Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 23, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

02:09:36

Ep. 97: Vax Mandates; 2A 9th Circuit; Rekieta Law & Crime; Trump; Wisconsin & MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	here in time for this stream yes yes smell my breath um we just did a two-hour drive and to take a shortcut to save arguably one minute because i'm an idiot and i didn't look at the shortcut before we took it it was straight out of road trip when they take the shortcut because if you just went the regular way it would be the way if the shortcut were the Way would just be the way, whatever it is.
	The kids thought we were going to get kidnapped.
	It was an interesting detour.
	Very panicky because at one point it said our estimated time of arrival here in Montreal was going to be 6.46.
	Unpack the car, walk the dogs, everything else.
	It was cutting it real tight.
	But I am here.
	I showered last night.
	With a pot of melted snow water and a rag.
	And it was delicious.
	No, it wasn't.
	It was actually quite uncomfortable.
	I think I have soap still left on my body.
	But it was a good time.
	We got some fresh air and what was the cool thing that happened?
	Oh, no, the pipes.
	Okay, so for those of you who don't know, I was at my cottage, my parents' cottage.
	And it was minus 20 whatever for the last few days.
	And we get there and the water does not work.
	Because the pipes are frozen.
	Both the well pipe, which shows how deep the cold went down, and the lake water.
	So I spent a good two hours yesterday melting snow into a big plastic container, which we used to wash the dishes.
	And then we used the dirty dishwasher to flush the toilets, which had accumulated some detritus.
	All right, people.
	Let's get into this.
	Officially late, Britt Cormier.
	No, no, no, no, no, sir.
	In fact, I told my kids in the car, early is on time, on time is late.
	Late, don't bother showing up, but I would have showed up late anyhow.
	We've got fun topics for tonight.
	We've got interesting topics for tonight.
	And I've got to rant.
	I've got to rant, people.
	Hold on.
	We're crazy.
	Holy cow.
	The hair looks crazy when it loses the curls because I was wearing a hat.
	And then it just looks like straight, almost like back in high school.
	The Viva Fro merch is out.
	We'll see how it does.
	It's officially late, which I'm not, sir.
	And that is defamatory.
	And if the shortcut was easy, it would just be the way.
	Thank you very much, Stuart.
	That's the line from Road Trip.
	Which I think might be the next movie I'm going to have to watch with my kid and see if it's not quite as funny as I remembered it being at the time.
	MI6-3224-P90.
	Now I have to see what that name means.
	Can you talk about Trucker for Freedom?
	And why the media do not talk about it?
	It's worse than they don't talk about it, actually.
	This will be the rant, people.
	And then I'm going to do the disclaimers.
	It's worse than that the media does not talk about it.
	What they choose to selectively talk about and portray that as though that's the main story.
	I was on RT earlier today.
	Russia Today or Russia Television.
	I forget which it is.
	And people accuse RT of being state propaganda.
	People say, RT, you can't trust it.
	It's Kremlin propaganda.
	It's Putin propaganda.
	Be that as it may or may not be the case.
	Apply the same reasoning to the CBC.
	State-sponsored.
	Propaganda.
	Because it is nothing less than that of the highest order.
	And I'll break out...
	How do I share screen here?
	I'm going to break this out because it's just mind-boggling.
	If you did not know what was going on, you wouldn't know what was going on if you relied on the CBC for information.
	Here.
	Twitter.
	Boomshakalaka.
	Let's see here.
	I believe we're sharing now.
	So, oh, I can see me with the account.
	Now, how do I get into...
	Gosh darn, is that fish just the most beautiful thing on the planet.
	There is what is being referred to as the Freedom Convoy 2022 that is en route from Vancouver to Ottawa.
	And this is a convoy of truckers who are either against the vaccine mandate that Justin Trudeau just imposed on cross-border trucking or support those who are against the mandate.
	For those of you who don't know, it was my appearance on RT to talk about problems with the supply chain that exist that are being exacerbated by this vaccine requirement on cross-border truckers.
	So truckers want to come from the States into Canada.
	They have to show proof of vaccination because, trust the science, Justin Trudeau says, the solitary truck drivers who carry the essential goods for 36 million people in Canada, they're the super spreader threat.
	We need this vaccine mandate on truckers to prevent interruptions to the supply chain.
	Two years, these essential workers have been operating without a vaccine mandate for truckers.
	We've been doing pretty good, and we made it through the actual hard part of this pandemic.
	But two years later, while England is opening up, eliminating all restrictions, Biden is doing the same thing in the States, Trudeau in Canada.
	We need to make sure that that minority of the truck drivers compel, comply, or get off the road.
	And there's a convoy of truckers, like a big convoy going from Vancouver to Ottawa.
	And it will wreak havoc on traffic.
	It will wreak havoc on Ottawa because they're going to be arriving in the next days.
	And it's going to wreak havoc with the supply chain.
	And CBC, fake news CBC says hundreds join truckers' convoy to protest dangerous conditions on BC highways.
	To which?
	To which I responded, state-funded fake news and some have the audacity of lecturing other countries on government-sponsored propaganda and misinformation.
	Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, RT, people who call RT Kremlin propaganda.
	Confession through projection, because that is exactly what the CBC is doing.
	Get that thing out of here.
	It's called the Freedom Convoy 2022, and it has nothing to do with road conditions.
	Now, here's where insidious fake news plays their insidious games.
	There might have been some people protesting road conditions in Vancouver, but the CBC reports on this as though that is the bulk of the convoy that we've been hearing about, so that people are going to be led to believe that there's just a few hundred truckers in British Columbia and they're just protesting road conditions, not Valkyrie.
	That we've already seen.
	That we've already seen.
	Despite what the blue checkmark propagandists on Twitter working for the Liberal government are telling you, there was one.
	The story that I covered Friday night on the Viva on the Street, I mean, it's amazing, where you have people, someone who has a blue checkmark, tweeting out, look how empty the grocery stores are.
	This is the third one I've been to this week, and they don't have pumpkins.
	And it's a picture of, like, beautiful, plentiful fruit stand.
	And then you find out that the dude who's tweeting this blue checkmark, his handle or his description says comms.
	And I made a joke, it's communist, but it's communications.
	You just Google his name.
	He's Justin Trudeau's former, not chief of staff, what do they call them?
	Someone correct, you know, get the word in the chat there.
	The spokesperson for the Trudeau government.
	Former.
	Also, he had an ethics violation, if that changes anything.
	Very small.
	But you have to dig in to see that these blue check marks saying everything's hunky-dory in Canada are undisclosed...
	What are they called, guys?
	I need the word for it.
	Undisclosed representatives of the government tweeting out propaganda.
	And another one today, another blue check mark, Member of Parliament for Nova Scotia somewhere, I think, says, the Conservatives are putting out misinformation.
	That image of the empty shells is a shutterstock image.
	The things are just fine where I went.
	I was like, yeah.
	Who are you going to believe, blue checkmark, liberal member trying to hide from the population the consequences of your corruption?
	Believe me or believe your own eyes?
	What's the word I'm looking for?
	Minister?
	Oh, anyhow.
	Okay, let's get some chats here.
	Tomorrow, Walmart, Renaud Bray, Indigo, Costco, etc.
	is closed to people like me.
	That's another thing that's going on in Canada.
	Box stores are not open.
	You have to show vaccine passport to go to these stores.
	Costco, by and large, is a grocery store.
	It's two years in, and you've got to fabricate a new enemy to distract from the incompetence, to fabricate a new crisis, to give the government something to manage.
	It's over the top, and it's going to be coming to an end sooner than later because people are wising up.
	And Canada cannot implement this garbage while the UK opens up.
	Viva, opinions on Public Health Agency of Canada tracking cell phones.
	I've talked about it multiple times.
	What's the opinion?
	It's atrocious.
	This is health agencies tracked 33 million devices of Canadians during COVID to track movements for our safety.
	And Blaine, I talked about it also that the government revealed how the military had been using...
	Testing propaganda.
	They saw the COVID pandemic as an opportunity to test propaganda on Canadians.
	This is all documented stuff.
	This is not conspiracy theory.
	This was in CBC.
	You know, they report on the stories, then they bury them in the internet so that unless you know that they existed, you'll never see it again.
	So you have the government.
	Before the pandemic gets here, Justin Trudeau donating our PPE to China in February 2020, leaving our long-term healthcare facilities ill-equipped to deal with this.
	Exacerbating the deaths of the elderly in the long-term healthcare facilities.
	Relies on the number of deaths to justify the draconian measures that the government is implementing.
	Exploits the crisis to test propaganda via the military.
	And then spies on us through 33 million devices in Canada to track our movement during the pandemic.
	And then what does the Minister of Transport, Omar Algebra, and the other members of Parliament, what do they start tweeting?
	Download the mental wellness app.
	So that the government now, after testing propaganda and spying on you, can also know your deepest, darkest secrets of your mental issues.
	They will certainly not misuse that.
	You can trust them.
	I only came to say I'll catch the replay.
	Football is on.
	Go, Chiefs.
	Sir?
	Sean?
	This will be here later.
	But it's going to be more interesting than football, I'll tell you what.
	Canucklaw.ca then COVID-19...
	Okay, let me see this.
	I don't want to get in trouble.
	Okay.
	Squeak von Musenmeyer.
	Thank you.
	Ooh, that looks like a...
	No, that's a skateboard.
	I thought that was a telescope on your shoulders.
	Britt Cormier.
	Early is on time.
	On time is on late.
	Late.
	Do not show up.
	In the USMC, United States Military Corps.
	If you are not 10 minutes early, you are 15 minutes late.
	I have a higher standard for time than you Canadian lawyers.
	So you were late.
	Well, I can't go early because that's not fair to everybody else.
	So that is the rant.
	I mean, we have a government.
	An unethical, corrupt government.
	This is not a matter of opinion.
	There were two ethics violations in Justin Trudeau's six years in office.
	Multiple examples of corruption.
	They have no interest going back to discussing their corruption and their lack of ethics.
	And they have no interest in going back to having their government scrutinized.
	As was the case pre-2020.
	So, fabricate one crisis after another under the pretext of...
	For your safety.
	It's for our safety that they need to make sure truckers are vaccinated.
	To not interrupt the supply chain.
	As if they don't understand at this point that even the vaccinated can still contract COVID and still need to isolate when they're exposed to COVID.
	So compelling truckers to be vaccinated will do bubkis to prevent any interruption to the supply chain that COVID itself has not and is not already causing.
	So bullcrap.
	Bullcorn.
	Bull plop.
	A load of crap.
	It's just nuts.
	I may want to pull up one more tweet from Jake the Fake Tapper.
	My God, I dislike that individual on a professional and intellectual honesty basis.
	Okay, so let's get to disclaimers first of all.
	YouTube takes 30% of Super Chats, and if that myths people, do not give the Super Chat, or you can choose to go support us on Rumble.
	Rumble takes 20% of Rumble rants.
	And you can feel good supporting Rumble and supporting us there.
	Alternatively, you can support us at vivabarneslaw.locals.com where $5 Super Chat will get you one month and it's like a $50 a year if you buy the whole year in one shot.
	And that's the best place to support us and get a lot of exclusive content.
	But Super Chats, I appreciate them.
	With that said, I may not get to all of them.
	And if I do not get to your super chat and pull it up like this, was at the protest in Toronto on Saturday.
	Was wonderful listening to Maxine Bernier and others speak, support truckers.
	I can say that, sir.
	If I do not get your chat and pull it up and you're going to be upset or think I've taken your money, don't give it.
	It's for support.
	It's so that you can have a highlighted comment.
	It's so that you can participate in the conversation.
	But I will not get to all of them.
	So don't make me feel guilty.
	No medical advice.
	No legal advice.
	No election fortification advice, although we're going to have to discuss some statements that Joe Biden made this week and a very interesting lawsuit coming out of, I want to say Wisconsin.
	I think it's Wisconsin.
	I'm not sure, though.
	I'm going to have to refresh my memory when Barnes, who I see is in the house, comes on the show.
	We're going to roll this truck and convoy across the USA.
	It's going to be very interesting to see what happens.
	I mean, my ultimate takeaways, Trudeau is going to, this is like the last gambit of a corrupt government.
	To say, can we actually trick Canadians into blaming the fraction of an unvaccinated truck industry for the problems caused by our idiotic, unscientific, unconstitutional policy?
	Let's see.
	Let's see if Trudeau can successfully do it.
	With the help of his media, it's not going to be very hard.
	You have the CBC publishing articles now to shape the narrative.
	Not manufacturer consent.
	I talked about it yesterday during our Locals exclusive live when I was on the ice.
	They are, what is the word?
	Crafting society.
	Social engineering.
	The CBC is writing articles about doctors allegedly questioning the age-old principle that you do not ask any questions about what brought someone to the hospital when you have to treat them in the hospital.
	Now CBC says some doctors want to revisit this.
	They're trying to shape a reality, not reflect it.
	They are the enemy of the people, period.
	There's no other way to put it.
	They want to shape a narrative.
	They want to shape people's minds so that normal, moral, God-fearing, God-loving Canadians start to say, yeah, maybe we should not treat the vaccinated.
	Maybe we should tax the unvaccinated.
	Maybe we should not just make them social pariahs, not just kick them out of our stores.
	Maybe we should punish them even more.
	Little girl.
	Nine-year-old girl on a television show in Quebec.
	You have to take things away bit by bit until they submit.
	Until they submit.
	And my goodness, if it didn't give the vibe of the youth of a different era.
