Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 1, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

02:32:33

Ep. 98: TOO MUCH STUFF! Viva & Barnes LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	That's vivabarneslaw.local.com.
	Yeah, it's one of those comedic mistakes that only a buffoon such as myself makes.
	Good evening.
	How is everyone doing?
	Sunday on a Tuesday.
	I don't know what day of the week it is anymore.
	I just know, is the audio good?
	Is the audio mic check?
	Is this thing on?
	My lips look chapped.
	My feet are still numb.
	Where's my son?
	I presume you mean...
	Winston.
	And he's upstairs.
	Until he barks, I was going to leave him up there because he's a little dirty also because I just took him for a walk.
	And I put on my nice new Know the Vlog merch with the typo.
	Limited edition.
	They are officially discontinued, people.
	So if anyone wants one, you're going to have to make your own typo.
	Yeah, what a week.
	What a week it's been.
	A blitz in and out of Miami to attend the Project Veritas.
	Book launch event, which was kind of amazing, kind of surreal.
	And surreal, I'm not a star chaser, and I'm not into any of that.
	I just was not expecting the event that it was.
	Over a thousand people, fans, people who want to see James O 'Keefe, want to support the cause, and then people who want to support what Project Veritas does.
	The three speakers, before I got up to do my three and a half minute You know, spiel.
	Marjorie Taylor Greene, Matt Gaetz, and Madison Crawthorne.
	So, it was surreal to be there.
	First of all, it was surreal escaping Canada for the second time in as many years.
	Travel is unpleasant.
	It's unpleasant spiritually, psychologically, financially.
	Man.
	Okay, let me...
	The chats, I'm going to try to keep up with the chats, and I'm going to give the standard disclaimers, and then I'm going to get into...
	Is it a rant this week, or is it...
	It's a rant.
	It's still a rant.
	Let me just do some super chats.
	Chet Chisholm says, I'm hoping to travel from NS, which is Nova Scotia, to Ottawa to be at the protest this Saturday and hope to have the opportunity to say hi to one of my fave Canadians.
	I'm going back to Ottawa, people, tomorrow.
	I've...
	I apparently lined up an interview with Dr. Christian.
	Now I forget if it's Dr. Christensen or Dr. Christian.
	It's Dr. Christian.
	And another doctor, which I'm going to try to figure out a way to integrate into the live stream because I plan on doing exactly what I did yesterday because I'm getting ahead of my rant here.
	So stay tuned for that.
	And tomorrow morning, I believe I'm going to be on The War Room with Jack Posobiec, which at 10 o 'clock, to talk about this.
	So doing the same thing I did last time.
	Driving down to Ottawa, first thing in the morning, gonna do an interview from my car, speaking of getting robbed.
	I didn't get robbed, but I, you know, I maybe look like I've been having a rough week.
	Interview from my car, hitting the street.
	Some kind person at the rally gave me five, what are those things called, like the battery packs?
	5,000 AMH, whatever they are, 5,000, someone knows what I'm talking about.
	Those external battery packs.
	So I can stream the entire flipping day.
	We live in a time of great anxiety.
	A portion of society decided to deal with it by building a disciplinary society.
	But there is another way to deal with anxiety.
	Joy.
	Keep spreading joy.
	Viva Honk.
	Thank you, Alex Ambrose.
	Look, I have serious anxiety, uncertainty.
	I have a fear that Canada has left me.
	And if things don't change soon in the province, Canada, if it hasn't left me, is going to push me.
	Because, you know, I...
	Because this is not an environment in which children can be raised.
	Period.
	Morning, boss.
	That mini-truck not working is going to be a problem soonish.
	Oh, now you've got Vijay Gmeet Singh coming out and saying that the blockade on the border is causing serious problems.
	And from what I understand...
	RCMP is in there on the border blockade saying move or you get arrested.
	I've heard other rumors that apparently you could not upload video from your cell phones.
	I don't know.
	I don't even know how that's logistically possible.
	Jonathan Bailey says, Viva, what do you call a beehive with no exits?
	Unbelievable.
	Okay, that's not bad.
	That's not bad.
	Hit that like button, folks.
	Your Canadian brother.
	Some love from America.
	Thank you very much, Jordan.
	So let's do the standard disclaimers, and then I'm going to talk about briefly my experience yesterday and the atrocious levels of disdain I have for Canadian mainstream media.
