.
	He has spent much of his, and he's tried to develop a podcast, like all these, including Nick Ricada.
	And I like Nick.
	But if you're going to be real critical of a guy, go to his YouTube channel and watch his interviews.
	And then make a judgment about him.
	But don't assume that somebody else's version of him is accurate.
	Same with Jeremy from The Quartering.
	They've assumed things about Jack Murphy.
	They're just wrong because they've been too lazy.
	To do their job and read the thing.
	And also, I don't like people jumping down somebody to this level.
	It's got to be too much.
	I get the criticisms.
	Jack's got a lot of it coming to him.
	He knows he's got some of it coming to him.
	The way he handled it with Sidney was not good.
	The way he handled it...
	I mean, he got hot-headed with you when we interviewed him.
	So it was clear that Jack had a quick fuse on some topics.
	And I don't think that's to his credit.
	However...
	He has spent much of his time trying to make positive improvements in the public arena.
	He has not spent much money or time.
	The liminal order is a small thing.
	He started about a year ago.
	It's not been a focus or driving point of most of his tenure.
	Go to his Jack Murphy live interview shows, and he asks very thoughtful questions on very interesting topics, 95% of which have nothing to do with being an alpha male.
	And so people are going to target him because some videos he made.
	Would I have made them?
	Obviously not.
	Would I have said some of the things he said in some of those articles?
	Obviously not.
	Does that mean that should define everything he is and everybody should feel proud of themselves jumping on and bashing a guy who spent the better part of the last five years trying to do mostly good things?
	I don't think so.
	And I get you get lots of clicks on this.
	I get Jeremy's going to get 100,000 plus views every time he rails on it.
	God bless.
	But at some point, people should step back from the edge.
	And I get the quartering getting agitated at Jack making defamatory statements about him.
	That's entirely fair game for him, for the quartering to do.
	But come on, at some point, enough's enough.
	And people are misrepresenting and misunderstanding who he is because they didn't know him, don't know his backstory, don't know the whole story, jumping to conclusions, being too lazy to do their own job.
	And that's...
	Probably the last I'm ever going to speak of it, but that's my point about it.
	And I thank you, Robert.
	I wasn't even going to speak about it, but it's gotten here.
	I'm going to bring this chat up just so it doesn't disappear.
	Chris O 'Kath, thank you.
	And my take is this, Robert.
	I'm happy never to speak about it again.
	People seem to forget.
	They think I'm defending Jack Murphy for whatever the reason, forgetting that when we had him on, I took shit because people said I was too hard on him.
	Because ultimately, I did say Jack...
	I read your book.
	You sound angry.
	And I think he is angry.
	But he has some legitimate reasons to be angry.
	And he's had some responses that are poorly done that are not as well as he could have or should have.
	I don't think his response to Sidney was okay.
	I don't think his explanation afterward.
	But at some point, I mean, if we take, if any human being has their worst moment in life or their worst two or three moments in life magnified and defined as that is their whole life.
	That's where I have a problem with it.
	And especially, it's just got excessive.
	Everybody's feeling good about jumping on and beating on the guy, and I'm not comfortable with that ever.
	People are making good money off of it, and set that aside.
	Knowing that, there's some troll people involved.
	There's some other people involved.
	I've seen a lot of anti-Semitism coming out of people.
	They keep bringing up his birth name, which is, he's half Jewish people.
	We talked about it on my show.
	He talks about it in his book.
	But no, I'll tell you this.
	His response was bad.
	His response for anybody who has the slightest bit of intuition into the human condition was based on shame and embarrassment, quite clearly.
	Amy Cooper, when she reacted badly by what she did with Chris Cooper, and I said at the time, it was a bad response, but it's clearly an indication of a bigger problem.
	And I say, you want to kill her?
	You want her to kill herself?
	You want to destroy this individual because of this one moment?
	And then people are like, oh, well, he's selling this alpha male crap and he's a fraud and yada yada.
	First of all, it's not clear that people who are into that alpha male stuff might think that that response was alpha male.
	That's subjective crap.
	If you don't like his stuff, don't buy it.
	It's also, it's a tiny piece.
	I guarantee, he hasn't made, that has not been his career.
	That has not been his life.
	He wanted to create a group for what he went through.
	And that's it.
	And it wasn't like a big money-making opportunity.
	It never became a big money-making opportunity.
	It was a small piece of what he did.
	And people want to be critical of it.
	I have no problem with that aspect.
	But going beyond that, defining that that's all he is, and then harping on the one or two things that he regrets, I'm just not overly...
	And how many?
	I mean, what?
	A quartering's made, what, 10 video?
	And again, I'm a big fan of the quartering.
	I like him.
	But at some point, enough's enough.
	Enough's enough.
	It's time to move on.
	Rib sauce, I know that we get along now, rib sauce, and I know that you are quick to remind us of his name as Goldstein, I think.
	I forget what his birth name is.
	What I love is that when someone's half-Jewish, when they do something wrong, they're full-Jewish.
	When someone is half-Black, when they do something wrong, full-Black.
	When they're half-Black, become President, then it's not...
	It's politically incorrect.
	They're like George Zimmerman.
	They suddenly go from Hispanic to white.
	But yeah, there's aspects of it that are obsessed up, that are obsessive, and it's particularly coming from some people that, you know...
	Guys, but this is my deal.
	I was never into the Liminal Order.
	I was suspicious.
	It's not my thing.
	I'm not a fan of clubs that are based on immutable traits, as a thing.
	I don't like self-help gurus in general.
	I'm suspicious, but people get something.
	Fine.
	Jack Murphy, the videos?
	Yeah, it's good.
	You brought up a lot of stuff.
	You can go to Jack Murphy Live.
	See how much is there?
	When people say, oh, Jack Murphy's a con man.
	I'm like, okay, go to his videos.
	Tell me which part is false.
	They can't identify one.
	These people that think they know more than I do about Jack are wrong.
	You don't.
	If you're going to come at me with these statements, you better be ready to do it.
	This, too, is wrong.
	See, as even Reketa explained, that three months ago was all the way back in 2015 because he deleted the post.
	And that's why it says three months.
	It's three months from when the post was originally put up.
	So people have made these statements that are totally false.
	And by the way, that statement by that commenter, that is defamation, is an example of libel.
	So be careful before everybody jumps in on wanting.
	We can't wait to beat up on the person that people have thrown out of the group and want to beat up.
	And a lot of it, they want to vent their issues with men's rights groups.
	They want to vent their issue with self-help groups.
	Okay, fine.
	Have at it.
	In my experience, most of the people that I know that have been through those things have enjoyed it.
	Some people haven't.
	Do I do it?
	No.
	That's not my shtick.
	I'm not defending Jack because I'm into any of that stuff.
	I tell people I've been married and I've been loyal and I keep my schmeckle in my pants because it's the easiest way to stay out of trouble.
	And I'm not into a lot of this stuff.
	To take one person's lashing out because he was clearly embarrassed, clearly humiliated, clearly responding defensively and say, oh, he told a woman to go F herself?
	Let's ruin this guy's life.
	He's a fraud.
	Sydney brought that up twice.
	And the first time she brought it up, she said, I'm sorry.
	And the second time, she doesn't preface it and needles him.
	I think she knew exactly what...
	Are we supposed to pretend Sydney's unsophisticated here?
	God bless, but I'm not buying that aspect.
	And again, don't have anything against her.
	Don't even know her.
	Don't know her at all.
	I'm saying, but I watched the Star, I think it's Star Wars girl.
	And she doesn't have a bone in a fight at all.
	And she pointed this out.
	She was like, I can see kind of why Jack responded because it looks like she deliberately triggered him a second time because she thought it made good drama.
	It did.
	It got her probably the most views she's had in a while.
	But Robert, I'm going to read this because even if what you're saying is true and I had to bring up the...
	Did he wear his underpants with Alan Dershowitz?
	You have to at some point, to be honest to your crowd.
	But let me say this.
	Jack didn't help himself by digging his grave.
	Jack didn't need help digging his grave.
	I wish people would quit helping him.
	Let him dig himself out and be a better person.
	I've unsubbed channels.
	Good.
	That's how it goes.
	And I get why the quartering was agitated and all the rest.
	But at some point, enough's enough.
	Enough's enough.
	And I get why, you know, look, it's funny conversation for Nick and Drexel to do their thing, and they're funny guys.
	But at some point, there should be some limits to this.
	You know, again, no one's pointed to me.
	What false statement has Jack made?
	I mean, what they point out is that Jack's personal life doesn't match up his own ideal.
	That isn't the sign of a con man.
	That's the sign of somebody who is still trying to work his way through life.
	I'll just say that they'll go to the videos.
	I've seen people change their Twitter feed.
	It's not defending Jack.
	I'm not partaking in public executions for the sake of it.
	It's like, what's the compelling cause?