	That's only because you haven't seen videos of the youth of a different era.
	Okay.
	I kept hearing Canada is a leader concerning upholding human rights, but seeing CTV, CBC, Globalist News, and daily updates from the PM make me think Canada is the leader concerning projection.
	There is no question.
	There's no question.
	We have a racist, misogynist leader in the House, and all he does is walk around calling women who don't...
	Who are vaccine reluctant, hesitant, misogynist.
	Calls minorities who are vaccine hesitant, racist.
	You have this guy with his history, not just dressing up as others, not just allegedly groping reporters 20 years ago, not just firing female indigenous minister of justices and attorney generals that he himself appointed.
	You have a PM guilty in conduct of everything that he is accusing other people of.
	And it's disgusting.
	Okay.
	No, Viva, your hair don't look weird.
	It looks majestic.
	Says the Dane with the majestic beard.
	I remember you now.
	Okay, and I'm going to get one more super chat before Robert is pulled into this.
	Oh, Bernadillo's Bernalillo.
	Bernalillo.
	Bernalillo.
	Okay, fine.
	I'll remember that.
	I'm still saying Pisaki.
	I'm still saying Stettler.
	And now I'm saying Jake the fake tapper.
	When policies don't work, historically, starvation has and is used.
	There's one I want to get here, the PETA.
	Oh, yeah.
	Oh, no.
	Okay, so hold on.
	Let me see if I can get the orange chat on PETA.
	Robert, I'll be there in 30 seconds.
	In case anyone forgot, Fauci was literally the villain in the Dallas Buyers Club.
	Oh, I can't see the orange one.
	Where's the orange one?
	Okay, so I can't bring it up.
	I lost it.
	Danny Robinson says, can the PETA case be applied in a Section 230 case?
	And that is the question that I have.
	That is the question that we are going to ask.
	And now I can see him.
	We're bringing him in.
	Robert, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	So I say, I know you're back to 100% based on the volume of homework that you sent me.
	You sent me some good stuff this week.
	And I mean, there's a lot of it.
	And some of it's fun.
	Some of it's interesting.
	And we're going to get to that PETA case because that was my exact reaction to the Section 230 provision and the argument made in that decision about the 14th Amendment violation.
	But before we even get there, people want to know.
	We need to do the vaccine mandate updates and the latest.
	Take it away and let us know what's going on.
	Sure.
	So the federal employee mandate went down this week in federal district court.
	So at this point, the OSHA mandate's been permanently enjoined.
	It's basically DOA.
	The Biden administration may try to resuscitate it in some manner, but unlikely to be successful in that effort.
	The Head Start mandate is blocked in most of the country, and the federal contractor mandate is blocked throughout the entire country.
	So the federal employee mandate, other than the military mandate, which has been blocked in some places, not in other places, the only one left was the federal employee mandate.
	And a federal district court found that the Biden administration did not, just through executive decree, have the power to mandate that people receive a vaccine.
	And issued a nationwide injunction to that effect, in part because the plaintiffs were representing people across the country, and there wasn't really sound reasons to separate out that ruling from state to state.
	It wasn't specific or particular to any individual region.
	And the court's logic was the same as it's been in these other cases, which is just they don't have the power.
	The executive branch does not have the unilateral power to do this.
	And so if Congress passes it, that would be a separate question whether or not Congress could require this as a condition of federal employment or not.
	But Congress hasn't done so.
	And so Biden couldn't circumvent that.
	By just issuing an edict.
	So at this point, the only mandate that's left alive is the mandate on Medicare recipients.
	And that's because of the three unique issues that were present there, which was all these other mandates were for the benefit of the unvaccinated employee purportedly.
	It was kind of, you know, forcing people on something for their own benefit.
	Whereas the Medicare mandate was to reduce the spread of COVID amongst vulnerable, poor, elderly populations receiving medical care.
	Federally funded medical care.
	And that made a difference.
	And as well, there's a history of hospitals imposing such vaccine mandates with accommodations for religious and medical reasons.
	And that was, of course, included in it.
	But all the other mandates that were based on just protecting employees from themselves or limiting spread of COVID in general, that was not sufficient grounds when no such statutory authority had been given.
	with that directive clarity.
	And so now that this federal employee mandate is, I put the highlighted version of the case up at our viva barnslaw.locals.com board.
	And at this point, We'll see what happens with the Medicare mandate on remand and whatnot, but all the other Biden administration mandates are either dead or DOA.
	Now, the question I had asked, I mean, it came up in another case where I think it was on the...
	Where was it that the Supreme Court basically came down and said, you can't do this, and the Biden administration went ahead and did it anyhow?
	Well, they've ignored certain rulings at different times in terms of some of the immigration issues.
	They did so originally in the CDC eviction issue, though the Supreme Court didn't jump in as clear as they could have.
	Kavanaugh took a sort of waddling position like he did on the Medicare mandate.
	But ultimately, that was all that was.
	Mostly it was talk, not real.
	In the end, the Biden administration capitulated on all those things.
	And so the major employers, Starbucks, General Electric, some others announced that they are not going to be going through with the vaccine mandate any further.
	Based on the OSHA ruling, a bunch of other mid-sized employers did the same.
	There's a few employers that are still holding out.
	Tyson Foods is still discriminating against people, even that seek religious accommodations.
	That suit is pending in the Western District of Tennessee that I have brought.
	They moved to dismiss the suit on the grounds that even though they got the case into federal court based on them being a federal officer, that they said their vaccine mandate was enforcing as an agent of the federal government.
	So we admitted our claim to add all the claims that that means that they had laws that they had violated, consequently.
	And then they turned around and said, well, we don't really mean we're a federal agent.
	We just mean we're a federal agent for getting out of state court, but not a federal agent for being responsible under federal law.
	They claimed immunity under basically a kitchen sink defense.
	They said, if it wasn't this law, it's this other law.
	And if it wasn't that law, it's another law.
	And if it wasn't this thing, maybe it was that thing.
	And if it wasn't that thing, there's another thing.
	So they clearly believe that they were sort of immunized by the Biden administration and shouldn't have to face suit is the core of their argument.
	We'll see what the judge does to George W. Bush appointee.
	The law is pretty clearly on our side on a lot of these issues, but some of it's novel and unprecedented territory.
	We should win, but if we don't, then we'll take it up to the appellate food chain until we do win.
	Then there's separate EEOC complaints pending against Tyson Foods as well.
	There's some big oil companies that are still going along and enforcing the mandate.
	So there's some employers that are still doing the mandate, though they no longer have the cover of the Biden administration for doing so.
	But for the most part, the mandates are dead.
	As we speak.
	Now, not the vaccine passports.
	The vaccine passports instituted in Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, New York, LA.
	There's more suits that have been filed and more suits that will be filed challenging those.
	This week, I think it was a little nine-year-old girl who got arrested at a museum for wanting to see a museum.
	And again, nine-year-olds...
	I mean, they've only given emergency use authorization for it just a few months ago, and it's still very controversial.
	That's going to be the subject of a suit that is filed in Texas this week in federal court concerning the FDA's emergency use authorization of the vaccine for children because of the way they skipped and circumvented the legal and regulatory.
	And the allegations of the suit will be that the FDA is deliberately mislabeling the COVID vaccine as safe and effective in ways that don't conform to the actual established scientific standard or legal standard.
	And that they're using Big Bird and other people to advertise this.
	The FDA exists to prevent private people from...
	In other words, they're doing things that Pfizer can't do.
	And Moderna can't do.
	And J&J can't do.
	Because nothing has been, no available vaccine and definitely no vaccine period for children for COVID-19 has met the biologic license standard required to have the label safe and effective.
	And yet you have these people running around calling it safe and effective.
	And there's doctors that are saying they will not treat children if they're not vaccinated.
	There's hospitals denying people medical treatment, including five-year-old kids needing medical transplant on the grounds of vaccination status.
	So all of that is leading to more litigation.
	That's the next wave of litigation in the vaccine mandate context.
	I have thoughts that I actually cannot speak out loud when I hear about that.
	There was the case in, I think it was in British Columbia, of a...
	Family being evicted from the Ronald McDonald house because the father wasn't vaccinated.
	The kid didn't have to be because she wasn't of the right...
	I think she was four years old or something and not yet five.
	It's the idea of preventing transplants or certain life-threatening treatments because they're not vaccinated.
	It's not just anything other than inhumane.
	And it's almost like a test just to see how much people will put up with.
	I just want to bring this because I have no idea about the answer to this question.
	Do you think military members that were forced to take the vaccine have a valid claim under undue command influence?
	Well, there's a range of claims that some Navy SEALs did win.
	There's a case pending in Florida because the military basically systematically denied almost all religious accommodation requests.
	That appears to be a violation of the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, which governs the military.
	So we'll see if the courts, you know, one court has already said it's illegal and protected a group of Navy SEALs.
	The question is whether the court handling the broader case involving the Defense Department will also step in.
	And we have also filed an appeal.
	We sued the FDA for the bait and switch they pulled because officially there is no military mandate to take any vaccine except one that has a biologic license.
	Problem is there is no biologic license vaccine available in the United States.
	So the military has been pretending that they're giving them that.
	And the courts have been lazy and sloppy in handling it.
	And the FDA has designed their sets of rules the way the Biden administration designed all their mandates.
	It just didn't work for the Biden mandates, but the FDA so far has dodged a bullet on the grounds that nobody can sue.
	That whatever they do, it's not really them doing it.
	You know, the mandate's being issued by someone else, even though the mandate's based on what they've done and based on what their declaration is.
	And they're asserting emergency use authorization everywhere because under their interpretation of that statute, the APA doesn't apply and nobody can sue them.
	They don't have to do notice and comment.
	They don't have to honor citizen petitions.
	They don't have to recognize scientific criticisms or dissent.
	They don't have to go through the proper regulatory protocol.
	They don't have to get the right clinical trials to go through.
	They can ignore whistleblower complaints that are now multiple against big pharma.
	And that's what they're trying to force it on to kids now, effectively.
	By mislabeling it, they're saying something is safe and effective that has not met the biologic license legal standard for being called safe and effective, period.
	Not only that, they failed to do the relevant statistical stratified analysis as to risk, because the evidence is pretty strong that for children, there is no real risk.
	The risk from COVID is less than it is from the common flu.
	No, I said you have to be protecting them from something in order to make it a justifiable.
	I'm going to read this one, Justin, because I'm going to ask you to stop spamming if this is not an actual bot.
	We get your message.
	We at Google thank you for your love and support.
	Keep giving money.
	I appreciate it.
	If you don't want to give Google the money and you want to support us, you can go to Rumble.
	You can go to locals, vivabarneslaw.locals.com, but stop spamming if you are a real human because that's the only bannable offense is spamming.
	With that said, Gavin Cross, thank you for the support.
	You already talked about what I wanted to ask.
	Show some more support for our truckers people.
	There is a fund they raised over $2 million.
	If anybody has a link to the GoFundMe...
	Oh, and by the way, GoFundMe gets some money too there, Justin, so you might not want to support them either there.
	There's a GoFundMe they raised over $2.1 million last time I checked.
	It's incredible.
	And do not let the government allow you in your own spirit to demonize the wrong people.
	Because that's where they try to point the finger now.
	It's just a protest.
	Not any of the great truck protests and protests around the world, but there was a big vaccine mandate protest today in Washington, D.C. Robert Kennedy spoke.
	YouTube kept trying to take down him speaking, so people kept putting it up, putting it up, putting it up.
	So you had to chase it.
	But you could find the whole speech, ultimately.
	YouTube was unsuccessful at suppressing a prominent speech at a prominent public rally just because the big tech overlords don't like the content of that speech.
	Well, you know what?
	It's a good segue, Robert.
	Let me pull this one down.
	I want to bring up this.
	I'm going to share the screen.
	I'm not going to play the clip to which Jake Tapper was responding in the Twitterverse.
	Oh, forget it.
	I can't do it.
	The same Jake Tapper who's scared to debate Bobby Kennedy.
	I may have to do this.
	Let's take the 30 seconds to do this.
	I'm just going to open up Twitter again.
	This is Jake Tapper, who goes on...
	Okay, no, no, it's right there.
	So let me just share my screen.
	He refuses to debate RFK because you don't want to dignify that insanity with the platform.
	As if RFK needs Jake Tapper's dying, shriveling platform.
	But it's better than that.
	I'm going to bring this up here.
	Okay, here we go.
	This.
	And bring my thingy thing.
	Where was it?
	I don't want to play the clip of RFK because I don't want to get in trouble on the YouTubes.
	I think I've gone too far.
	Let's see here.
	Social credit.
	There we go.
	Jake Tapper.
	Jake Tapper.
	An ignorant, lying menace.
	Because in this one-minute clip, RFK talks about...
	He makes an analogy to Anne Frank and saying at least in...
	The Yahtzee Germany, times of the past, you could hide in an attic.
	When it comes to things of this type of verification, where you need to show a vaccine passport to get food, to take money out of a bank account, as they tried to do in Kazakhstan, to groceries, to get health services, you have nowhere to hide.
	And he refers to Bill Gates.
	The 5G, I don't get the reference except to say that there's satellites that are going to be able to track all aspects of biometrics to such an accurate T that...
	It'll make the social credit score in China look like a child's play compared to what they want to do elsewhere.
	And I just had to respond to him saying, you know, social credit scores in China, barring the unvaccinated from markets in New Brunswick, actually happened.
	Taxing unvaccinated in Quebec actually being discussed and seems to be, will be implemented unless there's some walk back.