	I heard Viva P. That was hilarious.
	For anybody who missed that portion of it, I was talking about how badly I had to go to the bathroom.
	And I escaped donut guy because I said I had to go.
	Do something private, so I couldn't be followed into it.
	I thought I was going to do it in an alley, and then I was looking for a place to do it, and someone watching live came out of their apartment and said, come in here.
	There's a bathroom that you can use in this facility, and surreal.
	What do we got?
	What do we got?
	Oh, who knows what movie that's from?
	What do we got?
	God bless you, Diva.
	Thank you for all your work.
	Much love from the U.S. John, thank you.
	It's work.
	It's endless.
	It's day in, day out, but I genuinely love it.
	Two and a quarter hours to Ottawa yesterday, 6.45 in the morning, drove back, shot content, live-streamed all day, and just met people.
	It's beautiful.
	I'm a paramedic, and one of those who have been injured by the V, okay?
	My hope is to tell my story, and the story of many others whom I know to be injured.
	If there was a moment yesterday at the protest in Ottawa, where they just asked for a show of hands.
	And I don't like partaking in the anecdotal evidence.
	I just know my own anecdotal experience.
	All right, let's see this here.
	Get a couple more.
	Could you guys have Attorney John Deaton on a sidebar because he's suing the SEC amicus status in the Ripple case?
	Huh.
	Judge Torres, who helped Project Veritas.
	Okay, I'm going to look into that screenshot.
	We're going to talk about the Canadian stuff, too.
	I keep forgetting his name, but one of the original writers of the Constitution, Pickerton?
	From Nova Scotia.
	I forget it, but we're going to talk about that tonight.
	Will Prime Minister Trudeau send in the Mounties against the trucking blockade?
	They do not represent the country.
	Not a banned account.
	I know that I believe you're being sarcastic with this.
	Tongue in cheek.
	We'll see.
	I want to get there tomorrow because you have Doug Ford.
	Good old Doug Ford coming out and saying, all right, guys, truckers.
	It's time.
	We're into my rant.
	We're into my rant.
	After this.
	So glad to hear you started to read Fauci.
	If you can't read it all, at least catch the last chapter.
	Oh no, I'm getting through it.
	That was one beautiful thing.
	I listened to four hours of the real Anthony Fauci as I drove yesterday.
	I love audiobooks.
	It revolutionizes my lazy way of acquiring knowledge.
	Doug Ford.
	Doug Ford has come in and said, okay, truckers, it's time to go.
	The politicians now.
	Pretending that the disruption to the economy caused by two days of protest, to pretend that they care about that now after disrupting the economy for two years, it's not laughable because it's not funny.
	It's not effing funny.
	It's not laughable.
	It's hypocritical to the point of being insulting to the intelligence of the average newt.
	If that's an animal, that is an animal.
	It's insultingly degrading.
	That they come in and say, yeah, yeah, your protest, which by the way, I was there, I saw it.
	I had no traffic getting in and out of Ottawa.
	I parked a kilometer away and walked because I was relatively, I had that foresight.
	And coming out, no traffic.
	I got back in two and a quarter hours.
	To pretend now that the two days, three days, if we're even on four days of protest.
	Is such a disruption to the economy that they're going to have to come in and use the police to break up this protest because it's disrupting the economy.
	Or for the last two years, they were using the police to disrupt the economy for their own reasons.
	You have to treat your citizenry like they're idiots to think you can get away with that garbage.
	You have the Jagmeet Singh.
	I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm not doing that on purpose.
	His name is pronounced Jagmeet.
	I never knew that until I went to check out his profile today.
	Because apparently Jagmeet Singh liked one of my tweets in which I believe I politely lambasted someone else.
	I don't know who the person is, but they just spouted off a tweet discussion with themselves in which they just spouted off lie after lie after inflammatory lie about the convoy, about the...
	Freedom Convoy 2022.
	It started off with things I've learned from the Freedom Convoy 2022.
	You get to lie with impunity.
	You get to desecrate statues and urinate on monuments and carry around Yahtzee flags and Confederate flags with impunity.
	Lie after lie after lie.
	The woman did not have a blue checkmark, but she had about 10,000 followers on Twitter.
	And it's not a question of punching down or punching up on this.
	It's a question of...