	Why is it I'm supposed to spend more time on this than Anthony Fauci?
	Why is it I'm supposed to spend more?
	I mean, I'm sorry.
	I'm not buying it.
	It's high school gossip.
	And the things that Jack has done that I have no doubt that he regrets tremendously.
	Unless he doesn't.
	Maybe he's happy about the videos.
	I don't know.
	I don't care.
	I just want to say this.
	I have no inherent support for Jack.
	I gave him a hard time on my channel.
	A hard time.
	I asked him some hard questions.
	I'm not into the things that he's into.
	I'm not even into the alpha male discussion, period.
	All I'm saying is this response was excessive, disproportionate, and was akin to taking down Amy Cooper.
	It was akin to, you know, here's a fun target of the day, and everyone does it and they move on.
	Read So You've Been Publicly Shamed by John Ronson, and then maybe you'll have a little bit more sympathy.
	Or empathy?
	There's wisdom in the old Christian proverb, in the old biblical proverb, which is that you don't point out the speck in another person's eye until you pull out the log in your own.
	And the point, though, is do any of us want to be judged by our worst moment in life?
	And do we want to be judged on that for weeks on end?
	And if we don't, then we shouldn't do it to other people.
	Let me stop this one.
	I'm going to do this one.
	John Correa, because I've read this comment multiple times.
	You two don't get it.
	Whored on his wife for internet dollars.
	What more do you need to know?
	I'm sorry, do you think his wife doesn't have autonomy to make decisions of her own?
	Oh, he sent his wife to a cuckold thing.
	He sent her there like she's property.
	So you say that, sir, and you think that women are property who are incapable of making their own life decisions under circumstances.
	I'm not into open relationships.
	I think they are fundamentally destructive to the relationship.
	I think they always end in problems.
	But you're saying he sent his wife out like she's property?
	Who's talking about women like property now except for you?
	I'm not trying to call you out.
	John?
	Juan?
	I don't want to call you John.
	And you can be critical of all of that without obsessing over it day after day.
	There aren't bigger fish to fry in the world than Jack Murphy's personal relationships.
	We're going to get there, but this comment, anybody who says it in the future, he sent his woman out there.
	I'm sorry, that comment presupposes that his woman, his wife, his girlfriend, whoever it was at the time, had no autonomy, and she was just property that did what he said, and I dare say that that's probably an offensive way of doing it.
	There's clearly people who have different lifestyles than I would recommend, but I'm not going to test over criticizing it, particularly if they're not a public official.
	To stay rich, stay married, to stay out of trouble, keep your dick in your pants, and you'll avoid a lot of problems.
	I'm not going to judge him.
	He's done a ton of things that I would not do.
	I think he has some behavior traits that I think are problematic that lead to these types of problems.
	To say there that we should publicly destroy a man, everything that he's built, go after his livelihood, go after his reputation, and effectively look good.
	People did it with Amy Cooper.
	They did it with that lady in the store there who took the kid's phone.
	I can take myself at my worst and I would be embarrassed, but it's not my thing.
	So with that said, and moving on from the Juan John Carreras chat, let's get into Ghislaine Maxwell, Robert.
	That's an example where personal behavior is publicly consequential.
	Agreed.
	And we talked about it briefly with Gammon, but I felt a bit guilty trying to push it too hard with Gammon because it didn't look like he was going to be very interested in the discussion.
	She was convicted, Robert.
	Five of six counts.
	The six count, I mean, I know the details, but I don't think we care to get into the nuances of that acquittal per se.
	But, Robert, meaningful, impactful things where prior behavior is relevant and where...
	Even still, we're not going after a full destruction of the person.
	We just want to go after justice in the courts of law.
	She was convicted.
	Posobiec put out a tweet, and it alluded to or suggested that they were going to seal the file or certain aspects of it.
	Do you have any knowledge of that offhand or personally or subsequent to last week?
	I do not.
	I mean, I know they're going to purportedly unseal some of the prior settlements that had been sealed pending the criminal case.
	And so that wouldn't surprise me, Dr. Malone.
	There's a reason why they don't want you listening to Dr. Malone.
	We'll put it that way.
	And we'll see if they'll be successful in their efforts.
	I don't think they'll be as successful as they hope.
	But in part because of the Barbra Streisand effect and other people coming to his defense.
	But my understanding is aspects are going to actually be unsealed in other proceedings that had been sealed pending this criminal case, this position.
	And in fact, that's part of the big hearing that's coming up this week.
	Relating to this is Prince Andrew has moved to dismiss the Virginia Guffery complaint against him.
	And there's going to be, my understanding is oral arguments by Zoom.
	And apparently you can tune in at some level.
	You can listen or something.
	Because he's moving to dismiss on every grounds known to man, in part based on things that he believes will come out in some of these unsealed proceedings.
	So my understanding is that...
	There may be some stuff that is sealed that is part of the criminal case, but that's usually limited to private confidential information, personal identifying information that never should have been unsealed in the first place.
	So to my knowledge, nothing additional is going to be sealed.
	More stuff is going to be unsealed in some other cases.
	And the Prince Andrew aspect will be going forward.
	The big question is, people had thought if she was convicted, she would start naming names.
	What they have not put together, but what GoodLogic did a good breakdown of, is that The whole point of this case has been to redefine the narrative.
	To say this was just about two people being bad, Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.
	It had nothing to do with anyone else.
	It was not about blackmail or extortion or anything else.
	It wasn't about connections to intelligence agencies, whether it was Mossad, MI6, KGB back in the day with her father, or the CIA today.
	By the way, this is one of those stories that while people were yipping about Jack Murphy, they missed.
	The CIA agents were caught in an internal report committing crimes against underage children.
	And yet, that story isn't a big story.
	And they don't want the Glenn Maxwell and Epstein case to go in that direction.
	So my view is they don't want her to name names.
	The whole point of prosecuting her was to say there are no names to name.
	That this is just about her and Epstein.
	And they want to wrap this up with a nice little bow.
	And I think they've achieved that.
	Now, maybe she will try to go to somebody somewhere to name names and see if somebody else outside the Southern District of New York or the Biden Justice Department will cut her deal.
	I doubt it.
	But in that case, she might be at risk of being Epstein.
	But it looks at this point like her likely sentence will be the rest of her life.
	She's 60 years old.
	Frankly, she's got it coming based on the conduct that was detailed and documented and demonstrated at the trial, which was only a tiny slice of the allegations against her.
	If we can, I just want to pause you there.
	She has it coming, not because of what we think ought to have been adduced, but because what we know of what was adduced was a drop in the bucket because of craftful prosecuting by James Comey's daughter.
	I mean, that was a drop in the bucket.
	We know this stuff.
	We've heard it.
	We've heard more outside of the court than they heard in the court.
	And not unsubstantiated rumors.
	We know.
	So guilty as sin is not the understatement.
	It's...
	Who else was?
	And I want to get into that in a second, but sorry.
	So, yeah, the rest of her life means, will she get 25 years or will she get like 115 type thing?
	Exactly.
	Certain names somehow magically never came up at trial, like Bill Gates.
	Like the United Nations, we had a great discussion with Matthew Lee of the Inner City Press that you can see that's somehow still up on YouTube.
	Let me just stop it there.
	Remonetize, and I didn't even ask for it because I unmonetized it.
	That's how clean I am.
	Alex Jones, re-monetized after manual review.
	This, re-monetized.
	But yeah, sorry.
	I'm always curious when people tell me to please stop.
	Do they think that's going to work?
	If the IRS, the DEA, the HHS, the Secret Service, and other three-letter agencies weren't going to stop me, why do you think a $5 Super Chat is going to stop?
	They disagree with our take on destroying another human.
	My opinion's not going to stop, and I'm going to keep saying it.
	Precisely, the more people tell me that, the more I'm going to say it some more.
	And you know what?
	If I'm wrong on this, I'd rather be wrong than right.
	But I don't think I...
	Yeah, I don't justify anything you did.
	But I also don't justify deciding to crucify someone over a small part of their lives.
	You know, that's that simple.
	Now, that's very different from committing crimes, right?
	Somebody's consensual conduct that I'm not a fan of, that's their business.
	That's legal.
	What Ghislaine Maxwell did was not.
	What Jeffrey Epstein did was not.
	And what's most disturbing is that the true scope of their illegality is being hidden because it implicates big names and big people in powerful institutions.
	I said this as a quasi-tongue-in-cheek joke, but it's a trafficking ring without clients, unless we're to believe that the only client in this entire 30-year-plus trafficking ring was Epstein.
	It's like poaching.
	Who magically made a lot of money that nobody can still explain the source of.
	It is.
	And by the way, people, if anyone's going to accuse me of defending one member of a club in one circumstance, Ghislaine Maxwell, I never knew her father was Jewish until you mentioned it, because I knew nothing about this until we did that stream in my mother-in-law's veranda two years ago.