	Denying health services to the unvaccinated This is all already going on or in discussion.
	So what part of what RFK Jr. said do you disagree with?
	He is...
	And then, you know, so he takes to Twitter to insult the man, to call him a lying scumbag, whatever, and then doesn't have the...
	Courage to actually discuss with him because he thinks he's giving RFK a platform.
	Hubris.
	Outrageous.
	Robert, we are doing...
	RFK, we're going to have it sooner than later at some point.
	We might just have to do the locals exclusive or on Rumbles exclusive.
	That would be a barn burner.
	Yeah, I mean, it's extraordinary.
	And then the state of California is trying to push through legislation.
	That would allow for vaccination of public school children without their parents' knowledge or consent.
	So, you know, it's just a massive power grab.
	That's what it's always been.
	And this is despite the Omicron effect that the data just continues to accumulate, that the vaccine has very little effect on Omicron.
	In Fauci this morning was spinning that, you know, maybe you're going to just need booster shots into perpetuity.
	Who knows?
	Even people like Barry Weiss and Bill Maher, people on the left, are like, enough's enough.
	This clearly never was a vaccine.
	It doesn't inoculate.
	It doesn't sterilize.
	They had to change the definition of vaccine for it.
	Part of the lawsuit Children's Health Defense is bringing against the FDA in Texas this week is that CDC had no right and authority to redefine.
	It's mislabeling.
	It's what they're doing.
	They're calling something a vaccine that does not meet the medical definition of a vaccine.
	Period.
	It meets it now, since 2015, very conveniently.
	It meets the CDC's decision to redefine it.
	But, you know, we're not in Alice in Wonderland and looking through the wonder glass, or looking glass, or however it's phrased.
	Where Humpty Dumpty says, where it is what I say it is.
	No, it isn't.
	Where it has objective medical and legal truth.
	And CDC's just lying.
	And the FDA is just lying.
	And they're trying to put kids as the next guinea pigs for this massive experiment in state power.
	And luckily, the mandates have mostly died.
	Most of the Biden mandates have died.
	And a lot of people have pushed back and many employers have walked back.
	And only a few cities and counties and states and schools are considering and trying to impose it.
	But the fact that anybody still is just reveals the insanity of it.
	And of course, in Europe, it's still a little even more insane, like Canada.
	Austria is trying to mandate it.
	Austria couldn't help but get back to their Nazi legacy.
	They just rushed right back into it.
	But it's amazing.
	I feel bad.
	I felt bad at some point.
	I still think, by and large, when you're having an ordinary debate about anything, reflexively invoking Godwin's Law or going to Godwin's Law is not the right thing to do.
	But when you live in a world where they are saying, you and your medical condition make you dirty and unclean and you can't get food, so figure out getting necessities of life, it's time to start making those comparisons because, like I said sometime last week...
	This is how far we've gone in two years.
	Imagine if we have another five years of this unrelenting madness.
	I mean, that's what happened between 1933 and 1939 in Germany.
	It didn't happen overnight.
	And we are well within the realm of saying, holy crap, we're actually talking about letting people starve to death or die or not get treatment because they refuse to get this particular vaccine under these particular contexts.
	We're kicking kids out of art museums.
	I mean, this is insanity.
	This is pure insanity.
	But, Robert, so, I mean, they're walking things back in the States, or at least, you know, some mandates are getting declared invalid by the Supreme Court, but the one that...
	I don't even know what it is, how it happens.
	It just came into effect on January 22nd because it was DHS that said it, Department of Homeland Security, that in order to...
	If you're a foreigner and you want to travel to the States now, you need to be double vaccinated.
	I mean, first of all, how do they just spontaneously do that?
	And who can file a challenge to that?
	I mean, what they're doing is they're using their power over borders.
	It's ironic, right?
	Illegals can flood right across the border, vaccinated or not.
	But an ordinary, everyday person just trying to travel now to the United States or a trucker trying to cross the border to deliver supplies.
	Now it has to be vaccinated.
	And they're doing it because of their control of the border.
	Now there's a range of issues.
	Because if you can just start limiting...
	What do all of our trade treaties mean if you could completely gut them by just saying, oh, this group of people can't come.
	This group of people can't be the ones on the ship or on the truck or driving the operation.
	Well, then you could just completely...
	Eradicate all of your treaties because you could just come up with some pretext, public health, whatever, environmental, that'll be the next pretext, environmental pretext, to rewrite the law in ways the law doesn't allow.
	It's what they tried to do in the mandate context, mostly have lost.
	But they have a broader authority at the border.
	And you see the degree of prejudice, the class prejudice, the political prejudice in the federal judiciary by that judge who just delayed a trial because that judge who pretends that they wear a white lab coat in their spare time, the outfit should have come with a little hat with a top on it and it'd be more appropriate for the kind of prejudice that oozed out of that judge's mouth down in Florida.
	Basically attack people for not getting the vaccine based on almost all false data.
	None of these judges could withstand five minutes of cross-examination.
	They don't know what they're talking about.
	They're full of it.
	And they're littering their records with lies and people get to see who and what judges often are.
	I'm dealing with a judge like that right now in another case.
	But what you saw was just pure prejudice.
	I mean, there was no factual basis for what the judge said.
	In fact, the judge was factually false, just lied in the record.
	Let's pause it there.
	For those who didn't see the vlog earlier this week, it was a Miami-Dade judge postponing a jury trial that was scheduled in an automobile accident.
	They were suing an insurance company.
	The judge had previously established as protocol for the jury trial that...
	The jury members would have to be vaccinated or show a negative test within 24 hours of the trial beginning, and then updated that rule to only allow for vaccinated jury members.
	Now, plaintiff obviously didn't object to this because from a strategic, political, demographic, ideological basis, you could see a plaintiff wanting the people who are so scared of life to be on the jury.
	In a bodily harm issue against an insurance company.
	The insurance company strategically says, I don't only want to have vaccinated jury members.
	That's not what a jury of your peers is.
	That specifically negates the whole idea of you're selecting from within a demographic as opposed to a jury of your peers.
	So they say, no, we don't agree to this.
	The judge says, I don't understand who the judge was talking to.
	Because all that happens is the insurance company said, we don't agree, postpone the trial.
	So the judge in this two-page written order says, the unvaccinated are ignorant, selfish, unpatriotic.
	They're selfish in their decision not to get vaccinated, whereas 94% of the Miami-Dade County have done the responsible thing.
	And then talking about the logical inconsistencies in the judge's own decision, this is not my observation.
	It comes from our very intelligent...
	So if it was your insight, congratulations.
	The judge says 94% of Miami-Dade did the responsible, patriotic thing and got vaccinated.
	The vaccine is effective.
	And if you don't want to do it, you're stupid.
	And yet Omicron is ravaging so much through our counties now that we have to implement special protocol for the trial.
	So it didn't make sense.
	But I did not even understand who the judge was talking to, let alone where the judge was taking this judicial knowledge from as to effectiveness, as to intent on vaccinating.
	I didn't understand, Robert.
	And maybe you can elucidate who the heck the judge was talking to in this two-page written order.
	Well, it's the same judicial mindset that gave us Buck v.
	Bell and eugenics in America and the Nazis cited afterwards.
	Same mindset.
	The same judge who said, you know, eight generations of imbeciles is enough.
	And that kind of contemptuous arrogance.
	A lot of it's class prejudice and bigotry.
	Sometimes there's racial prejudice and bigotry mixed in.
	But it's prejudice.
	It's not based on ration, reason, or fact.
	It's based on a prejudiced judge that thinks they know better.
	That's the reason why a lot of them wanted to become...
	And it's filled with prejudice and stupidity.
	And, you know, to have to deal with it on a daily basis is annoying enough.
	But this is just witnessing it.
	And so these judges were born to be, basically, imagine an authoritarian Karen, and that's your typical federal judge in America.
	And that's why they're federal judges.
	It's why they sought out that job.
	It's why they were able to successfully get that job.
	They tend to be condescending, authoritarian, power-driven freaks.
	It's why they, disproportionately, if you were to look at certain kinds of abusive personal behavior, you'll find it in the judiciary, disproportionately.
	Certain kinds of particularly disturbing behavior.
	It'll be disproportionately show up in judges.
	It's because it's what drives them to become judges in the first place.
	And that's what you saw.
	It's a judge who's eager to lecture everybody.
	And it's that same Karen mindset of just lecturing random people on the street.
	That's what judges wanted to become.
	And he was just lecturing the world.
	Look at how horrible and horrendous this is that we can't have a trial because of these terrible, disgusting people that don't do what our betters tell them they should do.
	And he would have only, even if it's an...
	Average sampling of the population, he would have only been dealing with six of a hundred potential jury members who might have not been vaccinated based on the stats.
	But I was just trying to look up to see what the Cuban-American or Cuban-Floridian vaccination rates look like.
	I don't know if they follow the other Latino, African, or Black-American, Indigenous stats, which are lower than Caucasian and lower than Asian.
	And so what I've been saying for the last little while, you know, when I call Justin Trudeau a racist, it's not to play the racist game.
	It's that they are implementing policies that they know will have a disparate impact on racial minorities because of who are reluctant to get vaccinated, because of who has been historically abused by the very government now that is trying to force them to submit to vaccination.
	I mean, the Trudeau government just finished apologizing and paying $40 billion to the indigenous for the abuse of previous governments, including Justin's own father.
	And so Blacks, Latinos who are historically reticent to take this vaccine, or they're reticent now because of historical injustices committed against them, this judge comes out and says, you're selfish, ignorant, and unpatriotic.
	And I do wonder if he was not directly or indirectly targeting, if not the Cuban community of Florida in particular, at least...
	The ethnic minorities of Florida.
	I mean, what do you know?
	Yeah, Haitians and Haitians are big in the Miami area.
	Dominicans are big in the Miami area.
	Latin Americans, Venezuelans, Colombians also.
	And there are people that have escaped governments that they see what happens when you give government all the power.
	Doesn't look good.
	And so this is just a reminder.
	And that's still the hurdle.
	The hurdle is still enough judges out there that, like every judge that even strikes down the vaccine mandates, goes on a long thing about, I don't want to question vaccines and I don't want to be seen as anti-vax.
	I mean, come on, you look pitiful.
	You look pitiful.
	There's nothing magical about putting the word vaccine on a drug and it suddenly has none of the problems that drugs and big pharma have given us over the last century.
	Biggest criminal operators in the world.
	And so it just shows what we're up against.
	But enough people have pushed back.
	And what's happened is as the data has developed and as the information has shown up and as people's lived experiences has factored into the equation, more and more and more people are more and more and more critical.
	And that's why the vaccine mandates are failing in so many places.
	That's why there's the state legislatures and the governors are moving in the direction they're moving in so many places.
	That's why the...
	The protests are still global and worldwide.
	And I think that's the other reason why that judge went on that whiny lecture.
	Couldn't believe that you didn't get 100% conformity.
	I think the little kid that was on that Canadian TV show...
	Bragging about, yes, let's line them up.
	Let's line them up.
	You could have kept going saying, but what else do you think we should do to the unvaccinated?
	And that kid probably will be, yeah, more, more.
	Torture some more.
	Give them a little honor, a little Hitler's dash as their prize.
	And then he said, line them up, Robert.
	They just said, call the police.
	Cut them off little by little until they submit.
	It's even worse because it involves that torturous level of escalation.
	And the kids seemed happy about it.
	I mean, that also was disturbing.
	Now, I don't think the people had, those people on the TV show, realized that that show would go viral not for the reasons they wanted.
	Because a lot of people looked at that and they're like, that's horrifying, that mindset, that mentality.
	That we're little kids and you can't wait until they get to torture the dissident, the outsider, the disliked individual in their community.
	Unbelievable.
	Well, and Julie Snyder, the host of that show, took some flack for that.
	And I put out a video last week, so you can go check it out.
	But that was one of the prime examples where comparing it to historical atrocities was not just appropriate, but you could have overlapped the images.
	That scene, Louis C.K. did a bit about it.
	The scene from Schindler's List with that little girl saying, Goodbye, Jesus!
	That was the first thing that I thought of when I saw that kid saying, We have to cut it off little by little until they submit.
	I thought it was her mother, but it's her teacher, which makes it even worse.
	It looks like I've drilled them.
	It looks like that because you did.
	You're brainwashing other people's children, but the parents allowed the children to go on TV.
	They knew what the score was.
	Disgusting.
	The host is taking some flack because it did go viral and not for the right reasons.
	By the way, I just looked up who Abby Hoffman was.
	I kind of see it.
	I don't like it, but I kind of see it.
	And can we touch on Jordan?
	He was a genius.
	If he's a genius, I'll take it.
	He was one of the Chicago 7. He actually convinced the Pentagon that he was going to help levitate them in protest of the war.
	So he was the guy that had the head of the yippies rather than the hippies.
	He had his issues, obviously, but politically genius.
	Outsider dissident.
	Okay, then I take it as a compliment, Mike.
	Can you touch on Jordan Peterson leaving U of T?
	No.
	But if we all get to Jordan Peterson, maybe he'll come on and explain it to us.
	He'll talk about it with us himself.
	So that will be the next person to whom I reach out, or we reach out.
	And speaking of...
	I'm sort of concerned for my own selfish reasons.
	Right now, the rule that the Department of Homeland Security arbitrarily, unilaterally implemented is that visitors, non-Americans, or non-cardholders, non-whatever, have to show proof of vaccination.
	On the one hand, for the time being, it doesn't apply to 17 and under, and fully vaccinated are deemed to be double vaccinated.