	Punching at the tweet which garnered a lot of...
	You read the responses to that?
	You would think we're in a bizarre universe where we are literally living in two separate existences.
	And we are.
	Except one is based on knowledge and experience and having stepped foot on the ground to talk with the thousands of people.
	And the other is based on living in a Twitterverse in your silo.
	With misinformation and no information and believing the headlines you read on the CBC as though they represent everybody there.
	Oddly enough, what I've learned was that you get to sit back at home and type what you want on the internet.
	Confession through projection with no insight.
	Jason Biggs in the house.
	You are not the Jason Biggs from American Pie, although...
	No, I won't say you're better looking, but that was my...
	Oh, now I gotta go get the dog.
	Give me two seconds, people.
	We're going to restart the beginning.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	Good evening.
	Alright, I'm going to get this dog down here because he's going to make noise otherwise.
	These politicians treat us like we're idiots.
	With memories as long as a goldfish.
	And the news, and they just...
	You guys appreciate that the maligning of the convoy is based, by and large, on, I'll say, five stories.
	One of which was the food shelter that apparently someone was rude and took food for homeless people, and this food shelter issued a tweet.
	Unsubstantiated, uncorroborated, no video, no photo, and blue checkmark mainstream media in Canada ran with it.
	Another one of an image of the monument with what appears to be urine in the snow, running with the fact that these protesters are defecating and urinating on the national monuments.
	The other one, someone with a Confederate flag with a truck on the middle.
	I mean, Lord knows where you even get a Confederate flag.
	In this day and age in Canada.
	Now I see the chat's gonna go crazy with that.
	I'm done.
	I'm done for.
	I don't even know where you get a Confederate flag in this day and age.
	A crisp, brand new Confederate flag.
	And the dude carrying it around has a full-on bank-robbing face mask with only his mouth showing and he's wearing sunglasses on top of his face mask.
	Nothing suspicious there to anyone with half a brain.
	But media runs with it.
	The other one, a dude carrying the...
	Bad German flag.
	Another clean-pressed, brand-new flag who happens to have a reporter standing within three feet of him.
	And there are some accounts that that reporter happens to be a Trudeau-related reporter.
	I don't know.
	Couldn't corroborate.
	I just saw the tweets.
	And then today, because I had a friend go down today in my absence to go to the protest.
	And this individual captured a video of how the vultures of this fake news, I think it was CBC, operate.
	They go to this protest.
	There are tens of thousands of people there on a cold winter Tuesday.
	And they select one individual who clearly appeared to be inebriated.
	I could even tell based on the one-minute video.
	They pick this guy to go interview.
	Lord knows.
	I don't know what they ran with in terms of the story.
	I just know that from the video I saw, CBC reporters with a beautiful $15,000 taxpayer...
	It's probably more than that.
	Taxpayer-funded camera.
	They're not just targeting him like predators.
	They're then exploiting him like pimps.
	And they get their video.
	They got their moment.
	They got some guy who, for whatever the reason, is in the state that he's in.
	And they're going to run with it to demonize the entire crowd.
	True vultures and true intellectual destroyers of honesty.
	And, you know, someone on Twitter was saying, Viva, we get it.
	Enough with the certain types of tweets.
	And I was like, no, you don't get it.
	Because yesterday alone, two people who I know very closely said, I watched your stream live and I couldn't stop because I couldn't believe what I saw in real time, unedited, with a little commentary.
	I couldn't believe how much different it was than what the media is putting out there.
	And I can't believe the degree to which we're being lied.
	And two people a day is enough.
	Google and YouTube seem to be suppressing news out of Ottawa.
	No live feeds on YouTube.
	Google News is all stale.
	Yeah, well, there's going to be no news.
	Just go watch Autowalks.
	O-T-T-A-W-A-L-K-S.
	He's been destroying it.
	Just walking around.
	Minimal commentary.
	He's got a gimbal.
	So his footage is much more stable than mine.
	It's amazing.
	Yeah, here we go.
	5,000 MAH won't last long.
	Maybe that's why they gave me five, but I got to tell you something.
	They came in handy the other day.
	Those packs, let me see, are tainted with spyware.
	Okay, I don't know.
	Well, okay, that's interesting.
	I don't know about that.
	Anyway, so that's what's going on.
	It's a beautiful thing.
	And I'll tell you this.