	Jeffrey Epstein?
	I will never stop saying bad things about Jeffrey Epstein.
	Harvey Weinstein?
	Wiener?
	Jared Fogle?
	I mean, I can go on about the people who I will be hard on, so don't pull that card when you think it is convenient.
	But how do you have...
	It's like you just arrest someone for poaching, but you don't have any horns, or you don't have any skin, you don't have any...
	And watch for Maureen Comey to now get promoted.
	Because she's done her job well.
	She's delivered for the system and covered.
	How do you prosecute someone and make it a cover-up at the same time?
	This will be the exemplar of that that I will use for future reference for cases and clients and for other public educational efforts.
	And this judge will end up on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
	So this is how the game works, boys and girls.
	You've got a crash course in live time.
	In live time.
	Appointed while she's there.
	She made some decisions which I thought benefited.
	It's a crazy thing.
	I can acknowledge my own confirmation bias where whatever that judge did was going to support my theory of this being a cover-up through prosecution.
	So I'm no longer able to objectively assess the decisions.
	Everything in this case points to a cover-up via prosecution from Maureen Comey.
	I will call it a lackluster, half-assed prosecution, which was very effective for the purposes of which it was done, but ignored everything else.
	The judge allowing, disallowing, but very conveniently circumscribed the debate, and it's done.
	That's it.
	We'll never know.
	Meanwhile, you have a freaking picture of Bill Clinton getting a deep muscle back massage in an airport from one of the alleged victims.
	But no, no, that's fine.
	But Donald Trump flew on his plane, so let's pretend apples are oranges and oranges are apples.
	So the only thing that's left of this that could expose anything further is the lawsuit against Prince Andrew.
	And so it'll be interesting to see if the courts allow that to go forward or not.
	Now, it's in the Southern District of New York.
	Which, speaking of global conspiracies, has been busy trying to cover up for the global banking conspiracy that is now more than a dozen years old having occurred, but the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated a big part of the case this week, which was very good news.
	I have to read this out because I don't want to ignore it.
	Laura, and I'm not doing this to put you on the spot.
	I'm going to read it.
	I'm going to tell you what I think right after I read it.
	Why do you think it's okay to blame Sidney for being verbally abused?
	Disgusting.
	Laura.
	If I had a nickel for every time I was told to go F myself on YouTube, or worse, and I'll say worse, but I'm an understatement worse, we have different understandings of verbally abuse.
	Here's a question.
	Why wasn't anyone jumping to Tim Pool's defense when Rugged Man verbally abused him on the channel?
	I mean, oh, is everyone out there suggesting that Sydney is incapable of defending herself because she's a woman, weak and frail, and she needs the aggregate knowledge of the internet to defend her?
	She was told to F off.
	Grow up and deal with it.
	I don't call that verbal abuse.
	And I don't have any problem with Sidney responding.
	I think that was completely inappropriate to Jack's response.
	I don't think it helps his cause in any way, shape, or form.
	But people pretending that that came out of the blue are not...
	Again, don't take my view for it.
	Go look at the Star Wars girl breakdown.
	She has no bone in the fight.
	And she pointed out she understood why Murphy responded the way he did because she said how Sidney had handled this.
	In the same conversation earlier.
	And I'm just saying that, like, some people are saying somehow it's a...
	I would never appear on that show for the precise reason that I'm not going to...
	You know, you go on these shows, you expect a certain conversation, and if they're going to ambush you with something else, it's not, in my view, a good way to go about it.
	I'm just not a fan of it.
	That's just my own view.
	I'm not a fan of it.
	And I'm not buying her story.
	I'm just not.
	I got verbally abused, being told to go after yourself.
	Okay, we're all adults.
	I don't consider that verbal abuse even close.
	I think I'm mad.
	And I think he was wrong to say what he said.
	I think she's right to criticize him back.
	Don't have a problem with either one of those things.
	And again, I'm not going to spend much time on it.
	We spend more time on it than needed.
	Moving on.
	I want everyone to appreciate...
	I don't expect for ask or any form of support via Super Chats.
	I appreciate them and I thank you all for them.
	If you do not have...
	I forget who that Twitch individual was who was shaming people for not giving.
	So when I see this, do not give.
	If you're going to remember having given the Super Chat, don't give it.
	Apologies if it seems I'm trolling.
	Just wanted a friendly debate.
	Full support, you and both.
	And would support monetarily if I had more to give.
	I'm a small hedge fund.
	Well, Jojo, thank you very much.
	Look, when I put anyone on blast in a chat, it's humorous because I don't believe in going after people like that.
	With the name Viva, he should be able to roll his...
	You want to hear me?
	Correa, Correa, Correa, Correa.
	Okay.
	Love you guys.
	Keep it up.
	Juan, Juan Correa, thank you.
	Correa.
	I used to be able to do that, but I can't.
	Because my name, Roberto, in Spanish, you should be able to roll both of ours.
	But I could do it for a brief period of time, and that was it, unfortunately.
	Okay, now, Robert, what did you just say was the thing we were going to move on to, which I read?
	The big bank global conspiracy.
	Oh, yeah.
	A federal court, it's a multi-district litigation because of the number of suits that were filed.
	Short answer is all the banks got together and manipulated the LIBOR, the London...
	I started reading it, Robert.
	Robert sent me my homework, and when I read LIBOR, the London Intel Bank, when I hear something about banks, picture the Homer Simpson...
	Ass in a wheel in his head.
	That's me.
	So, Robert, what is LIBOR?
	So, it's basically a rate set by the banks in London by British Banking Association that a lot of banks, including non-British banks, are part of that is supposed to basically determine certain interbank lending rates, but a whole bunch of other financial instruments are priced according to it.
	So, I'm not going to purport to know all the details of it.
	That'd be a George Gammon kind of conversation.
	He could take you on a deep dive of it.
	And he's discussed this in a range of his videos that are great.
	People have asked where you can find him.
	You can just look up George Gammon on YouTube or Rebel Capitalist Live or Rebel Capitalist Pro.
	He has a big one coming up next week in Texas that I may take a little stop in because I like a lot of the people he brings together.
	But basically, the banks got together right during the middle of the 2008 financial crisis knowing that the way in which this is priced would basically could either cost them billions of dollars Or make them billions of dollars.
	Now, it's supposed to be honestly and independently and accurately priced.
	Thomson Reuters ends up even involved in this process.
	And it turns out they were deliberately manipulating the price behind the scenes.
	Global conspiracy of all the biggest banks in the world.
	Conspiring to screw over as many people as they could and line their own pockets during the middle of a financial crisis caused by the banks themselves, of course.
	And so once this leaked out, because somebody at some low-level Justice Department employee Figured out what was going on and leaked out that there was a subpoena or an investigation about it.
	And everybody was like, hold on a second.
	This explains a bunch.
	And so massive number of lawsuits got filed because they screwed over a lot of people, including people with deep pockets and real power, just not as much as the big banks.
	They end up in what's called multi-district litigation.
	And that's when you have a bunch of the same suits filed all across the country involving the same defendants and the same set of issues.
	If I may stop you there for one second.
	It occurs to me, Robert, I have heard the term multi-district litigation before.
	It seems it was in a Pfizer talcum powder lawsuit, speaking of the companies that we cannot question anymore, where they had so many plaintiffs in different jurisdictions, they were banding them together.
	Sorry, I wanted to interrupt just to...
	Shed some fair light on the pharma companies, whom we're no longer allowed to question.
	We'll be getting to a big pharma suit that's mighty interesting here in a bit.
	But so basically, a bunch of suits got signed to multi-district litigation, and at the district court level, there's a lot of conspiracy theories, even though this is about a global banking conspiracy.
	There's also a lot of people in the legal world who have doubts about how this multi-district litigation magically gets assigned to certain courts in some cases.
	Putting that aside, basically, the Southern District of New York has a long history of being notoriously deferential to the banking industry, not just being institutionally corrupt on the prosecutorial side of the equation, but just overwhelmingly tending to favor the banking industry, particularly the big players, and the big players almost never get hit magically in New York for a long time.
	And so the district court has been finding pretext after pretext, excuse after excuse to dismiss more and more of the claims in the suits, and in part dismissed on personal jurisdiction grounds, because a lot of these banks are not U.S. banks that were involved in this, went up to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals,
	which recognizes the political tea leaves are otherwise more globally, and they're less connected to the Southern District of New York parochial's interests, and they have been overturning a bunch of these district court decisions, but in their latest round, They overturned the personal jurisdiction dismissal because the court pointed out something that's always been true,
	which is if you commit a conspiratorial act within any particular jurisdiction, that jurisdiction has authority over the co-conspirators, even if the co-conspirators themselves were neither located nor did the act within the United States or the district that the case was brought with it.