	I mean, who can contest this?
	And then what happens if they start changing the criteria for what fully vaccinated means under this I mean, it would have to be an individual trying to come in, but it's tough because the reason why it's basically the place where they have the most discretion.
	So now, you know, if you take what the liberals argued in the court partially adopted in the in the Muslim case, you can make an argument that you have that now you can sue for a right to come to the United States.
	But historically, there's been no such right.
	And so that's where they've had complete discretion about border control.
	So I'd say it's so it'd be an uphill battle at the moment, politically, legally.
	I mean, and uphill, I think, if I go to Florida's COVID dashboard, I might be doing that.
	Okay, now, Robert, the next one of interest.
	With the caveats that there is no election, fortification, undermining advice, contradictions, whatever.
	I forget which state was that lawsuit that you sent me.
	Was it Wisconsin?
	About the drop boxes?
	Yes.
	So, bottom line, this was only the motion.
	I didn't see any order in this, so if there was an order, let me know and update what I'm going to...
	Sorry, go ahead.
	Yeah, there was an order.
	Okay, so, bottom line of the lawsuit was that...
	They were challenging drop boxes for ballots.
	They were challenging the idea that third parties could deliver mail-in ballots for other people.
	And as far as I understood, the reason was specifically and not more complicated than the statute did not provide for it.
	The statute which exists does not provide for delivering a ballot to a drop box and not an official, what do they call them, recipient, human recipient.
	And that the statute specifically does not allow or provide for third parties dropping off the mail-in ballots of an individual other than the person delivering the mail-in ballot.
	So tell me if that was too much of an oversimplification, but I didn't see any order.
	So what ended up happening with that?
	So Wisconsin law was pretty clear that in order to vote, you either have to do so in person or you have to fill out the ballot yourself.
	And hand deliver it yourself or deliver it yourself directly to the U.S. mail to go to the clerk's office.
	What happened in 2020 was the Wisconsin Election Commission decided to change the rules in the name of the pandemic.
	The Wisconsin Election Commission doesn't have legal power to do so, but they did so anyway.
	And what they did is they advised all of the election officers that they could instead have the ballots dropped off at random drop boxes.
	And that they no longer needed to go to the U.S. mail, no longer needed to be delivered in person, no longer needed to be delivered by the person voting.
	And what that allows is massive ballot harvesting, of course, which is illegal in most parts of the country.
	And the concern is that essentially there's less security guarantees that that person cast an anonymous secret ballot, right?
	I mean, if you can go door to door, say here.
	I've already filled out your ballot for you.
	You just mark here, thank you, and I'll go and deliver it.
	You all of a sudden can effectively, you can buy votes that way, you can blackmail votes that way, you can coerce votes that way, or you can just have fraudulent votes that way.
	And the only thing that prevents it, aside from a signature match check, is that that person is the one responsible, the voter is the one responsible for delivering it directly either to the mail or to the clerk's office, and not a third-party intermediary and not...
	Just random drop boxes.
	What they did is a 2020 election in Wisconsin had a massive surge in these ballots that came in in a manner that was never legal, is the reality of it.
	I mean, this case, and what happened is some citizens brought suit, said the Wisconsin Election Commission misdefined the law last time, allowed all these illegal ballots to be cast, and we want the court to say, don't allow this to happen again in 2022.
	Because the Wisconsin legislature has never gone along with this election commission's universal, unilateral action.
	And the court agreed and the court enjoyed it, said the only way you can deliver a vote in Wisconsin is you have to personally deliver it to the mail or personally deliver it to the clerk.
	The drop boxes didn't have to be guarded.
	They didn't have to be observed.
	They didn't have to be supervised.
	Who knows what could happen?
	Somebody could drop in their own 100 ballots.
	Someone could sub out some ballots for other ballots.
	There was no adequate ballot security that took place in Wisconsin.
	Wisconsin was one of those states that was extremely tight.
	And so but for those changes in the rules, Wisconsin would have voted Trump.
	And so what the people sued so it wouldn't occur again.
	And the court agreed with him.
	And the court said that...
	That there's no basis to have drop boxes, no basis for third-party ballot harvesting to occur in Wisconsin.
	If you want to change that law, you've got to go to the legislature.
	The Election Commission can't do it itself.
	And then join the Election Commission from further advising election offices that they could do that.
	And instead, now there's an order that the election offices have to actually follow Wisconsin law that guarantees ballot security and limits the risk of ballot fraud from occurring.
	So it was a big win on the election transparency process.
	In a very big state with some, you know, it's going to have a Senate seat up, governor's seat up, and a couple of key contested congressional races up.
	So it's a big win.
	I'm going to bring this up and then I'm going to get back to a question I just want to forget about this.
	Help, we just sold our house and are trapped in Canada.
	We wanted to apply for an EB-5 visa but cannot due to vaccine mandates.
	We want to flee to Belize but don't know how to get there.
	Is there any hope on the border, Robert?
	That I, you know, the, I don't.
	I don't know that precisely.
	John, I could be lived in Belize for a while, so there's that, but advising how to get there, I wouldn't be the person.
	Nor will I. I have just been...
	This is the risk.
	Nothing should ever be construed as legal advice, period.
	The only issue is that, from what I understand...
	I may have had some people disappear, but that's legally.
	I was under the impression that private jets could circumvent these, and all you have to do is come up with $20,000 to charter a private jet.
	But I don't...
	I mean, you've got to find a lawyer.
	The least secure part of the border is always going to be the ports.
	So, just FYI, everybody.
	Now, getting back to the Wisconsin thing.
	In the motion, or in the suit itself, it did take some jabs at the Supreme Court or the...
	Courts prior, in 2020, they said they declined for...
	What's the opposite of latches?
	When you don't yet have a cause of...
	Oh, yeah.
	This is always the rule.
	If you sue in spring, it's not ripe yet.
	If you sue in summer, it's already moot.
	If you sue in fall, it's latches, and they don't understand why you didn't sue sooner.
	And in all instances, you just magically can't sue.
	And so, I mean, they literally said, look...
	We either sue too early, cause of suit has not arisen.
	We sue too late, latches eat and act in time.
	And they poked a little fun there.
	But you have to refresh my memory.
	Why didn't the courts hear these suits at the time?
	Because for everyone who's out there listening, it's not that anyone broke the law.
	And therefore falsified results.
	What it was is that, as far as my recollection goes, Wisconsin had the law and they were issuing guidance on how it's to be interpreted, which allowed for this to occur.
	Therefore, it was lawful in the sense that it was following guidance of interpretation of the law.
	And now they sued to say, that's not what the law says, and that should never have been the guidance.
	But why weren't these suits heard at the time?
	Because I know that they were brought.
	I forget.
	Well, some places they were brought, some places they weren't brought.
	Courts found different excuses in the places where they didn't get involved.
	Pennsylvania is where it was heavily litigated.
	Wisconsin less so.
	The problem was Mark Elias and his group was threatening and coercing people all across the country, getting secretaries of state panicked and doing secret...
	Settlements that changed the law in ways that it couldn't legally change.
	And a lot of the Trump administration, Trump campaign legal team, and the Republican National Committee legal team, a lot of them were asleep at the wheel.
	And some of them may have been complicit.
	So a lot of the lawyers involved have major conflicts.
	You have very few election lawyers out there that don't have conflicts.
	Because most of them, if you're doing that on a regular basis...
	You're working for institutional actors most of the time.
	There's only a few of us that represent outsiders in election law.
	And that's only a few of us.
	So I think that that's why it should have been addressed.
	I thought it was.
	Found out it wasn't.
	We'll have someone on, not this Wednesday sidebar, but next Wednesday sidebar, Patrick Witt, running for Congress right now in Georgia.
	He worked at the White House.
	He came down and volunteered time, so he was in the middle of everything that happened in Georgia.
	So he can tell us some of the stories about some of the craziness of what he got to witness and how utterly unprepared so much of the Trump campaign legal team was and how many of them were actually the key people undermining him throughout.
	And Viva, in Wisconsin, we cannot vote by mail unless we are confined, not for COVID.
	I remember that at the time, where they had broadened the definition.
	They just ignored it.
	The states just ignored it, and Mark Elias' crew was much more prepared, and they had all the election officials lined up in their pocket.
	And Zuckerberg, of course, was buying them off all across the country, $400 million or whatever it was he spent.
	And too many other people were asleep, and they weren't paying attention to what was happening.
	And you know what the funny thing is?
	It's easy to pretend to be smart in hindsight, although, Robert, I think you are always smart in hindsight and in foresight.
	I remember discussing at the time, why was there so much DNC party or DNC-related parties litigation going on, leading up, and in the six months before?
	And I remember we discussed it, and it's only in retrospect that it all makes sense now, is that they were suing preemptively, securing agreements, crafting legislation.
	It is exactly what the Time article described it as.
	The only issue is, you read the Time article magazine, Fortifying the 2020 Elections, you read that article, and we all agree on the facts.
	We only say, does that article describe the application of democracy or the bastardization of democracy?
	That's the only question you have to ask.
	We can all agree on the facts.
	Well, they used COVID brilliantly as their perfect pretext for all of this.
	They were going to do it anyway, but they wouldn't have got away with it but for the panic response to the pandemic, which Trump partially facilitated.
	I mean, it was partially on him for going along, ultimately, at key stages.
	I mean, that was the Babylon Bee headline.
	Trump supporters excited to back the guy who hired Anthony Fauci in lockdown the first time.
	Some of that is on Trump.
	He was asleep at the wheel and bad personnel choices that he kept making himself over and over and over again.
	But speaking of the misuse and abuse of pandemic power, the Ninth Circuit finally adjudicated whether or not the different cities and counties and states...
	Government actors in California who used the, as soon as the pandemic came along, they said, you know what?
	What's really scary?
	Well, churches are scary.
	We got to shut those down.
	That's, you know, COVID spreads there a lot.
	Small stores, it spreads there a lot too, your small businesses.
	And gun stores and rifles, ranges.
	So they put a 48-day closure order in the name of COVID on all gun shops.
	Finally, the 9th Circuit got around to saying, oh, you know what?
	That was never legal.
	That was a violation of the Second Amendment, clearly.
	And they're like, well, what was it about guns?
	You could go and walk.
	That was okay.
	You could jog.
	You could bicycle.
	Bicycling was definitely totally okay.
	But somehow, if you go outside to shoot a gun, no, no, no.
	That's when COVID happens.
	COVID magically happened wherever they had their political adversaries.
	Churches.
	I skimmed through it.
	Well, so they shut down gun shops, and they said, you can't get ammo, you can't procure firearms.
	Now, I'm reading this, and I'm reading that, I'm just saying, okay, fine, Second Amendment, shall not be infringed.
	The question is this, like, what does that mean?
	Does that mean that all shops have to remain open?
	I try to, like, shall not be infringed versus not, and by the way, so nobody accuses me.
	I don't agree with this.
	I think this was all...
	It's egregious to begin with.
	Create backlogs.
	Make it more difficult.
	It is doing indirectly what you're not allowed to do directly.
	The only, you know, I just think like a lawyer, they're going to say, well, you can own it.
	You can do whatever you want with your firearm.
	But we're just saying that the stores cannot provide ammunition.
	And you have no constitutional right to a store.
	And you can't go to the range.
	I mean, basically, both of those are gun, are Second Amendment rights.
	And so in order to restrict that, they needed to have, in my view, strict scrutiny.
	That's what the Ninth Circuit said.
	Now, this is the Ninth Circuit panel.
	The lead judge, Van Dyke, is one who's been very critical of the Ninth Circuit on other Second Amendment cases.
	And he wants to continue to provoke until the Supreme Court takes up and clarifies what the Second Amendment means.
	So he wrote a particularly aggressive opinion on the subject.
	But it didn't even meet intermediate scrutiny because this was another case.
	When the evidence was tested, the state didn't have any.
	They're like, well, what's your evidence as to why gun shops are a unique COVID risk?
	What's your evidence that an outdoor gun range is a unique COVID risk?
	That somehow a bicycle shop is not?
	That buying other things are not?
	That going outdoors for other purposes is not?
	How is it that guns are uniquely dangerous from a COVID perspective?
	And they had none.
	They had no evidence whatsoever.
	It makes it clear how just blatantly political it was.
	In Canada, they decided that dog runs were COVID.
	Outdoor dog runs.
	They fucking locked our outdoor dog runs.
	A padlock on a dog.
	Because they decided that's where COVID spent.
	Well, you know, that's why the Amy Cooper incident happened, really.
	New York City did the same thing.
	They shut down a lot of the dog runs throughout New York City.
	So the only place you could take your dog were other places in the park.
	But there were all these older rules that said you couldn't have your dog there during this period of time or that period of time.
	The only reason why she had her dog out away from all the dog runs were closed.
	Otherwise, that whole incident never even occurs.
	But there was something in that order that I thought, that I found peculiar.
	I want to make sure I understand it.
	One of the judges, I forget which, said, look, this is going to go to the panel anyhow.
	Oh, sorry, this is going to go to a full en banc review because it was only a panel of three and they're going to overturn it.
	And it was as though he was, it was as though it was a jab at the full panel.
	Suspecting that the full panel...
	Oh, but actually, that's the judge who wrote the majority opinion.
	He's explaining...
	He was explaining...
	Like, one of the concurring judges was like, we don't have to get into some of these issues because this doesn't meet any level of scrutiny.
	And the lead judge, Van Dyke, was like, look, we need to clarify these issues because strict scrutiny should be applying.