	Being there, it literally was the first time in two years that I had any optimism.
	And that I had regained some faith and pride in being Canadian.
	Now, I hope it lasts and I hope it goes somewhere.
	My fear is that it doesn't.
	But while this is going on, if the only thing I can do is amplify it even further to keep pushing this massive snowball so that it keeps gathering more snow as it rolls down the hill, I'm going to do it.
	Hey, Viva, how did you get your maskless mask?
	So that is from a company called Custees.
	K-U-S-T-E-E-Z.
	And it's a guy that I know.
	It's a merchandise-type store.
	They're custom-made, but Custies, if anybody wants them, hashtag not an ad.
	Where is Barnes, actually?
	Let me just make sure that he got the...
	Just so that everyone knows why I saw it.
	I thought of it right there.
	Robert Barnes.
	Everything okay, question mark?
	Did I send him the links?
	I might not have sent him the link, and I'm an idiot.
	Give me a second, people.
	I think I did.
	I think I did.
	It doesn't matter.
	Give me one more second.
	I'm just going to do it right now.
	Let me go send it to Robert.
	One good thing, or the best thing, perhaps, is that yesterday's three hours or six hours of live streaming on the street, it got me to get over my fear of silence on a stream.
	Close this up.
	I am now no longer afraid.
	Just to sit here and not have to fill the air with me.
	But I'm not very good at it.
	So, with that said, tonight on the menu...
	Oh, so I was saying that.
	Proud to be Canadian and optimist to be Canadian.
	But when I get back out of that convoy and I see the way everyday Canadians, people that I know well who are smart, should know better, are operating on the most ignorant...
	ill-informed misconceptions of the convoy and what is actually at issue here, I get depressed yet again.
	I'm gonna take some super chats and Tavarns gets in the house.
	It was great to see your live video on Monday.
	Also bring your drone to capture all the trucks not allowed in Ottawa.
	I wouldn't do that, personally, because I believe there could be any number of reasons for which I could not fly my drone there.
	And I also, I don't want to be that one guy that has a drone accident that blinds somebody.
	That liability, I can no longer assume the risk of.
	Not monetarily.
	I mean, just to make the news and be that eccentric guy on YouTube who took a drone and blinded a child?
	Can't do it.
	I make masks that are breathable but look legit.
	Work great on planes.
	How can I get you one?
	Sarah P., thank you for the offer.
	I only wear the mask out of the absolute necessity to wear one.
	Legal necessity.
	So I...
	If it doesn't do anything, I couldn't care.
	I mean, I'm not wearing it for the effectiveness.
	I'm wearing it strictly so I don't start a fight with every store clerk or, you know, policeman that wants to flex their muscles.
	You know, call me a hypocrite, call me whatever you want.
	The only reason I wear these masks indoors is because it is legally required and I'm not interested in fighting with every fear-driven Canadian Quebec citizen that I come across.
	On a daily basis.
	Let's buy Viva a gimbal.
	I don't need one, people.
	I can, but thank you.
	I have, I had one for the iPhone and it just, I never used it.
	And then the battery within the gimbal went permanently dead and it no longer charges.
	Marion Holtzman.
	My wife's name is Marion.
	Holtzman, if you ever need to get out, bring wife, kids, dogs, et cetera, to Eastern Tennessee.
	We have separate house on eight acres, 30 minutes of Knoxville.
	Freedom is real.
	I'll tell you one thing while I'm on the subject.
	First of all, Marion, thank you for the offer.
	We'll just memory bank that.
	Speaking of freedom.
	So I am to be contracted to lay a minefield on Trudeau's driveway.
	Let's talk Turkey.
	Okay, that means poop, people.
	That is poop.
	Coming from a dog who actually looks like Winston.
	Oh, very nice.
	Well done.
	No, I'll tell you, the brief 48 hours that I had in Florida, much of which was spent looking for a PCR test, we needed to get a PCR test within 72 hours to return because Canada requires PCR tests within 72 hours of the return flight, and America only requires an antigen test, but within 24 hours of the departure.
	So, science, science.
	But, you know, so other than...
	We get to Florida, and we have to immediately stress about finding this PCR test and getting the results back in time, because we got it on a Friday, and it said one to four days to get your results, which means that, in theory, by the time you got your results four days later, they've expired for the purposes of travel.