	So the big banks, after finding excuse number 25 to try to get out of their liability on this, are now back in real discovery.
	And we'll find, you know, my guess is they're going to start writing billion-dollar checks to some people.
	But rather than go through discovery, because discovery is what even has been unveiled so far and unearthed so far has been extraordinary.
	The degree to which high-ranking banks deliberately commit global criminal conspiracies almost out in the open.
	And expect no consequences.
	And both the Obama and Trump departments of justice managed to never criminally prosecute any of these people for these billion-dollar bankster frauds is unsettling.
	But at least there might be some civil remedy coming down the pipeline because the Second Circuit recognized too many important people don't like getting their money stolen from them by the big banks.
	And there's enough people who had enough pushback to make sure that there will be some form of justice, even if it isn't the scale or scope that it should be.
	But the next time somebody tells you global conspiracy theories with big banks can't happen, just point them to this suit because it details how easily so many of them did so.
	You're on mute.
	I'm an idiot, is what I said, with a little expletive in the middle.
	Just so no one accuses me.
	And so I can retract, formally correct, and issue an apology to Pfizer.
	I'm being told, and I believe everyone's right, it was Johnson& Johnson, not Pfizer.
	It was Johnson& Johnson.
	Pfizer is the company that's paid the biggest criminal fine in corporate history.
	That's who Pfizer is.
	Sorry, sorry.
	And remember, German name.
	Just saying.
	German name.
	Kind of like Tyson.
	Tyson sounds a lot like the Tyson company that was German that helped the Nazis.
	Just saying.
	And some people say, I know I did a vlog on it.
	I remember where I was when I did the vlog on it.
	I was in New Brunswick.
	I had just mistaken that it was Pfizer for Johnson& Johnson.
	Everything else I remember, I was in New Brunswick and I did a vlog on that talcum powder cover-up lawsuit.
	Speaking of big drug companies, the Roche got sued this week by a bunch of soldiers who discovered...
	That the anti-malarial drug they had been selling to the military almost exclusively for the better part of half a century, in fact, causes literal madness, causes psychosis, causes suicidal ideation, causes homicidal rages, causes a range of extreme, is a neurotoxin.
	And that Roche, now connected with Genentech in the United States, Knew this dating back to the very beginning of studies of the drug from the 1940s.
	And if you're wondering why soldiers don't trust the military...
	By the way, this was another military mandatory drug.
	And here's what the amazing thing, how pernicious this was.
	One reason why Roche and apparently...
	I assume complicit members of high-ranking members of the military ordered this too.
	But one reason why they thought they would never get caught...
	It's because the horrible neurotoxin side effects of their anti-malarial drug that they were forcing upon soldiers are also often the side effects of war and violent conflict.
	So they knew they could write off.
	And by the way, the FDA approved this, even though it didn't go through the proper double-blinded clinical testing that it should have gone through.
	The FDA approved this while ignoring.
	Adverse data, and that might be relevant to something else we're dealing with right now in the trustworthiness of the Food and Drug Administration.
	So the U.S. military and the U.S. federal government lied and hid about critical information or ignored critical information to the detriment of their own soldiers.
	The FDA failed to do their job at all and basically pushed a drug that was extremely dangerous and that studies dating back to the 40s would have shown if they would have actually done their job.
	But one of the suits they're bringing is called medical monitoring.
	And so what is you have a right if you've been the victim of a tort like this to order that they pay for monitoring of your condition to see if you're suffering from some of the side effects.
	But it's a big major class action because soldiers, people who went to Afghanistan, and if you know anybody out there...
	Who might have had some of these side effects?
	You might want to look into possibly being part of this class action that could pay for their medical expenses on the way to other financial recovery because it appears they deliberately lied and hid data that exposed the fact that their antimalarial drug literally caused madness in the variations thereof.
	Severe, irreparable, lifetime injury.
	I'm having trouble getting the chat not to move when I'm trying to bring the comment up.
	What was the name of the drug?
	Someone had asked.
	Oh, I know it is the anti-malarial drug.
	Someone else asked in a CAPS chat.
	They believe they took the drug.
	They asked for your advice, but you're not the lawyer.
	What do they do?
	It goes under the brand name Larium.
	And it was the Mephloqueen.
	I'll put a copy of the whole suit up at vivabarneslaw.locals.com so people can see it.
	All right, Robert, I can't believe Salty Cracker's gone live, and so people might want to go see what Salty's talking about and all the better, but the question was this.
	My goodness, I lost my mind, and that was all of my trying to get back to my thought.
	Gosh darn it.
	All right, let me just ask you one question.
	Project Veritas.
	I've been meaning to put out the vlog all week about the lawsuit that prohibited the New York Times from publishing, disseminating, or otherwise recirculating the solicitor-client privilege memos that they got.
	From the New York Times, I read the judgment, and the question I had after reading the judgment was, the judgment came to the conclusion that the New York Times improperly obtained the solicitor-client memos without getting into detail in the judgment.
	The question I had was this.
	When would this type of solicitor-client or privileged information be able to be disclosed?
	I'll say notwithstanding having been improperly obtained or even if it were properly obtained, when would it become proper for protected information to be disclosed for newsworthy events?
	Is there a threshold that we can appreciate?
	Well, I mean, the problem here is this is attorney-client privileged records.
	So, you know, the New York Times is never entitled to that.
	And it's not a governmental actor.
	I mean, the whole idea of the Pentagon Papers is that it exposed governmental misconduct.
	You know, not that the New York Times has some roaming right, some roving right to spy on people's attorney, client, and privileged private information.
	So their argument was nonsense.
	I mean, this was punishing...
	Dissident press for the institutional press.
	And they're out there pretending this is the reality.
	The institutional press pretends that the words free press in the Constitution only applies to them.
	And that it doesn't apply to the full press.
	That's why they deny it to Alex Jones.
	They deny it to Project Veritas.
	They deny it to all these other people.
	But the true nature of it is that it applies to everyone, and it was intended for the small press, not the big press.
	The big press don't need constitutional protection.
	They've got plenty of it on their own accord.
	It's the small press that needs it.
	So the idea that somehow they have a right under the free press to use the FBI as their private secret police to spy on, investigate, and steal material from their legal adversary.
	As James O 'Keefe pointed out, this was discovery abuse.
	They couldn't get this information in Discovery through the lawsuit Project Veritas has against them.
	Discovery, they got delayed on the grounds of their appeal.
	And here they are saying, well, hey, FBI, can you go do a search warrant raid and give it to us instead?
	In fairness, I read through that testimony.
	I don't think the judge, despite the fact that he clearly believed it, mentioned that it was from the FBI, how the New York Times improbably...
	Everybody knows.
	The New York Times said they couldn't disclose what their source was.
	Everybody knows what their source was.
	They said it was not necessarily...
	Oh, they said something funny.
	I'm going to still do a video if I can.
	It was not necessarily from bribery, or it was not necessarily from other...
	They might not have committed a crime in getting the information.
	That only the FBI may have been the ones committing the crime by seizing it, stealing it, and disclosing it.
	But the New York Times doesn't get the profit from that behavior.
	So this is not exposing governmental secrets, which that's a whole different animal.
	Now again, Julian Sands, they're trying to put in prison for the rest of his natural born days for exposing government secrets.
	So the New York Times has a complete hypocritical position on that too.
	But here they were, this was discovery abuse.
	This was illicit activity, conspiracy to engage in illicit activity.
	They were not entitled to disclose other people's attorney-client privileged information simply because their legal adversary happens to be in the press, and then they happen to be part of the press.
	The New York Times is part of the press, so they can steal records that other people can't?
	What?
	They can disclose information that is confidential and privileged as a matter of law?
	And this is where one day we'll have John Turley on as well, but he might want to stay away from us.
	But John Turley, who I think still considers himself on the left, said, it's all very nice.
	If they raided Project Veritas over these alleged, you know, certain alleged things about Ashley Biden's diary, why would they not also raid the New York Times?
	And he wrote an article saying they were never, although you can't ever read people's minds, you can surmise.
	They were never even fearful that they might get raided by the FBI.
	And why is that?
	Because what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and if it's not, it's a double standard.
	Ooh.
	I'm going to write that down.
	So John Turley put out a great piece.
	Basically, the New York Times is applying one standard and living by another, which is par for the course when it comes to partisan politics.
	But that was my rant.
	I wanted to make sure Jonathan Turley, for all of his red-pilling, is now realizing certain things.
	And if we ever get him, Robert...
	I'm going to ask him the same question I asked Dershowitz.
	Why on earth does he still think he's on the left?
	Why does he still think he's a Democrat?
	There are things like this.
	Here's a place where I'm very critical of the right.
	The right-wing authoritarians, including the attorney general in Arizona, who is challenging Blake Masters, or Blake Masters is challenging him for the U.S. Senate seat to challenge Mark Kelly.