	And so, you know, I understand the unbanked panel will probably find some crazy pretext to reverse this one like they reversed other gun cases in the Ninth Circuit.
	And that'll just prove my point.
	I actually think the unbanked panel will not take this case up because this was such an egregious example.
	It's not the strongest gun control argument.
	Just saying, oh, because of COVID, we had to shut you down.
	And just so we're also clear on the facts, it was not a blanket order for any and all stores.
	It was gun ranges, ammo shops, and gun stores.
	Yeah, exactly.
	I mean, it was obvious.
	I mean, they targeted churches and gun stores and small businesses.
	The three sources of opposition to democratic monopoly control in the state of California.
	I mean, it was obvious what they were doing, and everybody knew it.
	And the courts just didn't deal with it out of the gate.
	And this is who they're deferring to.
	These obvious political decisions that when they...
	There's another case, another lockdown case, like a lot of the vaccine cases, that when the evidence is tested in court...
	The government position fails.
	They have almost no evidence.
	The Ninth Circuit pointed it out.
	This didn't even meet rational basis review because there was no basis to target gun agencies and gun companies and gun shops and ranges.
	But it's a good ruling for future purposes.
	I'd encourage people to continue to fight these cases because it will stop it from happening next time, hopefully.
	And Sauris, looking at Sauris, you know what I'm saying.
	First of all, that's a big, that is a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, at least a 7-point buck in that avatar, if I can break out some terminology.
	I hope I got it right.
	How big is it, though, that the Ninth Circuit even admits that Second Amendment rights exist after ignoring it for so many years?
	This is the pro-Second Amendment panel that was on this panel.
	So they have been reversed in a bunch of other cases.
	But I think it's too egregious even for the Ninth Circuit to try to reverse.
	The liberal majority that wants gun control doesn't want to take this case out because it's so obvious.
	There was no excuse for what took place here.
	It's also presumably not very effective a way to do it anyhow.
	I mean, I presume you can get ammo via...
	Amazon, if it's anything like Canada.
	You can order it online.
	Gun ranges, I guess you could use, if you have a big enough property, backyard space.
	That's been subject to its own disputes in Pennsylvania, where they tried to prevent that on zoning grounds.
	They tried to keep, and they lost that too.
	But it's a very good decision on lockdowns.
	Good decision on protecting the Second Amendment and all the ways it can apply to protect you.
	So that was a good ruling.
	Yeah, you know my only problem, Robert?
	The only good news I'm seeing is coming out of certain states in the States.
	No good news coming out of Canada, and as far as I'm concerned, only bad news in my spirit.
	Oh, hold on a second.
	Someone says, Viva, not in California.
	Ammo cannot be ordered online.
	Yeah, no, not in California.
	That's a problem.
	Call me for you.
	Of course you can, because that's how you spread COVID.
	Okay, so I'm joking.
	What do we have here?
	Gun ammo stores and shooting ranges, eh?
	And churches, too.
	Hmm.
	Sounds suspiciously like an old Obama saying.
	Something about clinging to guns and Bibles, maybe.
	No question.
	So everyone is correcting me in the chat.
	People, I'm sorry.
	In Canada, you can.
	I guess in the States, you can't.
	Oh, you can in some states, not in California.
	California tries to do everything they can to restrict things.
	Oh, yeah.
	Okay.
	Viva Fry, what is my P.O. box for receiving food?
	It's in the info.
	It's in the about on my channel.
	Okay, so hold on.
	Let's get to the other one before I forget which was.
	Let's do it.
	Speaking of ammo and food, pita.
	Okay, so pita.
	It's not a thoroughly interesting judgment.
	I did a video on it today because I was stuck up in the cottage with no car for an office.
	But the thumbnail has Pamela Anderson.
	With one of the previous PETA ads, Pamela Anderson's body has all of the portions indicated for the meat that you would eat off a cow to sensitize people to the fact that humans have the same body parts.
	First of all, PETA, very ineffective ad because I have such a dirty joke and I can't say it because I know kids are watching or might watch.
	I had a dirty joke for that.
	But that's in the thumbnail.
	But PETA, bottom line, PETA wanted to run an ad in, oh geez, it was on a bus in Maryland.
	A local government, local bus transit agency.
	So it's a state actor.
	That was the one thing I forgot to mention in the damn video.
	It was a state actor, hence the Constitution applies, which is why they were suing on a First and Fourteenth Amendment violation.
	State actor who decides what you can advertise on.
	City buses.
	They wanted to run an ad.
	Basically, it says, you know, you don't have to kill to eat, and one of the images was a bloody cleaver, and the other one was a kid holding a chicken.
	Okay, I don't know what that chicken looked like.
	I don't know what that kid looked like.
	The city said, no, we're not running this ad.
	It's political in nature.
	We find it offensive, yada, yada.
	So, no.
	PETA...
	This was among the more tame of their ads, if anyone has ever seen some of Peter's ads.
	They didn't like this.
	They file a First Amendment, 14th Amendment violation lawsuit against, it was, whatever, the city bus is.
	The Transit Authority.
	Yeah, the Transit Authority.
	The Transit Authority filed a motion to dismiss on the basis of failure to state a claim.
	We have these rules.
	It's in the contract that we can refuse to run an ad if we find it offensive, political, obscene, yada yada.
	And we can take down an ad if we determine the same thing to be true.
	They had kind of like YouTube's rules of terms of service.
	This is where we're getting.
	YouTube is not a state actor, but 14th Amendment is where the question comes into play.
	So, First Amendment, freedom of speech.
	14th Amendment, I know what it is in principle, Robert.
	Just remind me and everyone out there.
	14th Amendment is vague and ambiguous laws are unenforceable.
	Well, it's just due process and equal protection in general as applied to the states.
	But a particular provision of that is being deprived of property or liberty or life without due process of law.
	Due process of law requires that laws not be vague, not be what's called void for vagueness.
	And they basically said, look, you're a state actor.
	Your contract with us is void for vagueness because it's basically obscenity.
	I'll know it when I see it, and I didn't like it here, so therefore it is, and therefore we're not allowing you to run your ad.
	PETA argued in its motion that it was viewpoint discrimination because it was political in nature.
	And the court basically said, yeah, it is.
	It's viewpoint discrimination.
	The terms of service are ambiguous to the point of not providing any clear framework for which PETA can operate within.
	So they don't even know what they have to do to repair it.
	They don't know what they can do to advertise.
	You're a state actor, therefore your motion to dismiss is dismissed.
	The lawsuit continues.
	No more serious than that.
	The question was, void for vagueness, 14th Amendment violation.
	Forget going after YouTube for Section 230 immunity because they're not state actors.
	Why can the rationale in this motion to dismiss, that's what it is, it's not a motion on the merits, can that not be applied mutatis mutandis to Section 230 drafting at large because it seems, you know, otherwise lascivious or whatever the terms are in Section 230 should be void for vagueness.
	Yeah, I mean, it's definitely an argument because of how courts have watered down and effectively taken something that didn't have to be ambiguous, but has made it ambiguous.
	And the general void for vagueness doctrine is that you have to be put on clear notice, fair notice, as to what the rules are.
	And if you're not on fair notice, you don't know, or it gives too much discretion.
	In other words, the individual enforcing the law really has no meaningful limits on how they can interpret it and apply it and enforce it.
	Then the law is void because it's just too vague.
	And so the point of a law is to have a sufficient specificity that there's clarity of notice as to what is and isn't against the law.
	And so the decision was good on both of those grounds.
	Plus, some state agencies forget.
	These, like, particularly transit authorities, as an example, that they just can't, you know, willy-nilly discriminate politically because they don't like politics or they don't like a particular political message.
	And so that was the other key aspect of this was reinforcing that because it relates also to the current U.S. Supreme Court case where they...
	The city of Boston wouldn't allow certain flags to go up because they didn't like those political messages, but allowed other flags to go up.
	And it's just a reminder they have to be actually politically neutral.
	And not be prejudiced against something because it's political or because of its particular politics.
	And they need to have rules, including rules in their contracts for submission, that provide clarity and fair notice and that don't give too much power to random bureaucrats, which is clearly what happened here.
	And so it was a good ruling on the First and Fourteenth Amendment grounds.
	It was...
	New York is not a country.
	It was...
	First of all, I don't really like PETA in general.
	I believe in the ethical treatment of animals without exception.
	I always think of the South Park episode where they're like, oh, you really love animals.
	Well, I wasn't going there.
	I'm just saying, even if I'm going to eat them, I believe that they should be treated ethically until such time as they are killed for the purposes of consumption.
	And I also don't believe in killing things unless you're going to consume it or they're mosquitoes.
	But PETA puts out...
	Egregious, offensive ads.
	Nothing that I've ever seen that I would ever say should not be published, should be censored.
	Because let the world know.
	Let them know who they are.
	Fine.
	So I say, let him run the ads.
	But from the transit's perspective, I was like, this is not a hard fix, dudes.
	No drugs, no blood.
	Period.
	You want to have criteria?
	No drugs, no blood.
	So if you don't want to advertise for cannabis, no drugs.
	You want to let PETA run an ad that will not shock people?
	No blood.
	And then let them think creatively within the box.
	So that's the fix.
	But all that I was thinking reading this decision is, my goodness, vague and ambiguous.
	We don't know what we're operating within.
	And then I think of Section 230.
	What was it?
	And otherwise objectionable.
	And that has been the...
	Hangar on which the YouTubes, the Facebooks, the Twitters have been saying this is otherwise objectionable.
	So why cannot and why have not or have people gone after Section 230 at least that caveat to say that is void for vagueness, strike it, and then let's apply the rule or the provision in a manner that is understandable.
	Has that not been done yet?
	I believe it has been done, and they've found excuses as to why they have not found it to be void for vagueness, but it hasn't been litigated very often, and so it's something that is worth continuing to develop and pursue.
	That's where I would think.
	Crowdfund, and who would have to have interest in order to file that lawsuit in the first place?
	Oh, I mean, it's anybody who doesn't want Section 230 immunity to apply.
	Okay, good.
	That's where I would go.
	That's where I would go.
	And the rationale and this judgment, although it's only on a motion to dismiss and not on the merits, void for vagueness.
	We need clear framework within which to operate.
	And if we don't know, if it's just a lick my pinky finger and put it to the wind, then void for vagueness and you get to sue.
	So that's where I would go.
	Except that YouTube, Facebook, Twitter have been deemed to not be state actors.
	So you lose that argument.
	Don't sue Facebook and Twitter.
	Just go after the law itself and declare a certain portion of it void for vagueness.
	Robert, I'm going to go to our list here.
	Speaking of licentious legal activity, our good buddy Nick Riccato was subject to a cease and desist letter from Law& Crime.
	Law& Crime got a big boost from me several years ago.
	Back when they were just starting, they needed content and needed people, and so they commissioned me, not didn't pay me, but commissioned me to write a range of pieces for them.
	I got them on the front page of Drudge and a bunch of other stuff, though Dan Abrams kind of owes me on that one, but that's another story.
	But Law and Crime sent a letter, a cease and desist letter to Nick Ricada.
	For rebroadcasting what was a court feed, which in my understanding is that the whole point of allowing cameras in the courtroom and the broadcasting of it is to allow public access and that there is no copyright materials there, period.
	To my understanding, no court broadcast has ever been interpreted that just because of whoever it is that got the...
	Got to put the cameras in there.
	That doesn't give them any copyright claims whatsoever.
	And often in the court rulings themselves, the court orders will make that clear that they're effectively called pool videos, pool cameras, because they don't want 50 media agencies in there.
	So they got to have just one set of cameras, ideally.
	And everybody feeds off the same one.
	They call it the pool feed.
	By definition, that's what's taking place here.
	There's no right.
	I don't think the courts would have a legal right to give a copyright to someone to film a public proceeding.
	The whole point is to make sure it's publicly accessible.
	None of that is available for copyright protection at all.
	But despite that, they sent a nasty letter to Nick Ricada.
	Demanding he take down and not broadcast any further.
	Also, apparently they were not overly ecstatic that Nick's rather famous chat group decided to compliment some of the law and crime reporters by referring to them as retarded and other things of this nature.
	And they're clearly just enraged, filled with rage about being bombarded and brigaded by some of Nick's chat, just wanting to remind some people they're not really that bright.
	But it was a pitiful letter, pitiful effort and intimidation.
	Jack Murphy learned that lesson.
	But this was clearly another place that it was not.
	And I know people at Law& Crime.
	I'm surprised they would.
	Whoever did that was kind of off the books because the editor of Law& Crime is Rachel Stockman, daughter of David Stockman.
	She's great.
	She's fantastic.
	She would never do anything like that, I don't think.
	So it was whoever else there that clearly was annoyed at all the attention that basically Nick, broadcasting the courtroom feed...
	Got, you know, 5, 10, 15 times as many people to watch his little channel from, how does he put it, small town in central Minnesota.
	Then the big Dan Abrams, you know, the son of Floyd Abrams, the famous First Amendment lawyer, the ABC chief legal correspondent who was trying to convince me several years ago that the Alpha Bank Russia conspiracy was really important.
	He still hasn't, I don't think he's apologized yet for biting into all of Russiagate.
	And, you know, whose sister, Ronnie Abrams, is a federal judge in New York.
	So, you know, they're not used to the little Nick Ricadas of the world coming up and punching up so effectively.
	But the letter, it was a complete...
	They have no grounds to sue Nick whatsoever, and they never will.