	Then we found we have to pay $165 to get another test for two people, $330 so that we can come back to Canada.
	It's a great racket.
	The government has created a great racket.
	For anyone who is lucky enough, connected enough, or corrupt enough to get these contracts.
	But being in Florida, and you see the way it should work in a civilized society, one person's freedom does not end where the other person's fear begins.
	And there are some places that have mask mandates in Florida, but by and large, people do what they feel comfortable doing, or they do what they think is courteous based on other people's sensitivities.
	I noticed one guy going into a restaurant, a bagel works, with a face mask and rubber gloves.
	I was like, okay, you do you, but so long as you don't expect your fear to govern policy, we can get along, and that's the way it works.
	Unlike here, where it's vaccine passport imposed on citizens to get into stores.
	Viva, are Canadians starting to not be brainwashed?
	No.
	I think I see a lot, yes, but I might be living in my own silo, where...
	It's not quite as many as I think it is just because I, you know, I'm in a silo.
	I do recognize that.
	So maybe the number is less than what I think it is.
	Or maybe it's non-existent and I'm just talking to people who are like-minded.
	Oops, sorry.
	Go to Autowalks.
	He does a great walk around and you see tons of food, water.
	Truckers are even picking up garbage and shoveling snow.
	Candice, I saw that yesterday with my own two eyes.
	They have garbage bags and people are putting their trash in garbage.
	They were breaking off the ice on the sidewalk in front of the parliament, obviously, so they could walk on it.
	But the best thing was they were shaking hands, high-fiving, and taking selfies with the cops.
	I spoke with the cops.
	I didn't rub my camera in their face because that wasn't my purpose.
	The cops attested to the fact that there was no violence, no nothing, no issues, nothing.
	The cops on site.
	And, you know, I get video footage.
	You could hear me talking with the policeman, confirming no incidents, respectful by and large.
	But then you get the media saying it's a white nationalist rally.
	I'm the donut guy.
	I'm sending these messages to let Viva know.
	LOL, sorry to bother you guys with these.
	Jason Biggs, the one who the chat suspected might have either been fed or should run for prime minister.
	It was nice to meet you, Jason.
	Seriously.
	And thank you very much.
	160,000 views on yesterday's stream.
	Congrats.
	And it split.
	It went dead during the speeches.
	And the second half, 147,000, 150,000.
	People are seeing it.
	And people outside the subscriber base and the typical viewer are seeing it.
	So that's the blessing.
	Okay, now hold on.
	I hope Barnes is coming, because otherwise I'm going to have to only be able to talk about the lawsuits that I can talk about.
	Not to sound hyperbolic, but history tells me this upcoming economic catastrophe will be blamed on the unvaxxed.
	Am I out of line to think that a renewed...
	I, uh, Navassa, I don't think you're out of line.
	I think you might be, uh, absorbed by certain fears that are swirling in your head.
	Uh, I'll...
	Yeah, yeah.
	Justin Trudeau is trash-talking Putin on Twitter.
	We're going to stick it to Putin.
	Let me just get his tweet.
	The guy is beyond anything.
	I spoke with President Emmanuel Macron today.
	We shared our deep concern over Russia's aggressive and destabilizing actions, as well as our support for Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
	On those...
	And other global issues will keep working together.
	First of all, now that we know, Justin Trudeau, how you have referred to the convoy, we will be very suspicious when you refer to anyone else's actions as destabilizing.
	First thing, once you've lost your credibility, and once you have made a fool of your own judgment to the rest of Canada, nobody trusts your judgment.
	So your assessment of what Putin is doing as destabilizing, you refer to this convoy as fringe minority.
	Violent extremists.
	So your judgment is off.
	But we shared our deep concerns over Russia's actions.
	This coward fled parliament with his tail tucked between his legs because he didn't want to and could not address a convoy of what I saw as being the most peaceful protesters I've ever seen.
	And he thinks that Putin's going to be scared of his tough talk on Twitter?
	I responded, if I may.
	Because I will, because I got the microphone.
	You can't even face a convoy of peace-loving Canadians, Justin Trudeau.
	You think Putin is going to take you seriously?
	A coward and delusional.
	What a combination.
	So...
	So there's that.
	And it's...
	It's amazing.
	Your stream yesterday gave me hope and inspired me.
	You're doing a great service.
	Thank you very much.
	Ikigai.