	The attorney general there in Arizona was a little bit late to the party on election-related issues that were hot in that state.
	He's been busy.
	He's been busy explaining to the U.S. Supreme Court why innocent people should stay locked up in the state of Arizona.
	And a bunch of people on the right, what I call the authoritarian right, want to misinterpret a statute to gut the writ of habeas corpus to allow innocent people to stay in prison.
	And that was their overt argument, ed oral argument, was they said, quote, innocence is not enough.
	I mean, to me, the writ of habeas corpus not being suspended under our U.S. Constitution means that innocence is always enough, and it's sad and pitiful that we even have to have that debate, but unfortunately, many on the right are wrong in the judicial branch on this issue, because they allow Congress to arbitrarily limit the writ of habeas corpus, to effectively suspend it, as only notoriously Abraham Lincoln did during the Civil War, to his great moral detriment.
	And the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately overturned part of an ex parte Milligan.
	But it's shocking that this argument's even being made.
	So the argument is this.
	If you get convicted because your lawyers are idiots and your next group of lawyers are also idiots, you're out of luck.
	And even if you can prove conclusively your innocence, even if any judge that looks at the case says no reasonable fact finder could possibly find you guilty where the actual evidence presented, screw you, you get to stay in prison.
	A man's been in prison for over 20 years in Arizona based on something that when everyone looked at it said he's clearly not guilty of the crime, period.
	And yet he's still there.
	A federal court has determined he's not guilty of the crime.
	And yet, he's still there.
	Why?
	Because the state of Arizona demands that innocent people, like Kamala Harris did when she was Attorney General in California, she argued innocent people had to stay locked up too, because they care more about protecting the authoritarian power of the state than they do the individual liberty of the innocent.
	And it is frightening and terrifying that this is taking place, and almost nobody on the legal right is saying boo about it.
	They've left it to the left to be critical of this, and that's sad and unfortunate.
	And it's a disgusting reminder of what a pitiful person Branovitz would be if he ends up being the U.S. Senate candidate in Arizona.
	I was in front of his wife, who's a federal judge, Trump-appointed.
	She had the similar authoritarian prejudices that he clearly has.
	But this is shocking that someone could say to the U.S. Supreme Court, innocence is not enough, and we have a right to lock up innocent people for life.
	That's exactly the argument they made, and it will be a very big decision for the U.S. Supreme Court.
	Does somebody who is betrayed twice by their lawyers, do they have to stay locked up in prison for life even though everybody knows they're innocent?
	That's what the U.S. Supreme Court will be deciding soon.
	Okay, and I don't know this particular case, but they're going to decide on a particular case.
	What's going to be the broader impact or the broader application of that question?
	So right now what it is is technically Congress tries to limit.
	They have said that Congress can limit the writ of habeas corpus,
	including that federal courts cannot hear A claim of innocence if that claim of innocence could have been previously brought in state court.
	Now, the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012 said there's obviously one exception to this.
	If the reason why the argument was not raised or the evidence of innocence was not presented in the state court prior to the federal habeas corpus petition being brought is because the lawyers screwed up, then you can bring it in federal court.
	Some pro-prosecutor lawyers say all this does is encourage defendants to come up with new excuses and new pretexts and so on and so forth.
	The bottom line is, as even some of the justices made the point of, including some conservative justices, is that this is just about do we lock up innocent people or not?
	When we know somebody is innocent, when the evidence is clear, do we continue to keep them in prison on some procedural technicality?
	I mean, people complain about technicalities that let guilty people go free.
	What about technicalities that keep innocent people locked up?
	We should be a lot more concerned with that, in my opinion.
	No, it's an amazing thing.
	It's like, yeah.
	What were the details of the technicalities that resulted in that?
	So they're arguing that the state record is still governing.
	So they're saying, look, if the prior state lawyer screwed up, you can bring up in federal court that the prior state lawyer screwed up, but you can't bring in any new evidence of innocence.
	You're stuck with whatever evidence the prior lawyer brought up, which defeats the whole point, as several justices made the point.
	They're like, this is a rather ludicrous way of interpreting it.
	But the real underlying argument is they're trying to reverse the prior decision and says, if you've got two screwed up sets of lawyers, you're screwed forever, even if everybody knows you're innocent, which is idiotic.
	Now, of course, if the governor of Arizona had either cojones or courage, then he would already have released this person once the evidence of it pardoned him based on the evidence being clear.
	But governors have made...
	You know, despite the Colorado governor coming in and commuting the sentence down to 10 years of the truck driver in response to public opinion, governors in the right have been really lousy at this.
	I mean, Trump was lousy at this.
	He only pardoned people that made the right donations to the right people.
	Like the Mercedes Schlapp and Schlapp, the founder of CPAC that...
	People paid him off to make arguments for, and some of those people Trump paid attention to while he came up with lame excuses as to why he didn't have the courage to pardon either Edward Snowden or Julian Assange.
	But this is an area where the right wing has been bad in positions of power, is they are willing to sacrifice the innocent in the name of prosecutorial and police power.
	And some of us are not.
	And hopefully the Supreme Court makes the right decision in this case and recognizes we should not be locking up innocent people on a technicality.
	I'm going to bring this one up here.
	63Rambler says SCOTUS made similar rulings on executions proceedings when exoneration evidence surfaces too late in the process.
	If I recall correctly, IIRC.
	I've learned what that means.
	And that's still the law.
	I mean, basically you have this limited exception.
	You're allowed to introduce evidence that developed too late if and only if your lawyers are the reason why the evidence wasn't presented previously.
	Now they're trying to take that away.
	And in my view, the writ of habeas corpus to me means no innocent person should ever be in prison, period.
	That's what it meant constitutionally when we put it in there.
	And right-wing judges have been a grievous disappointment in gutting that constitutional right.
	When people tell me right-wing judges are originalists, no, they're not.
	They're conveniently originalists.
	And I can give you example after example, including when Scalia was not originalist at all.
	The Fourth Amendment, First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, Eighth Amendment.
	Sadly, this is an example of that.
	The reason why people like Turley and Dershowitz stay on the left is cases like this remind them that right-wing authoritarians are a sad and pitiful excuse for constitutional protection in this country.
	You mentioned it in the discussion.
	That truck driver in Colorado...
	Sentence commuted, or sorry, not commuted, but reduced?
	I mean, what's the legal term for what happened?
	Commuted.
	A commutation.
	So a commutation is when you reduce the length of sentence.
	So like Roger Stone technically got a commutation, not a pardon.
	Who commuted the truck driver sentence?
	The judge or the governor?
	The only person who can do that is the governor.
	I'm an idiot because I thought – everyone was saying, like, the judge reduces his – I didn't understand that, but now – The judge said it should be reduced, but he didn't have the power to do so under Colorado's mandatory minimum laws.
	And I understand why a lot of people pass mandatory minimum laws, but this is how they get abused frequently.
	Well, in Canada, we have mandatory minimum laws for firearm-related offenses, and they get grossly abused.
	Because what happens?
	It shifts power from the judge to the prosecutor.
	It doesn't shift power to the people.
	It doesn't shift power to the jury.
	It shifts power to the prosecutor.
	And that's someone you should never trust.
	Well, and my underlying theory is Canada is seeking to criminalize all forms of gun ownership.
	So minimum sentences, screw them if they accidentally store their ammo with their gun, whatever.
	So I didn't appreciate that.
	That happened quickly, though.
	I mean, that was...
	That was a month?
	Because there are millions of people that signed that petition.
	And what's interesting, I did hear from more truck drivers at our locals board and elsewhere, which is that they identified that the real split is between the older generation and newer generation.
	And they said the older generation doesn't like the declining values that have been allowed to allow a flood of the market into truck driving of people who would not meet traditional qualifications.
	And that's a fair argument.
	But that would really suggest institutional flaws, that they're trying to shift responsibility to this individual for something that's really much more institutional in nature.
	Yeah, that's fantastic.
	I mean, it's very insightful.
	Okay, so hold on.
	Hold on.
	We have a...
	We have citizenship up next.
	Oh, okay.
	I was only going to get...
	The truck driver was being commuted.
	The other issue, I think we've addressed...
	The Kim Potter juror and the former Kim Potter prosecutor came out and said he would not have prosecuted the case.
	So that was one of the chats that I brought up, which said it was another case, but we'll deal with...
	Let's do Kim Potter first, because this was my question.
	Nate Brody, another...
	Sorry, hold on a second.
	Dog is reorganizing himself.
	Nate Brody put out a great video breaking down the juror, one of the jurors, saying, basically, we think she made a mistake, but we convicted anyhow, or we think she made a mistake, so we convicted.
	It's unclear how they meant it, but the bottom line is it seems they convicted based on what they all accepted was a mistake which would effectively undermine, or if not contradict, the basis of in-law what was required for conviction.