	It was an empty letter of empty threats that just made them more of a mockery than they already were.
	Now, without getting further into the reference than this...
	I'm glad you compared it somewhat to the Jack Murphy situation because this is the type of sort of substantive internet drama that actually has meaningful legal consequences.
	Whatever you feel about the rest, this is actual meaningful legal consequences where you have law and crime creating internet spat with Nick Ricada.
	And there's only one reason why they did it.
	It's maybe two because their variations are the same.
	Money?
	And fame.
	Because they were just...
	There's no question.
	Anyone looking at Rakeda, when he was streaming...
	Sorry, the Rittenhouse trial.
	And he was not just flat re-streaming the stream of law and crime.
	There's a reason why a hundred plus thousand people were watching Rakeda.
	It's because during that Rittenhouse trial, he created a universe.
	Law and crime wants to be.
	It's the old court TV.
	There used to be another law channel before that.
	But they're just not as good at it.
	It's that simple.
	One, they didn't have live commentary during the trial.
	I think that was a mistake, actually.
	But what they should have seen from Nick's show, there's interest in that.
	I mean, there's always some people who want to just watch the original feed, but most people don't know the law.
	Most people are not familiar with how these technical proceedings work.
	They don't know how to contextualize what they're seeing, and they like some degree of explanation from lawyers as to how to interpret this, how to understand this.
	Also, they get to experience the trial together with other people in live time.
	So you get to watch funny things happen, dramatic things happen, emotional, and feel connected to it rather than feel isolated just being a person watching through a camera in a courtroom.
	And Nick's basically just done a fantastic job with all of that.
	And he's done what they've wanted to do.
	He just does it a lot better.
	But they should have asked to hire him, not try to kick him off.
	This is where there was that TikTok dude who was mixing paint at Sherman.
	I think it was Sherman Williams, but I don't want to get accused of defamation if it wasn't.
	He was working at a paint company, and he was making TikTok videos of him mixing paints to make different colors, sort of ASMR satisfying videos.
	And instead of the paint company saying, we need to hire this guy for marketing, And, you know, build our brand.
	They threatened to sue him and accused him of stealing paint and, you know, work and creating content while on the job.
	And like, you have to be a special level, stupid, short-sighted, egotistical individual to think that way.
	And law and crime, they were streaming the trial.
	That was it.
	Good.
	So was PBS.
	And nobody wanted to watch that because it's boring and nobody understands what's going on who's not a lawyer.
	And even if you're a lawyer, you understand what's going on.
	You want to have some good jokes and some good moments in the meantime.
	Rakeda restreamed it.
	And this is where we're going to get into the legal question.
	He was restreaming their broadcast, which in theory, as far as I understood, was public domain because they didn't have any proprietary rights to it, with commentary.
	So even if they did have rights...
	He was obvious, fair use.
	In theory, the contemporaneous commentary was fair use, so much so that people were saying, shut up, guys, we want to hear the stream, to which Nick was saying, get the hell out if you want to hear the stream.
	Go watch it on Law& Crime.
	We're talking.
	But the one question I had was, where was Law& Crime even getting their stream from?
	Because unless I'm mistaken, chat, correct me.
	The angle was the same as PBS.
	Yes.
	What happens is here, the courts allow video cameras in state courts.
	But the way that works is some media company requests permission to do so.
	So what is the law and crime request permission to broadcast the proceedings?
	And then the court grants it.
	And now sometimes multiple media companies do.
	And then they'll say, well, here's the official pool camera.
	But that's really always happening because this is a public proceeding.
	It's their cameras that are in there, but that doesn't suddenly magically convert it into copyrightable material.
	That would be against the whole point and purpose of allowing it to occur in the first place, which is to have it be public access, public domain.
	Their argument can be, well, it costs us a little bit of money to put some cameras in there.
	They still get to broadcast it, so what?
	Now, the way they can solve all these problems is I think all courts should have cameras in the courtroom, period, and it just be publicly broadcast on a public stream.
	And that way you don't have to rely upon a media company in order to figure out, because most of our state trials are not video broadcast.
	All of them could be, but most of them are not because the governments won't spend any money for cameras themselves.
	And my view is that should be there because you want that as record.
	You want, you know, I think there's a lot of you, you want more public access and better and you want a video recording of the proceedings.
	We keep stenographers to keep transcripts.
	That's nowhere near as good as a video recording of the proceeding.
	That's a lot more informative for evidentiary purposes and further review purposes.
	And with the ease of modern technology, my view is this should be universal, both state and federal court.
	And it should be part of the government providing that video access services.
	But that's how they get the access is they commission for the right to video camera, the court proceedings, and video broadcast them.
	So that's how it's their cameras.
	But that doesn't make it their copyright.
	That's it.
	Now, Julie Jordan says, okay, Viva, they pay, and I'm not picking on you.
	I'm just, my question is this.
	They pay Court TV to use their feed.
	Fine.
	They don't have to.
	So, and paying to use the feed doesn't necessarily mean that they have copyright on the content that they are paying for the feed for.
	Yeah, they still have no copyright on the content.
	And most of that's to facilitate security of the footage.
	In other words, they want to make sure that they have the footage to broadcast.
	And so, in some cases, they're paying people to facilitate things to make it easier and more seamless, and they're still in a little bit of control, not complete control, because the court...
	It keeps ultimate control, but that's it.
	But it was a ridiculous letter, a threatening letter to Nick.
	But it was really a testament to the success he's had.
	I mean, clearly they were rattled by...
	But what they should look at is, oh, hey, this shows what there's popular demand for.
	Maybe we should borrow from that, use that.
	That's the way to do it, not say, we're law and crime.
	How dare you, Nick Ricada, broadcast what only we, the great law and crime, can broadcast.
	And it's like friends want you to succeed, and then people who are not your friends want you to succeed, just not more than them.
	It's like what he did was amazing, and you cannot blame people for saying, okay, well, I'm jealous.
	But the reflex of jealousy might be, what's he doing right?
	Not, how do I shut him down for doing what's right?
	The issue, though...
	So, there's no copyright to any of that.
	That's one issue.
	Like, setting aside exclusively...
	They have no grounds to sue.
	It would be a frivolous suit.
	No one would ever sue anyway.
	So, the only reason...
	I did not stream it at the same time because, on the one hand, Nick had done it.
	I'm not there to compete with Nick for what he had done.
	It was a beautiful...
	It was not just a beautiful initiative.
	It was a beautiful collaboration because everybody did work with Nick and it raised everybody's ships.
	Every single law YouTuber saw their boat raised because of what Nick did.
	Well, and people saw the interest in trials that they wouldn't otherwise have.
	Because when they get live commentary, it really helps them understand the legal trial process.
	And it's my big reason for more videotaping and broadcasting and video recording of trials is trials are supposed to be public because there's always very important things about Our society, we learn from trials.
	I'm in favor of more of it.
	The work Nick was doing was great work and good for everybody.
	Law and crime just wasted their time and wasted a piece of paper.
	The only thing I might have thought, which was one of the reasons why I didn't stream at the same time, Nick was doing it and I'm not there to compete with Nick.
	The second reason, I'm also a little neurotic.
	It was the same thing, I forget which trial it was, where...
	I don't want to name any names.
	Someone might have gotten into trouble for potentially rebroadcasting something which was broadcast live, but was under an order of the court not for rebroadcast.
	So hypothetically, a judge says, okay, law and crime, PBS, whatever, you can all pay for the feed and you can get to rebroadcast it.
	Fine.
	That's not a copyright issue now, but let's just say someone else comes in and rebroadcasts that which the judge said only the following people can broadcast or restream.
	Could that not be a contempt issue?
	There would be two problems with that.
	One is I'd have a problem with a court trying to do that because, again, the court's not in the copyright authorization business.
	They're in the public broadcasting of public trial business because that's their constitutional obligation.
	So the federal courts get around it their own way, but that's, in my view, a constitutional obligation.
	And so it's not something they have a...
	Copyrightable ownership interest in, such that they could say, you can broadcast, but you can't.
	In fact, that would raise the PETA issues.
	That would be a certain degree of discrimination that would raise its own set of issues, discriminating in some part of the press or some part of something else for broadcasting purposes.
	That's part one.
	Part two, of course, is you can't hold someone in contempt that's not before you.
	So you can only hold people in contempt that are parties.
	Occasionally, courts will try to issue injunctions that apply to people that are not parties before the proceedings and then try to hold them in contempt.
	And that, of course, gets overturned repeatedly because they don't have...
	You can only hold...
	They have to be a party to the proceeding.
	If they're not a party to the proceeding, they just can't declare someone, you know, oh, you didn't obey my order.
	I wasn't subject to it, Judge.
	Well, I've got to say, in Canada, we've got a different...
	I mean, we might have a broader application where they can have ex-fashe Contempt, but not only ex-fashe if you're a party, but if you knew of the court order.
	I mean, that's how they went after the pastor for violating a court order that didn't apply to him in the first place.
	But they literally...
	They would violate constitutional due process and jurisdictional limitations in the States.
	No, and also, I said on the one hand...
	That's just trying to apply the law.
	Breaking the law is a crime.
	It's not a contempt.
	So the law applies to everyone.
	If you break it, you break the law.
	You're not also guilty of contempt de facto.
	How about a judge that says, I hereby issue an order for all of Canada to abide by the criminal code.
	So if you break a law, not only are you guilty of breaking the law, also contempt.
	I thought it was idiotic in general.
	It's not going to go anywhere, but this is the type of internet drama that I'm interested in, not the other stuff.
	I liked it.
	I'm not going to get further into it because law and crime seem kind of petty.
	I don't want them coming after me for rebroadcasting, mocking law and crime for being stupid.
	But I think everybody now knows they were stupid.
	The only question is, Robert, Is their stupidity actually going to be an indirect net benefit for them, and they're going to get the publicity that they think they missed out on on the Rittenhouse trial?
	Yeah, I mean, I think they probably net benefited in general from Nick rebroadcasting them.
	I don't think it hurt them.
	It's not like people are going to tune into them instead of Nick, because what Nick was providing was entirely different than what they were providing.
	And again, there's some good people at Law& Crime.
	So I think that in the end, this was just a foolish effort and endeavor.
	And they took the wrong approach.
	And I don't think it hurt Nick much in the end.
	I mean, it gave him nice material for a couple of days.
	Now I just realize what BDE is, people.
	You are filthy, filthy animals in the chat.
	I'll tell you what.
	I don't even tell you what I thought it was, because that would be a little confession through projection.
	But it was not what I think it actually means, which is big...
	Yeah, I think probably the...
	The other probably real reason is they probably were driven a little crazy by some of Nick's chats.
	That's a unique audience.
	Yeah, I just got it.
	I just got it.
	It was not behavioral.
	I thought the B was behavioral, people.
	Gosh darn it.
	Behavioral disorder.
	And I was like, what's the E stand for in all that?
	Speaking of kind of misreading the law.
	The Trump's executive privilege claims that he was asserting against the January 6th committee went up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
	They decided not to take the case.
	There was no ruling on the case.
	The media deliberately misinterpreted the case at multiple levels.
	First, the Supreme Court didn't take it.
	Secondly, in explaining why they didn't take it, they made clear that they did not agree with the D.C. Circuit about whether or not an ex-president can assert the privilege, executive privilege.
	They said it was clear that that was utterly unnecessary to the decision, and so that that should just be ignored as dicta.
	And because that was not necessarily part of the decision, they didn't need to weigh in on that issue any further.
	But Kavanaugh specifically wrote to say...
	That all the language on that from the D.C. Circuit is not precedent of any kind because it's all dictum.
	And that because of the process that went through, they said satisfied executive privilege was their ultimate interpretation.
	But the media says, oh, Supreme Court says Trump has no executive privilege and da-da-da-da.
	The media headlines were all wrong.
	The Supreme Court made no binding ruling of any kind, and its only statement was, actually, this decision can be limited, and everything should be written off as fluff that's outside of that.
	That part of it I don't see a major problem with, because they allowed the archivist and a bunch of other people to be involved in the process in terms of how the executive privilege materials were released, and ultimately only a very small portion was ultimately released, is my understanding.
	So it wasn't quite the dramatic ruling that the media tried to make it out to be.
	By the way, on the last subject, that's another one where when I read what I read, I was like, the media was reporting...
	Trump's claim for presidential privilege overturned.
	And nothing that I read in the order even alluded to that.
	It basically said he doesn't need the current president to recognize his privilege because that would undermine privilege in and of itself.
	And then I just didn't understand the consequences of what the order...
	I mean, all they did is they weren't reversing the D.C. Circuit's determination that executive privilege was actually satisfied, even under the stricter analysis.
	What happened is the D.C. Circuit said, we think that ex-presidents can't claim this under a lot of these circumstances, a lot of hot rhetoric about January 6th.
	But they also said, even if you did apply traditional executive privilege analysis, this actually sufficed the way that the lower court had gone about it.
	So the Supreme Court said, ignore the fluff.
	It's just a bunch of fluff.
	They're really wrong.
	But we don't need to get involved because under the facts of this particular set of circumstances, executive privilege was satisfied.
	You can argue about whether or not it was.
	Justice Thomas dissented, he would have granted cert because he didn't think executive privilege was satisfied by the lower courts.
	But the media interpretation of the ruling was much broader than its actual legal bearing.
	In fact, if anything, the Supreme Court was pulling back on what the D.C. Circuit said.
	It's amazing because you read the headlines, nobody's going to read the underlying decisions, and people are going to have a misunderstanding because when you rely on Jake the fake tapper to provide you news, you end up getting misinformation.