	When what you like to do, what the world needs, what you can make a living doing, and what makes you happy overlap, that is purpose.
	I mean, I love doing it.
	And I love meeting the people on the street and talking with them and hearing their stories because nobody's listened to them.
	They're there because the government has not been listening to them for the last two years.
	See the new trailer for D'Souza's 2000 Meals?
	I haven't, but now I understand the reference because people have been posting that.
	Let me see this.
	You just support...
	Oh, I see.
	I don't know.
	See, I pull up a chat and then I don't know if it's a response or a comment or there's a conversation going on.
	Robert, if you're in the backstage, come on in anytime.
	But otherwise, we'll continue talking and I just won't be able to do the vaccine mandate updates because Barnes has been on that.
	Let's see.
	We'll get some more super chats and take some questions.
	It's sad to see how conservatives like Ford and O'Toole can't even run...
	With this great convoy out of fear of the media.
	So disappointed.
	And that's another thing.
	You see people retweeting.
	People, you know, standing on the monument, taking selfies with the monument, the war memorial, and then saying, like, this mess is on you, conservatives, because you dared meet with these people.
	This is how, I don't want to say the left.
	I'm going to say the political left.
	This is how the media elite and the political left elite do things.
	They do not entertain discussion with their ideological adversaries, and the way they do not entertain discussion is by demonizing them and then demonizing anybody who dares discuss and engage with them as being the extremists and endorsing all of this awful behavior, which is non-existent to begin with.
	It's like a Nancy Pelosi wrap-up smear of fake news.
	They put out the fake news, amplify the fake news, and then they demonize anybody.
	On the basis that they are encouraging or supporting the fake news that they have wrongly put out there and amplified.
	It's really tough not to get angry.
	And it's tough not to get depressed.
	And sometimes I do.
	But I'll tell you, a few things were amazing.
	People are...
	I hate the cliche of waking up.
	But people know what's going on.
	And we will get to them.
	We will reach them.
	And the only way to reach them is with the truth.
	In a respectful manner with interlocutors, but I've given up being polite to the politicians.
	I had someone say to someone, they agree with my messages by and large, but they don't like the way I say it.
	And, you know, they don't like me calling the politicians tyrants or the regime fascist.
	I was like, okay, too bad.
	You know, I was nice and I was polite for a very long time.
	And I still think as far as things go, I'm civil and polite.
	But I'm going to call them fascists and tyrants when they're acting like fascists and tyrants.
	And if you don't like that word, replace it in your own soft soul with the word that you like.
	But understand the message because you agree with the message.
	Okay, with that said, people, Barnes is in the house.
	Let's do this.
	I didn't read this one.
	I just got back from Asia and had to get the COVID test before the flight at the U.S. airport.
	No one even looked at it.
	I have a feeling some of these police officers don't approve of what's going on, but their hands are tied to the government.
	Robert, how goes the battle, sir?
	Good, good.
	I had to get through a big trucker convoy.
	It turns out all the truckers were cheering.
	The honking has been explained.
	They were cheering viva, viva to the heroes.
	Welcome there in Ottawa.
	My live view for numbers has gone down to one person viewing, apparently.
	So let me, guys, if the stream is not still going, let me know.
	But, oh no, Robert, you see this?
	Someone had asked yesterday, you know, what's the Canadian equivalent for Let's Go Brandon?
	And there actually is one.
	We've got two.
	We've got Truck Trudeau, Truck Trudeau, and we've got, which is my favorite, Let's Go Brando.
	Which is Brando, E-A-U, like Trudeau's last name.
	So we've got them.
	But there's word on the street in the States that they're talking about starting a similar convoy from California to Washington starting March 1st.
	Have you heard about that?
	I have not.
	I have not.
	I mean, I know it's happening all around the world.
	I mean, there's truckers across Europe, truckers in Australia and New Zealand, truckers around the world looking at replicating what is taking place in Canada.
	It is inspirational.
	I mean, it's fantastic also.
	And these guys, every trucker I asked, how long are you going to be here for?
	They said, as long as it takes.
	Because the GoFundMe has raised, I think, close to $10 million now.
	So it's nuts.
	Robert, first of all, before we even get started, Red-Handed by Peter Schweitzer.
	What's the book for the recommendation of the week?
	A really great book that gets into a lot of detail.