	Let's just say hypothetically, Robert, A juror comes out and says, I didn't want to do it, but I was pressured.
	What impact could that ever have for an appeal, if any?
	Like, what is required from a juror saying something that would allow the defense to attack the conviction by the jury?
	Very, very difficult.
	It's still useful to get it in kind of the court of public opinion.
	But generally speaking, what happened in deliberations is not subject to evidentiary presentation.
	And that you're kind of stuck with it.
	I litigated this in part, and other people litigated this in part, some other cases I've had in the past.
	And you have to be real creative to be able to raise the issue of juror misconduct.
	Now, if it was the government, they often have lots of remedies, but that's a different animal.
	If you're the private defendant, very difficult to get that information presented in an evidentiary.
	They generally exclude it on the grounds that it's jury deliberations and so consequently can't.
	And there's some good reasons for that.
	They don't want a lot of second-guessing of juror decisions, but there's problematic aspects of that, too.
	But what this revealed is what we said, which was that this looked like a jury that came in believing she was guilty from the get-go because they considered, for the politics of the situation, they just considered her saying that she pulled a taser and didn't pull a taser.
	That's it, and a story for them.
	The problem was, that's not what the law supported.
	And that's where the judge's refusal to answer the law and doing kind of like what they did in the True Threats case in the Ninth Circuit and saying, well, we're going to give you the jury the law, effectively.
	And similar to what happened to the Ahmaud Arbery decision, the judge kind of abdicating and playing Pontius Pilate and wiping their hands of the consequences of the case, we see what those consequences were and that this jury, it will enhance...
	The probabilities that the Court of Appeals, which does hear about these things in the Supreme Court, even though they're not supposed to legally process it, they always hear about it.
	It increases the possibility that a higher court will set aside the verdict, as they should because the jury was misinstructed on the law.
	Now, I think even if this jury had been correctly instructed, there's no guarantee.
	What jurors do is they superimpose their interpretation of what the law should be as to what the law is.
	So often, you know, they'll directly refute.
	I had a case where, you know, the foreperson came out later.
	And I said, well, do you think this is true?
	And they're like, oh, absolutely.
	And under the jury instruction, that meant they were supposed to acquit my client.
	And I was like, oh, so what do you think about that jury instruction?
	Like, yeah, whatever.
	I mean, that's just reality.
	They don't really do it.
	But what the juror confirmed is what we said, that this was based on presumptions of guilt concerning her choice that did not follow really the facts of the law in the case properly, but they weren't properly instructed on the law anyway.
	So it makes the appeal much more robust.
	But anybody that had any doubts about it, they now know and can hear from that juror as to what at least appears from that juror's perspective to have taken place.
	And so it will add nothing of meaningful purport to any appeal.
	No legal consequence.
	But it might have court of public opinion consequence, and courts always hear the court of public opinion.
	So this was a state court.
	So it would have to be the governor.
	The Minnesota Court of Appeals, which has been very politically sensitive in such a way that they're not likely to overturn.
	But I think the Minnesota Supreme Court will.
	And, I mean, it would be interesting.
	They've already overturned in the case of the officer who shot the lady, you know, mistaken for a threat.
	Muhammad Noor.
	Yes.
	They overturned part of his convictions.
	They're going to have the Chauvin case.
	They're probably going to overturn part of Chauvin's convictions because he's...
	Going away on the federal charges anyway.
	And I think they will overturn also on this, but it may be up to the Minnesota Supreme Court to do so because the Twin Cities, for political reasons, got out of hand.
	It didn't define the law the way it should in back-to-back-to-back police shooting cases because it wanted to make sure the persons were convicted so they can get re-elected and celebrated at their New Year's Eve parties.
	I'm going to tell you one thing.
	It's the one example where I accidentally brought up a chat and now I get to say, if ever I bring up an offensive chat, it was an accident.
	A long time ago.
	This one I did on purpose.
	Because the chat's moving and whenever I try to click on the link or the chat, it jumps up.
	Okay, so we'll see where this...
	Who could, in theory...
	Oh, she hasn't been sentenced yet.
	That was my question.
	When does she get sentenced and who does the sentencing?
	The same judge who praised the jury as being heroes, she's the one that sentences her?
	Oh, yeah.
	I think they scheduled it for March.
	The state's going to try to argue.
	Normally, she would get seven years.
	I think the state's going to argue for 12 years or more.
	The defense will argue for probation or something like that, time served.
	My guess is, given the politics of the situation, the judge will go about eight, nine, ten years, something like that.
	I think 50% chance it gets overturned over appeal.
	Normally your criminal appeal chances are around 1 in 6, 1 in 7, 1 in 8. I think she has more like a 50-50 chance because of the gravity of the error which this juror's admissions make clear.
	And now I'm not being a cynical black-pilled individual.
	The judge who praises the jury as being heroes after the conviction.
	Does that color it a bit, or would she have said that if they were acquitted?
	Someone said to me, she would have said that regardless.
	And I said, no, I don't think the judge would have called them.
	No way.
	Not in the Twin Cities.
	She would not have celebrated that jury in the Twin Cities if it was acquittals.
	She had one prepared statement.
	What I agree is it was a prepared statement because she was reading it, but I think she had two different prepared statements.
	One if they came back with acquittals, one if they came back with convictions.
	How do we FOIA that, Robert?
	How do we know what her other prepares to get married?
	You're exempt from FOIA, of course.
	Of course!
	You've got to protect the infrastructure, Robert, for the sanctity of the infrastructure.
	Okay, sweet mother of civil goodness.
	That's hilarious.
	Okay, what were we working into from here?
	Citizenship.
	I think the last big topic we had was birthright citizenship claims and what is in the United States and not.
	And it's kind of ironic because a lot of people I've represented in the past that were called tax protesters by the IRS, whenever they disputed what was in the United States, courts and prosecutors would laugh at them and mock them.
	But here we have a federal court of appeals saying that the U.S. territory, American Samoa, is not actually in the United States for purposes of the 14th Amendment citizenship test.
	See, I did it again.
	I did it again.
	I didn't mean to do that, people.
	Juries should not find guilt or innocence.
	They should find facts and let the judge and lawyers...
	Okay, fine.
	Fair enough.
	I'm actually for juries determining the law, too.
	I'm for that.
	That's why the Patrick Henry case was the case that it was.
	I don't have a problem with that in general.
	The problem is, once we have a system set up that says the jury doesn't determine the law...
	Then we have to follow that system consistently and not just conveniently politically redefine things or leave things vague and ambiguous to where they don't know what the law is.
	So the Samoan case, first of all, it didn't even occur to me that anyone in a territory...
	Because what is the difference legally, geographically, between American Samoa...
	And Puerto Rico, for example.
	There isn't.
	There isn't.
	So what's happened is Congress has treated the U.S. territories as not being part of birthright citizenship for some time now.
	So the 14th Amendment to the U.S., and there's still controversy about this, but the 14th Amendment defined citizenship to anybody born and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States was a United States citizen.
	And that was done because that was not clear, going back to the Dred Scott decision and other aspects prior to the Civil War.
	One could argue it should have been made clear, but the 14th Amendment was meant to clarify it once and for all, and the Supreme Court has interpreted it as such.
	Some, such as Ann Coulter and others, have been critical of that and say that that doesn't equal birthright citizenship, that the subject to the jurisdiction part removes certain groups from that.
	And this is a dispute over so-called anchor babies, people coming to the United States for the purposes of establishing citizenship by giving birth within the United States.
	My view is birthright citizenship is actual birthright citizenship.
	But I have read arguments that are strong arguments on the other side, but I don't happen to share them.
	But in this context, and in my view, all territories are in the United States.
	But their interpretation of in the United States is not in the United States.
	And that all the territories are not in the United States.
	And so then it's up to Congress whether they give or grant citizenship, because then you're not an automatic citizen constitutionally under the 14th Amendment.
	And so American Samoans have been challenging this for some time.
	The case went up to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the 10th Circuit decided that somehow the words in the United States are ambiguous, which is kind of interesting to me.
	Because again, I've got some old tax protester clients that made this argument many times, but they were laughed at.
	By the same people now saying, oh yeah, now that we think about it, it really is ambiguous.
	What is the United States?
	What does in mean?
	You know, like Bill Clinton was doing, what do you mean by is?
	I don't know.
	I thought in the United States meant in the United States.
	Like, look at a map and it says in the United States.
	So to me, these territories are in the United States.
	But the Tenth Circuit and every other federal court has denied that.
	There was a very vociferous and really well-crafted dissent from the denial of en banc grant.
	By a 10th Circuit who went through, he got the maps from the 1820s, dictionaries from the 18-teens.
	Fascinating presentation made as to why in the United States should include American Samoa.
	But as of now, American Samoans are still not considered 14th Amendment citizens.