	Have there been any other developments with the January 6th committee?
	The bipartisan Dick Cheney, not Dick Cheney, sorry, Liz Cheney committee.
	Has there been any meaningful developments in that or nothing other than what we've already discussed?
	That was it.
	That was all that happened this week of consequence.
	Now, getting to a, let me just refresh.
	We'll open a parenthesis for stupid law news.
	Oh, no, that's what I was going to say.
	Eric Hunley, as we're live, says, we will be doing a show on Abbie Hoffman on AUS.
	America's Untold Stories.
	So I went to bad acronyms for AUS.
	I was like, what the heck is AUS?
	I won't tell you what I thought.
	So America's Untold Stories.
	Eric Hunley, Mark Robert, they're going to be talking about Abbie Hoffman.
	I will be watching now to know who my father, my natural father might be.
	But stupid lawsuits of the week, Robert.
	I had it.
	I'm going to get it right now before I forget my thought.
	The movie studio.
	Oh my goodness.
	Okay, so a movie studio is facing a class action lawsuit because apparently not the trailer itself, the cover of the movie featured an actress, a well-known actress, a very attractive actress, if that changes anything, which I think it does because people rent movies based on that.
	The actress was actually not in the movie, for whatever the reason.
	She got cut.
	She was originally in it, but all of her roles got cut.
	So there are people that saw the headline, saw the poster, or some that even saw the trailers that included her, original trailers that included her, and they brought a class action against the studio on grounds that they were unjust enrichment, false advertising, misleading.
	They paid money to see this movie, and they really only did it because they thought this actress was in it.
	And this actress was not in it, and so they want their money back.
	Now, the question I had reading this was, first of all, if anyone notices the live viewers bouncing between 9,301, I just took a screenshot, because I just saw one for a second, and I don't know why.
	So let me know if anyone else sees that.
	I'm curious.
	But Robert, do we know why the...
	The famous actress was cut out.
	Was it contractual?
	Was she asking for too much?
	We don't know.
	It may have just her part just didn't make the cutting room floor.
	But there is a history of Hollywood bringing people for really small cameos and then marketing them aggressively to get people to watch the movie.
	And then they find out that that actor actually is in it for like two seconds.
	So this has been a burgeoning issue, a gurgling up issue.
	And so I'm not surprised that someone has decided to sue.
	They're trying to establish a precedent because Hollywood does this with relative frequency.
	They don't usually completely cut them out, but they do have a habit of putting somebody's name on there to promote a movie that the person's not really in.
	And this would be one of the examples where I say American litigious society, when it comes to COVID, lockdowns, churches, Second Amendment, Yes, overly litigious makes people socially conscious.
	This is one where I'm like, what the hell is your...
	You want to watch this stupid movie and what's your damage to begin with other than five bucks all the way on a class action?
	That's all they're seeking is the money.
	I don't think they're seeking emotional distress.
	That'd be a little much.
	Or lack of emotional satisfaction.
	Okay, fine.
	It's a funny lawsuit because I can understand that it's sort of, if it were something meaningful that I actually cared about that I think had social impact, yeah, false advertising, putting a celebrity to sell something who's not ultimately actually affiliated, fine.
	This just felt stupid, but where did, I mean, the suits filed, we haven't gotten anything further than the request for class action.
	No, but Hollywood will watch it because of how aggressive they can be in their advertising and what other films this could impact.
	And again, they're seeking it as a class action.
	So it's trying to get all 10 million people that watched a movie, for example.
	Then all of a sudden you have a $50 million suit if they could all be part of the class.
	So that's where that is.
	Speaking of...
	Celebrities in marketing and advertising, Kim Kardashian, Floyd Mayweather, and Paul Pierce have been sued for their promotional efforts involving tokens, these sort of crypto tokens.
	They're kind of crypto.
	It's off of the blockchain, and I won't get into too much of how tokens work.
	But basically...
	In that entire, what I would loosely call the crypto space, whether that's Bitcoin or blockchain or variations thereof, there's been a lot of scam artists.
	So there's been a mixture of, it has great potential, and people have seen it skyrocket in value.
	There's even an advertisement that runs it with a joke currently, where the guy's a millionaire, and then he's not, and he's a millionaire, then he's not, back and forth because of the way crypto can work.
	And it has a lot of potential and it threatens a lot of institutional actors that may have their own interest in trying to, you know, cast dispersions on it.
	And Trump has a very, you know, old man approach.
	He doesn't understand it, so he thinks it must be all a fraud.
	But there are a lot of fraudulent elements within it.
	Because of the very nature of the industry, it invites that.
	The speculative components and other aspects.
	And because the ordinary person struggles to understand how to give it value.
	And so apparently what the allegations here are is basically it was a pump and dump scheme.
	And so the real money to be made for Kim Kardashian and Floyd Mayweather and Paul Pierce, according to the allegations of the suit, was that they secretly held...
	tokens themselves that would make a lot of money by the pump, you know, pumping them, by them pumping it up and then they would sell it to that market that they'd pumped it up, the dump part, and that's how they would...
	It didn't have the value they claimed it had, and they weren't disclosing their conflicts of interest.
	This has been a recurrent issue in the whole crypto industry.
	How often is somebody promoting something?
	That they have an undisclosed interest in.
	John McAfee's criminal prosecution by the SEC was originally predicated on the idea that he had not disclosed some of his interest in certain cryptocurrencies that he had pushed.
	And whether that was the real reason he was targeted is another story.
	Amanda Milius, who made the plot against the president, is now making a documentary on John McAfee's life, which will be interesting.
	That's going to be phenomenal.
	But it's probably very recurrent.
	And so the question is whether or not did they in fact have undisclosed interest?
	Was this a pump and dump scheme?
	How much are big celebrities getting tied up in this?
	So we'll see how that suit works.
	It was interesting that apparently Kim Kardashian can make up to a million dollars per post on Instagram.
	Look, good for her.
	It's cashing out, not selling out.
	Sorry.
	You have to have a faith in the product you're sponsoring.
	And I have entered the discussion, not the discussion, the realm of looking into NFTs.
	I don't see it as any other manner other than this.
	Pump and dump.
	Fake.
	Just scam.
	Try to build value where there's no inherent value.
	And you're basically supporting a product that you might not like.
	So I don't understand it.
	I still don't understand Bitcoin.
	I'm just...
	So, yeah, I read that.
	I mean, I don't know what these NFTs are.
	I don't know what these tokens are.
	They just sound like scamming devices.
	If you want people to support you, give value.
	Sell a freaking T-shirt.
	At least they have something to wear.
	Politics ruins everything.
	I wear my own stuff.
	But these tokens and NFTs, maybe I don't understand it, or maybe I do, and it's actually just what I think it is.
	But with that said...
	Serious suit side.
	You had an elderly lady sue of Southwest Airlines over their mask policies.
	It's horrific.
	I'll give the facts briefly because I read it.
	It's horrific.
	It's a person with a certifiable disability.
	In addition to breathing disorders, anxiety disorders, certifiable medical condition, exemption from wearing a face mask, is told that she will not have to wear a face mask.
	What airline was it, Robert?
	Southwest.
	Southwest.
	Was told she would not have to wear the face mask.
	Paid a fee, by the way, a fee, to show up early for pre-booking, where once upon a time, you would do that as a courtesy to the airline, not pay for it as a courtesy to you.
	Setting that aside, shows up.
	I only imagine that she is of the most vulnerable physically and psychologically of society.
	Shows up and is effectively told, we don't care, you're wearing a face mask.
	I don't know where they told her.
	I think it was on the plane.
	Well, they told her right before she got on because she, again, was telling them her condition and they're like, we don't care.
	But don't worry, you can have water and you can drink.
	And then when she tries to bring her drink on board, they take that away from her.
	And then so she asks for water because she starts to experience the negative side effects of both the anxiety and the mask.
	And so they say, yeah, you can wear...
	Have water, and they give her water, and whenever she pulls her mask down just to pour some water, they start yelling at her.
	Until they get to the point where they kick her off the plane and remove her from the plane entirely.
	Just for trying to drink water for someone who wasn't supposed to wear a mask in the first place.
	It's...
	This does not qualify as a black pill.
	It's just...
	It's enraging.
	It's that she has a...
	This one individual, just assume...
	An elderly.
	She's like 68. But you just assume, like, what's the absolute worst-case scenario?
	She's COVID positive, which she isn't, because I believe, regardless of all of that, you still have to provide a negative COVID test to fly.
	So the suspicion is that this...
	I don't think she did at this point.
	You didn't.
	But she was not symptomatic, so she didn't have to...
	You know, there's no reason to think she had COVID.
	No, well, I'm even thinking...
	No, that airline's air filtration system is designed, and there's been no evidence of any COVID outbreak on an airline because their air filtration system is designed to not let viruses like COVID circulate.
	It's the best air filtration system in the world.
	So I'll walk it back.
	The worst case scenario is that she's asymptomatic carrier.
	Right.
	And that she...
	Of the recent variation of the Omicron variant...
	Oh.
	Remind me to tell you about the reporting from the UK on CBC Canada.
	So the worst case scenario is that she might be an anomaly of...
	I don't know what her history is in terms of whether or not she ever had it or whatever.
	That she might be asymptomatic carrier, not wearing a face mask, whereas everyone else who is fearful is wearing a face mask.
	As if that face mask, if it were to do anything on that plane, would do anything under those circumstances where she can still pull it down to drink.
	So she's...
	Asymptomatic carrier who would be allowed to fly and would be allowed to be on the plane lawfully so long as she just pulled up her mask in between sips.
	It's a clown world.
	People are saying that they cannot put in the words clown world in the chat.
	I got through.
	I don't know if I just flagged myself on YouTube.
	So I don't know if that's true.
	It's not me, if you notice that.
	So she brought suit under the...
	The law actually prohibits airlines from discriminating against the disabled.
	The problem is the federal courts have said you can't sue.
	The only remedy is for the Secretary of Transportation to bring action.
	So they're challenging that.
	They went ahead and filed suit anyway.
	Filed suit under that law that governs airlines and access to the disabled.
	They also added some conspiracy theories, and they added some state tort theories, which I thought was kind of interesting.
	So in the sense that the way in which, basically, intentional infliction of emotional distress, that the airline had notice of her condition and treated her badly, deliberately, knowing it would cause the effect on her that it would.
	That would be an interesting theory.
	To my knowledge, I don't think that's been tested before, because the airlines are ignoring the rules.
	Because the Secretary of Transportation is not enforcing them about protecting disabled people.
	That's how autistic kids have been kicked off of airlines.
	Other people that can't wear masks have been kicked off of airlines.
	This was just a particularly egregious example of facts.
	And apparently, according to the local police, because they had got involved at one point, they said Southwest Airlines is the worst in this regard.
	That Southwest has some really...
	I've run into it once or twice.
	You're real mask Nazis.
	You're Karens that are stewardesses.
	That's not my typical experience with stewardesses, but there's a minority that are this way.
	They can't wait to tell you what to do and how to do it.
	They love the mask obsession in particular.
	It just really gets them going.
	I mean, it's just an insanity.
	But at least somebody's trying to fight back in court in some manner, both the court of public opinion through a lawsuit in the courts of law.
	So we'll see how it turns out.
	Speaking of insanity related to COVID policies in this environment, Walmart has been sued on a case that Steve Deese brought public attention to about a farmer and his wife.
	Who wanted to be able to get the benefits of ivermectin, whose doctor had recommended it for them when they got COVID.
	And they basically had to sort of ghetto rig a actual horse version of ivermectin in order to get it because Walmart just overrode their doctor.
	And Walmart's pharmacist refused to allow them to get ivermectin.
	And there's been a lot of these pharmacies that have done this across the country.
	And it's good to start seeing more and more suits brought.
	Because once they got their version of ivermectin, they got better.
	There's been a lot of examples of that.
	People that have sued successfully and got ivermectin recovered.
	People who didn't, didn't recover.
	That's disproportionately occurred.
	So whatever the data is, I mean, I get it's an open question scientifically.
	Alex Berenson got into an argument with Robert Malone over ivermectin.
	But the bottom line is this is what the doctor recommended.
	This is what the patient wanted.
	This is a Nobel Prize winning drug.
	Why can't people decide their own medicine, decide their own shots, especially with their own doctor advising it when their life is on the line?
	But they had to sue Walmart because Walmart did everything possible to make it impossible for them to get it.
	This was one of the other insightful observations at vivabarneslaw.locals.com in our chat, where they say they want to tax people who are unvaxxed.
	They want to force the unvaxxed to pay for their own health care when they go to hospital, or if and when.
	But they don't want to allow the unvaxxed to get their own treatment that they deem fit.
	It is nuts.
	And I've been toggling back and forth to see if and when we get demonetized.
	We're good thus far.
	Even after the I-word.
	But Robert, I mean, how does that even happen?
	The doctor says, here's your prescription.
	They go to Walmart, which in addition to being, by the way, Walmart in Canada, now you have to show a vaccine passport to get in.
	In addition to being groceries and pharmaceuticals, they also sell toys every now and again.
	Cheap, made-in-China crap.
	But how does it happen that they get the prescription?
	Apparently Walmart, I guess, has it in stock, but then what?
	Decides not to...
	Deliver it?
	How does that happen?
	They refuse to write the script.
	They refuse to give the prescription.
	Even when a doctor has approved the prescription.
	I mean, it's insanity.
	It really is.