	And because Congress has not extended them citizenship, they're not citizens of pretty much any country, which is kind of weird.
	So I messaged you that that was my question.
	That was the dissenting opinion that we read, or that I read that you sent me.
	It was great.
	It sounded like it should have been the Supreme Court majority decision.
	But the bottom line is, that was a dissenting decision criticizing or saying the en banc should have taken and reviewed and overturned for these reasons.
	They didn't even take it.
	So bottom line, for the purposes of 14th Amendment constitutional protections, Puerto Ricans...
	American Samoans.
	I can't think of any other territory.
	Virgin Islands.
	Some others.
	Now, citizenship has been extended congressionally to many of those other groups, just not American Samoans.
	So then the flip side argument is, okay, go to Congress and Congress, if you care about your American Samoans, go declare them citizens under the 14th Amendment or protected.
	But now I'm thinking, what is their political leverage?
	It becomes a circular issue.
	It becomes like the old slavery debate, which was, you were a slave if your mother was a slave.
	Which, if you pay attention, that's a self-referential and circular definition.
	It's not an actual definition of slavery.
	And it was done legally because, as Lysander Spooner and Frederick Douglass argued in an 1840 article, slavery was argued, quite good arguments that slavery was unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution.
	And I actually side with him on that claim.
	But the problem was, if you were presumed a slave, you couldn't go into court.
	So you couldn't sue to say, no, I'm not a slave, because you were presumed a slave.
	So here, because you're not given citizenship rights, you have no political capital of any consequence.
	And that's the problem.
	But you have people that, by all definitions, appear on everybody else's map as part of the United States that somehow is not in the United States for 14th Amendment purposes.
	But someone asked, I don't know if it was a tongue-in-cheek joke, but how do they travel?
	What passport do they have?
	To be honest with you, I don't know how that works.
	Now, it is true that there are plenty of people in the territories, including some Puerto Ricans in Puerto Rico, who don't want to be U.S. citizens.
	And the reason for that is taxation.
	Robert, this is how smart I've gotten.
	I knew that was the answer.
	Same justification for some in Puerto Rico.
	You pay federal taxes.
	I can appreciate that.
	So you've got to take the good with the bad if you want the good.
	That's why Peter Schiff is down in Puerto Rico because of special tax protections that apply to them.
	And the real reason they apply to them is because they're not considered citizens under the 14th Amendment.
	Because we are the only country in the world that tax our citizens on a worldwide basis and even tax you if you try to leave.
	So it's like the Hotel California.
	You can leave, but you can't really leave without a price being paid.
	You know, they tried to kill the beast with their steely knives, but he just wouldn't die.
	So that's kind of like what the IRS is like, not to make a certain religious analogy there as well.
	Well, okay, without getting into it, we can end without discussing religion.
	We've discussed everything else, but we've already discussed that.
	Did we discuss Jan 6?
	I'm curious to know, any developments?
	How many people are still in jail?
	What's the level of the outrage there?
	No other developments that I know of, except that there's all these subpoena challenges to the January 6th committee that Trump is asking the Supreme Court to handle.
	A bunch of others have been filed.
	Flynn filed one, but apparently got dismissed, so apparently they have to refile in another place.
	But a lot of those are all pending.
	Alex Jones filed his challenge as well, and we'll see how that works.
	Someone asked earlier about Legal Legal's breakdown of Alex Jones' case.
	It's as good as pretty much every other Legal Legal breakdown, which is to say...
	Crap, as usual.
	Alex Jones produced more discovery than any media defendant in an anti-slap case in history.
	And they pretended he didn't produce any discovery.
	And they denied him his jury trial rights because they don't like Alex Jones.
	Everyone has to appreciate this.
	When they say you defaulted on your obligation to communicate or disclose documents, it's not comparative to what you've already disclosed.
	It's if they can find one and allegedly confirm one.
	And this was their whole theory.
	Plaintiffs brought a case that they knew didn't or had reason to know, had no factual basis.
	And so what do you do when the facts don't support you?
	You pretend that the evidence was destroyed.
	Because the evidence doesn't exist.
	It never existed because it didn't happen.
	So some of what they were alleging didn't happen.
	There was no business conspiracy and so on and so forth.
	There was no business plan.
	If you knew Alex Jones, you would know that's not how he operates.
	And yet he's not this caricature from the show Homeland.
	But they pretended he did.
	So what happens when the evidence doesn't exist?
	When the evidence refutes you?
	Oh, you say the evidence did exist, but it was all secretly destroyed.
	And so that's the nonsense that's going on.
	But his analysis, Legal Eagle's analysis is always bad.
	I mean, it's reliably bad.
	That's the only thing you can depend upon it.
	You know the funny thing is, I swear to you, people are going to rag on me.
	I have nothing personally against Legal Eagle.
	I just think his legal takes are bad.
	They are.
	He's barely a real lawyer.
	He spent a couple of years as a corporate mid-level guy.
	I don't know if he's ever done a trial in his life.
	It's as real as his green screen.
	The legal books are his green screen.
	I borrow from Legal Ego's library, but every time I go back there, I can't see.
	I was just about to say, you've got a green screen, Robert.
	Be careful.
	All I want to say is Legal Ego's takes, they're bad.
	From Marvel to impeachment to crying over Adam Schiff's opening.
	But, look, the world needs it.
	His own lawsuits failed.
	You know what I mean?
	The ones that he said were going to be guaranteed winners.
	His FOIA request.
	But Robert, so hold on.
	We were just talking about LegalEagle, backing it up.
	Robert, what were you just talking about two seconds ago?
	Before that was American citizenship.
	But a lot of issues, if this case goes up to the U.S. Supreme Court, it would be interesting because it's both about what does birthright citizenship mean, which is a hot issue because of the anchor baby controversy or what people call anchor babies on certain parts of the right.
	And as well as what defines the scope and territory of the United States, because that would have a broad impact on the territories.
	And as one of the people noted, there's plenty of people in American Samoa who don't want to be U.S. citizens, because they don't want the tax consequences that flow from that.
	So there's a range of ways.
	But it has an above-average chance of the Supreme Court looking at the case, because it goes to these core issues of what does birthright citizenship mean under the 14th Amendment, and what does the United States terminology mean?
	Within the 14th Amendment, because that impacts a lot of people in a lot of territories.
	You know what, Robert?
	I'm so damn upset.
	It was after that.
	I'm going to get to it in a second, but it was January.
	We were talking January 6th.
	We were talking about...
	We didn't get to Whitmer.
	Oh, it doesn't matter.
	I've forgotten it.
	When it comes back, I'm going to be in bed tonight at 2 in the morning.
	Oh, that's what it was.
	So Jan 6th, they're still in jail.
	All the crap's going on with that.
	One other topic we're going to mention was ivermectin's responses in courts, that it continues to be litigated for people that have asked.
	Most of the time, courts have ordered the hospitals to grant access to ivermectin, particularly when the doctor wanted it, but the hospital did not.
	In some of the cases, the court ruled in favor of the hospital.
	In some of the cases, the doctor didn't want to prescribe it, but the family wanted it.
	What's interesting is in this institutional news press piece that covers the history of these cases, when they ordered the ivermectin to be provided, there were good outcomes overwhelmingly for those patients.
	When they didn't, there were overwhelmingly bad outcomes for those patients.
	Maybe that's why people like Robert Malone are being shut down from Twitter.
	They don't want some of those facts out there in the court.
	And that's going to continue to impact future cases.
	If judges look at the next set of ivermectin cases and they see...
	Okay, these six judges said yes, give it to them, and five of the six led to really good outcomes for the patient.
	And these three judges said no, and two out of the three led to bad outcomes.
	There's going to be more judges that are going to be like, yeah, why don't you just go ahead and give them a little ivermectin if you want to.
	And I want people to appreciate the gold that you just witnessed right there.
	This is the argument brief for anybody arguing this on a going-forward basis.
	Appreciate what you just saw there.
	It's all you need to do.
	Take notes.
	Someone said I should take notes so I don't forget my thoughts.
	I have a thousand thoughts a second, and I remember 999 of them, but I forgot one.
	But yes, that's the argument.
	Hey, these are the cases.
	Follow the science and follow the stats.
	By the way, just so everyone knows, I was tongue-in-cheek joking about the I-word.
	This stream has already been demonetized, but when I asked for manual review, I'm sure we have discussed nothing.
	We did mention Ghislaine Maxwell's name.
	Forget that.
	Ghislaine Maxwell, she's old news now.
	She's been convicted.
	So it has worked.
	But no, I think it was actually another word that triggered it.
	Who cares?
	It doesn't matter.
	Okay.
	Whitmer.
	Robert, I did a video since our last stream.
	In the Whitmer, they're asking for the dismissal of the indictment.
	And the judge that they're asking to dismiss it is the judge who sentenced Ty Garbin to 75 months in jail.
	Zero percent chance it gets granted?
	Very low.
	Very low.
	But it's good to preserve it for appellate remedy and it educates the court as to what's going on.
	And that always helps because if the court thinks the case is fundamentally bogus, and they did finally release the police video of that FBI officer who got arrested after beating up, you know, you talk about personal behavior that matters.
	There was personal behavior that mattered.
	They released the video of that whole thing.
	But I think the judge, if the judge thinks a case is a bad case, it will impact how the judge does jury selection, how the judge does voidier, how the judge does jury instructions, how the judge rules on evidentiary rulings, how the judge, if there is a sentencing down the road, might have a different view than he had before.
	So it's always smart to educate the judge as to what's going on, even if you think there's a low chance of him giving you the remedy that you're requesting at the moment.
	So it's a really well done brief and shows what we established.
	From the very beginning, which was this case smelled bad from day one of government entrapment, and it raises questions about January 6th because some of the same federal agents involved in Whitmer's case, which is now clearly purely an entrapment case, if you read that brief, are involved in the January 6th prosecutions.
	I'm going to bring this one up.
	It might be good to end the evening close to on.
	MM, Viva, I have too many thoughts.
	I should take notes.
	Also, Viva, adults who keep journals are weird.
	Pick a laying leaf.
	By the way, Both of those can be true.
	Why can they not be true?
	It might be weird to forget your thoughts.
	Who knows?
	Robert, I dare say this was phenomenal.
	Next stream.
	So who do we have on for Wednesday?
	Chris Martinson.
	Is up for Wednesday.
	So he's been really following a lot of the details of everything related to the pandemic and the public health responses to it, its economic consequences, legal consequences, its policy consequences, is integral to the Unity Project that is trying to educate people on all the issues related to this.
	And we will have him live on Wednesday, I believe.
	Booyah.
	And I will be in my studio, proper lighting.
	My mother...
	Where's my mother?
	Where's my mother-in-law?
	Will that be pre-curfew or post-curfew times?
	Robert, you make jokes about my misery.
	That's my mother right there.
	My mother.
	Yeah, well, one of these days, the biggest punchline is going to be the lie from Florida.
	We'll see.
	But I'll be at home under curfew because none of this crap affects me.
	People should appreciate that.
	I didn't go out.
	I don't go to bars.
	I don't date.
	But that's not what this is about.
	But I also am, you know, okay, whatever.
	So hold on.
	Someone says 5,000 slackers cannot find the like button?
	That's impossible.
	I don't do the drinking thing.
	This was good.
	Let's go.
	Ray Epps.
	That was one of the names that we're talking about.
	Yeah, and Marjorie Taylor Greene has been very aggressive on that.
	Now she's suspended from Twitter.
	I think that they were looking for a pretext, but it's where you can go to continue to get honest information, continue to seek out independent platforms like...
	Locals.
	And vivabarneslaw.locals.com, where we'll be having more stuff.
	And people asked what we'll be doing, sort of, sensor-free discussions.
	Locals is working with Rumble to be able to expand its ability to do these kind of live streams as well.
	So we will be doing some exclusive things to that as well.
	Already a lot of exclusive content presented there.
	But we'll continue to make sure that sensor-free information gets to you and gets out to you.
	And, Rob, if anyone asks the question, if they've never seen a Robert's Hush Hush, because...
	Yeah.
	You've been doing it, and we've been talking about it.
	Oh, that was it!
	My goodness, Robert!
	If I go long enough, it will come back.
	Don Lemon, when is he going to trial?
	You've got a trial by jury now, so is that going to happen?
	Well, they've requested reconsideration of that, so there'll be another round of that.
	But the judge for now has said that there will be a jury trial.
	Don Lemon had been begging for no jury trial.
	Initially, the court seemed inclined not to give a jury trial.
	We briefed the issue, and the judge, the court, reversed itself on that and said it will give the right to a jury trial.
	And so that will be scheduled at some point, probably March or April.
	Don was usually, as usual, was busy getting drunk on New Year's Eve.
	Live on national TV, because that's what he does, and saying that any people that don't like him is because of this or that or whatever.
	So, you know, watch that behavior and ask yourself, do you doubt that Don Lemon might have done or did do what he did to Dustin Heiss?
	The man drinks a little, and he can't even contain himself on national TV.
	How do you think he does in a private bar?
	So the man exhibits certain behavior patterns.
	There'll be some interesting folks, mutual friends of ours, they'll be helping out in that trial.
	Also, they'll be helping out in a major trial coming up down the road in California.
	We'll talk about that down the road when the opportunity avails itself.
	But yeah, so that was good news for Dustin Heiss.
	He has to fight a lot of other nonsense, in my view, a lot of procedural mechanisms and tactics that Don Lemon's team is employing on his behalf.
	But it's interesting, you know, for someone who claims he's so confident in his position, why is he so scared of a jury still?
	So this was the question that I was waiting to ask.
	And gosh, John, I'm going to sleep well tonight.
	To ask for a jury trial, when does it become a problem if someone wants a jury trial versus someone wants a bench trial?
	I remember there being a situation where...
	In the U.S., you have a constitutional right to it.
	So they have to find that you clearly waived it.
	And they were arguing that things his prior counsel did, Dustin Heiss' prior counsel did waive it.
	I argued that wasn't the case for a range of reasons, but I argued the court had discretion to honor the Seventh Amendment anyway.
	And ultimately, the court said either way...
	The plaintiff wants it.
	Seventh Amendment encourages it.
	Well, Seventh Amendment requires it unless it's been waived.
	And I have the discretion as the judge to grant it, so I'm going to grant it.
	And so credit to the court for honoring and recognizing that constitutional right in this context.
	All right.
	And I had another question, but less relevant.
	So that was the jury trial.
	The big legal news.
	Now, Prince Andrew's case will be heard this week, but the big one will be the vaccine mandate hearing before the Supreme Court on January 7th.
	And we'll probably try to live stream that if there's a way to do it.
	Well, first of all, I want to go down for the Don Lemon trial.
	Whenever it happens, I'll be the Joe Nierman on the street doing it, going in.
	We'll see if I can travel.
	The question was this.
	Heinz, because someone had mentioned it in the early chat, I don't remember where, but he was sanctioned for not...
	Going back to the Alex Jones, for not turning over documents, allegedly deleting posts.
	There was no issue about attorneys being sanctioned for that?
	It was strictly the plaintiff having been sanctioned?
	Well, it was done when his predecessor counsel was involved.
	And so they are seeking certain sanctions, what they call adverse instructions, and want a bunch of money for their attorney's fees related to it.
	And my view is neither is warranted, but will probably be an appellate issue at this point.
	So we'll see.
	But ultimately, it doesn't change the truth of the story.
	And basically, it's what happens in the modern social media age if you get looked at like a microcosm for anything that happens.
	And so you have to try to carefully navigate that.
	Cassandra Fairbanks and I represented her in a defamation case before I represented her.
	She was trying to correct certain things in her social media.
	And the other side interprets that as destroying things and whatnot.
	That isn't really what happened, in my opinion.
	But we'll wait and we'll see.
	I mean, the core facts have stayed the same.
	And it's just Don Lemon pretending he didn't do what he did.
	And he's now hoping that...
	And for some reason, he's really scared that if a jury sees Dustin Heiss and sees him, that they're going to conclude that he did what...
	Dustin says he did.
	I mean, Dustin has no reason to go through this utter misery but for what Don Lemon did to him.
	Nobody enjoys these kind of suits with big corporate lawyers bashing the daylights out of you day after day after day in the court of public opinion.
	And especially people don't appreciate it.
	It's not a one-way street.
	So Dustin Hines has exposure just by virtue of suing, and he's experiencing it now.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Most of the time, the Harvey Weinsteins of the world get away with it.
	I mean, you know, it took a massive crescendo of tidal waves of exposure before Harvey ever faced any kind of consequence.
	And so it's not a surprise that that's the case.
	Now, we'll see if Alec Baldwin starts to face some consequences.
	But that'll be another, you know, given if Kim Potter gets convicted, how does Alec Baldwin walk?
	You know, not even get indicted.
	It would say something unfortunate about our legal system.
	But hopefully...
	This week is good news from the U.S. Supreme Court on the most consequential, one of the most consequential decisions it's made in a century.
	Excellent.
	And with that said, people, Wednesday's going to be good.
	I'll be back in my studio, stuck in my studio, indefinitely.
	Robert, another amazing one.
	Stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.
	Everyone in the chat, whoever else is live on the interwebs, go watch them because the world is open for information if you know where to get it.
	And we now know where to get it.
	Robert, you know what?
	I'll be live at a live chat at vivabarneslaw.locals.com sometime a few minutes after the show for a little while.
	Alright, everyone.
	Enjoy what's left of the weekend and peace out.

▲