	I think their pretext is that based on advice from the FDA or the CDC or the local medical board, that they feel that it should not be diagnosed, should not be given off-label.
	But the question is, is that their prerogative?
	They're supposed to be the...
	Means by which a medicine is delivered to someone, not the doctor, right?
	I mean, the pharmacist, not the actual doctor, prescribing doctor.
	They shouldn't really be in that business.
	I mean, the question has been, pharmacies made a lot of money deliberately pushing pain-killing medication beyond what was...
	Needed and necessary, and when they knew that they were basically feeding addictions that were dangerous.
	So there are some obligations on a pharmacy, but not to the degree that they're supposed to override doctors unilaterally in cases like this.
	So they're going to try to go after Walmart.
	The question is then...
	Hypothetically, Walmart says, we're not going to do this.
	You can go somewhere else to do it.
	Is this a systemic thing?
	Like it's Walgreens and whatever other...
	They couldn't get it anywhere.
	Walmart, and they also sued another company as well.
	They couldn't get it anywhere.
	The problem is you have to go out of your way to find these small pharmacies that can get it to you.
	Or you get, you know, it used to be you go to Canada and you order it online and shit.
	Given all the drugs we have access to, the fact that ivermectin is the one that's the hardest to get right now is a little crazy.
	It's easier to get heroin and cocaine right now than ivermectin.
	And whatever the opioid type painkillers that they prescribe left, right, and center because people make a lot of money on it.
	It's tough not to get blackpilled when you hear crap like this because, look, I've known people who have taken the big eye on and off label, and maybe even on and off human label.
	And I have my own questions, but my goodness, you want to tell them that you're going to charge them for their healthcare services, you want to triage them last, and yet now you're also simultaneously going to deny them the medication that they want based on what their doctors have given them?
	It's a clown world, capital C-L-O-W-N.
	And by the way, apparently...
	Dude, I don't know who's having problems with it, but apparently you can do it because people have been doing it.
	It's nuts.
	It's nuts.
	Hypothetically, what's Walmart's defense going to be?
	I mean, Walmart's going to claim they have the right to do so.
	That they're not obligated to honor any script.
	And that will be the issue.
	Okay.
	And then, hypothetically, what permission from the government does Walmart need to be approved for in order to operate?
	As a pharmaceutical dispenser.
	They need government accreditation, correct?
	Not really.
	It's more the pharmacist is governed by the medical board.
	But that's about it usually.
	As far as I know.
	I'm not sure I'm thinking of how you go after them in a meaningful sense.
	If they get government authorization to do what they're doing and then they say, well, we got immunity to make the decisions we're making.
	I don't think that's the case.
	Okay.
	I don't think they'll have that dispense available to them.
	There was, look, we don't want to get into the Alec Baldwin stuff, although maybe, maybe we could.
	Okay, so America's Untold Stories, Grobert and Eric Hundley covered the Alec Baldwin, some new developments, which I haven't seen the full details of.
	I just, I know what the developments were.
	But...
	I don't know.
	Well, the other thing is, I mean, he's been busy basically harassing the widows of Marines.
	That's right.
	And got himself sued for defamation and doxing for doing so.
	You would think he would stay away from that at the moment, but that's Alec Baldwin.
	What do we think?
	I mean, I don't know the details of this.
	I don't know if you do either, but the doxing, the harassing.
	I mean, I know he did mention her brother.
	He did put a significant amount of attention on her on Instagram.
	Above and beyond that, do you know anything about it?
	Well, basically, he gave money because it was part of a fundraising cause for the family.
	And then he found out that, you know, she's a Trump supporter and was at, you know, was at the January 6th rally, not inside the Capitol or anything, and decided that that made her persona non grata and decided to go after her and attack her consequently and apparently made false statements about her in the process publicly.
	So not only doxed her, but apparently defamed her.
	So that led to the defamation suit and probably not the best timing of decisions given.
	Baldwin finally gave up his phone and other things recently in the criminal investigation.
	Unbelievable.
	And we've got V44RGTY013.
	I don't even know what that says, man.
	That has to be a word.
	Vardy guy.
	Party guy, maybe.
	Robert, had it not been for a pharmacist overruling a doctor, my brother would have not been alive in our teens because they prescribed a fatal mix of medicines.
	Yeah.
	And that's where they have a right to get involved.
	That's where they've historically exercised power.
	But usually there's limits to that.
	In other words, it's supposed to be just, are these prescriptions the right prescriptions?
	Is there something about this person that doesn't fit this prescription?
	Things like that to make sure that there's no particular risk.
	In other words, they do the pharmacological part of their job.
	That has historically not been, we won't allow you to get a drug that your doctor writes the script for.
	That's a whole new territory.
	And just to show that I'm neither anti-cop nor anti-pharmacist, we had a pharmacist who said, as we were getting prescription for my daughter at one point in time, oh, isn't your daughter allergic to penicillin?
	I don't know whether or not she is, but she definitely had a reaction at one point.
	And I said, my goodness, thank you, because the doctor prescribed a penicillin-based antibiotic, but for the pharmacist, we might have been in big trouble.
	They're fantastic people.
	I guess when they do what they're supposed to do to protect and not what some people suggest they might be doing to protect other interests.
	Robert, I think there's only one that we did not get to, and I believe it had to do with a flag, and I do not know anything about it.
	But we briefly covered that, the Boston flag case.
	The Boston flag, okay.
	We've covered it before.
	It was just an oral argument at the Supreme Court about that.
	And basically, the nature of the questions from the justices is, as we predicted, that it's likely Boston will be found to have violated First Amendment rights by discriminating upon which political message could be used on a public forum.
	What do we have coming?
	Oh, goodness.
	What do we have coming up this week?
	Any developments in the Don LeMond trial?
	No developments there.
	The waiting on court rulings on a range of issues.
	And then, oh, Sarah Palin's trial against the New York Times starts this week.
	Oh, just a small detail.
	Sarah Palin suing the New York Times for defamation.
	What was the allegedly defamatory comment, Robert?
	It's been so long that I don't remember anymore.
	They repeated the same lie about her, going all the way back to that when she used somebody being in quote-unquote crosshairs, that she was basically celebrating a congresswoman getting shot, and it was always a misinterpretation and a false statement, and they repeated that lie about her for years.
	They repeated it again.
	Initially, the judge dismissed the case.
	The Second Circuit reinstated it.
	This will be one of the first times in New York.
	New York Times has ever gone to a jury trial in a defamation case in a long time.
	So it'll be a big, big case there in federal court in New York.
	That was the crosshairs being an actual cult of...
	It was Kathy Gifford, I think, when they were talking about...
	Yes, it was the congresswoman who was...
	And they originally tried to blame the shooting on Sarah Palin.
	People used crosshairs all the time.
	And it was completely nonsense.
	And they made a lot of false statements in that capacity.
	Originally wrote it off.
	They tried to pretend it was an opinion editorial.
	And the problem was the New York Times itself had previously reported that what they re-put in that editorial was false.
	So the question is...
	What kind of jury pool can Sarah Palin get in New York City?
	How fair can it be?
	How impartial can it be?
	But it'll also be interesting what evidence develops there in the federal trial there in New York.
	Notably, the media has not talked about that case very much.
	Well, not only have they not talked about it, I did not know it was coming up.
	And I want to see...
	Okay, I'm going to see...
	Here we go.
	Let me see if I can share this.
	Just to refresh everybody's memory.
	Because remember, it was in the Roger Stone trial where the crosshairs on the judge...
	Was an issue.
	And then when I saw the cross, I was like, that's not a crosshair by any objective metric.
	Share screen, Chrome tab, Sarah Palin crosshairs, share.
	So let's see.
	I think everybody sees this now.
	So this is what it looked like.
	Yeah.
	Here's the congressional districts we're going to target.
	And they tried to remake that into the person who shot Gifford.
	Did so because Gifford was put under the crosshairs, and none of that was ever true, and it had nothing to do with the shooting.
	And the New York Times just repeated the lie whenever it was convenient to repeat the lie about Sarah Palin.
	So it's big that the New York Times is facing a trial period for defamation.
	And it correlates to Project Veritas and Judicial Watch uncovered that Big Pharma was in conversations with Pfizer, We're in conversations in ways with either the New York Times or the FBI or both to go after Project Veritas.
	It looks like Project Veritas was partially targeted because they had outed whistleblower information about what Big Pharma had been up to.
	It gives you an idea for how corrupt some of our key institutions are.
	The New York Times will find out whether they face some justice starting this week in New York.
	All right, and with that said, we're going to wind it up here.
	David Starr, had the pharmacist refused to provide the morning after pill, would this be handled very differently by the press?
	There's been a lot of suits over that, over when that hasn't been provided or some version thereof.
	All right, we got Paws Unite People.
	I don't know if that's an actual puppy.
	Paws Unite People.
	Paws Unite People.
	I hate B&B.
	Putting a good word in for the local animal rescues, helping those in need.
	We have a small shelter with over 100 pets who had no other option.
	Since August, we've been saving our abandoned Afghan friends and need help.
	Where are you located, Paws United?
	Don't do another Super Chat to get there.
	We rescued our first pug from Paws for Life.
	We rescued our second Winnie, the Westie.
	He's sleeping.
	From Westies in need.
	We bought that French bulldog from a breeder.
	I'm never getting another dog from a breeder again.
	I was screwed.
	Screwed and traumatized.
	But thank you very much.
	There's a special place in my heart for animal rescue.
	Even though I eat cow and deer and I eat meat.
	Don't eat dog, unlike a certain Canadian politician.
	And I'm not talking about Trudeau.
	But God bless and Godspeed.
	So thank you.
	But don't put another chat.
	Just let everyone in the chat know where you are and how they can support you.
	Because it sounds like you might not be in...
	Robert, to not end on the corruption of pharma, working with media, working with government to maximize profit, give us a white pill leading into the next week.
	I said yesterday during my Locals Exclusive rambling walking on the ice that even I get blackpilled or very discouraged.
	Maybe blackpilled is not the right word.
	I get very, very disheartened and very distressed with what happens in the week.
	Sunday, I feel better.
	Monday morning, I feel invigorated.
	So can you invigorate the 9,000 people watching right now for next week?
	Sure.
	So coming up on Wednesday, we will have for Sidebar one of Trump's lead economic advisors.
	The Fed is making a major announcement or meeting potentially this Wednesday.
	So we'll be discussing that and a wide range of other topics about what's happening economically and get some feedback on what the Trump White House was like in certain respects.
	So that'll be a fun interview.
	And the next week after that will be Patrick Witt, who got to live through all the election wars.
	And his response and reaction to seeing all the insanity that Patrick saw was to put his own hat in the ring himself.
	I mean, this is someone who could have just gone off, made six figures, go in the consulting business, cash in, could have done any of those things, but had every reason to be distressed by what he witnessed.
	And Georgia was on the front lines by himself there for a substantial time period, for the most part.
	But his reaction to it was to double down and getting personally invested in trying to change things in a direct manner.
	And what we've seen is people that have done that over the past several years have continued to see a degree of success that I don't think most people on the inside ever thought would happen.
	And so not only seeing, you know, the Anthony Fauci's of the world second-guessed and questioned in ways they are unaccustomed to, but also seeing things like courts rule against vaccine mandates for the first time in American legal history, as happened again this past week, and hopefully that path continues down that direction.
	But as long as people continue to fight back, whether it's the ivermectin issue, the mask mandate issue, the lockdowns on gun stores, whatever it is, people fighting back are finding more and more success, at least in the court of public opinion.
	And often even in the court of law.
	And that's the only way the world changes is by people taking action to make it so.
	And someone had asked a question earlier, and this will be the last question of the night, Robert.
	Hypothetically, 2024 comes up.
	DeSantis versus Trump.
	Does DeSantis even run?
	And if he does, does he beat Trump?
	Right now, it's Trump's to lose.
	And DeSantis wouldn't challenge him at this point.
	But Trump needs to continue to...
	I mean, DeSantis has shown what the court of public opinion has done on the vaccine-related issues and the lockdown-related issues.
	And Trump needs to be following DeSantis' path rather than DeSantis following Trump's path.
	And that will dictate what happens in 2024.
	Okay, people.
	With that said, before everyone drops out, before you go, hit the thumbs up, drop a comment so we can cause the chat to have an overload.
	Robert, it's been amazing.
	Everyone in the chat, thank you for the comments, the super chats, the support.
	Clip, links, share, you know what to do.
	And Wednesday, we got a good one.
	Tuesday, Robert, I'll see if you can make it.
	If you can't make it, it won't be a big deal, but we got Clifton Duncan.
	It's not a sidebar, it's just a discussion.
	Someone who thinks he's still on the left.
	He thinks he's a liberal.
	He's not a liberal anymore.
	The dude's an extreme right winger.
	He doesn't know it yet.
	Clifton Duncan, we're going to have a Tuesday interview.
	Wednesday, who do we have again?
	One of the high-ranking economists that worked in the Trump administration who will be discussing that and breaking down whatever the Fed's going to do on Wednesday.
	A lot of people are observing and waiting for that because that will also have some major impacts on the economic issues we still face.
	And the supply chain issues that continue to be an issue that are likely going to be exacerbated by these recent vaccine mandate impositions on truckers.
	I love it.
	They continue to be an issue because they continually pick the scab of what a wound that was already healing.
	So that's what the government is good for.
	Robert, phenomenal.
	Stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.
	Everyone in the chat, thank you for being here.
	Thank you for the support.
	And take that white pill, head into the next week.

▲