	I thought I knew a lot about this topic, which is the influence of Chinese money on American power in terms of Silicon Valley, Wall Street firms, Washington politicians, particularly the Biden family, but not limited to the Biden family.
	But I didn't know the scale and scope of what Peter Schweitzer has documented.
	For those that don't know, he wrote the book Secret Empires.
	He also wrote the book Clinton Cash.
	He has been good at detailing and documenting the corrupting influence on Washington by a wide range of financial corruption in particular for the better part of the last two decades.
	But this is really, there's some shocking stuff.
	I didn't know that Zuckerberg, for example, asked President Xi to name his kid.
	You know, I mean, things like that.
	You're like, what exactly is going on?
	And so it was shocking, the degree of Mitch McConnell, the degree to which, I mean, I knew some of the stories, but I didn't know the scale of the stories.
	You know, Nancy Pelosi, others, I mean, on both sides.
	The degree to which the Blackstone and Blackrock, the degree to which they are deeply embedded.
	I mean, it's disturbing the degree to which our American economic and cultural and political elites have been bought off and capitulated to the Chinese agenda.
	And I have never fully appreciated the Chinese influence in Hollywood until we started doing the streams and discussions with Mark Grobert and Eric Hunley on America's Untold Stories.
	It's insidious.
	Is there a way out or not?
	But, Robin, what do you know of the BlackRock that you could explain?
	Because we know of BlackRock in the States as in the big real estate developments, buying up properties.
	Do you know what the situation is?
	Are they buying up properties to resell, or are they buying up to rent out for commercial purposes?
	People presume the latter.
	But basically, BlackRock, Blackstone, and Goldman Sachs have deep, deep, deep ties within China economically.
	And that raises serious questions about their loyalties.
	Maybe a book review on that one day.
	I'm still getting through the real Anthony Fauci.
	And the further into it I get, the more enraged I get.
	Because it's beyond corruption in the evil Machiavellian sense.
	It's just business-level casual corruption.
	And I believe what they're saying.
	Some of the stuff is presumptuous.
	And you could disregard some of the stuff, RFK says.
	Some of it.
	But not the substantial, meaningful stuff, which seems to be relatively undeniable.
	And if it weren't, it would have been responded to in a manner other than suppression.
	But on that subject, Robert, what's the latest on the vaccine mandate lawsuits?
	Where are things standing in the States?
	And how are things going on your front of the battle?
	Sure.
	So there's been a bunch of updates.
	First, we filed suit, Bobby Kennedy and I, speaking of Bobby Kennedy, on behalf of Children's Health Defense against the FDA this past week concerning their attempt at the emergency use authorization of the COVID-19 vaccines for children.
	And filed that suit in the Western District of Texas and have served it on the FDA.
	So there'll be various motions pending pretty soon before the federal district court there in Waco.
	Texas, because that's where our local plaintiffs were from.
	They're from that area.
	And it goes through in details.
	I have it up at the, I'll maybe repin it up at the locals board, vivobarneslaw.locals.com, for everybody to read through, because it discusses a lot of topics that our Rumble live stream that's happening right now, we could go into.
	But here on YouTube, we are prohibited.
	Though, you know, not yet to the degree that some might apparently seek in the Rogan case, as an example.
	But we go through all the facts and the history of it.
	And in particular, the legal issue is the FDA's misuse and abuse of emergency powers, which they're continuing to do.
	Therefore, for example, they approved the Moderna vaccine this week.
	But once again, the emergency use authorized vaccines are still there.
	It's like, how's that?
	We're not supposed to have emergency use authorized vaccines once you have a biologic licensed vaccine.
	Well, it's another bait and switch like they did with Pfizer all over again because they got away with that.
	We have an appeal pending before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals also on behalf of Children's Health Defense about that issue.
	This issue is about there is no emergency for children in America.
	They haven't gone through the proper national emergency authorization.
	I mean, what's supposed to happen in the emergency authorization protocols, they'll dispute its applicability.
	But the whole point of it was an emergency was supposed to only last federally for six months.
	And at the end of that six-month time period, Congress is supposed to get involved.
	The legislative branch is supposed to get involved.
	Review whether the emergency should be extended.
	And it's not supposed to be extended if Congress doesn't extend it.
	Congress never has.
	Congress has never extended the emergency authorization present year.
	And we're in year two on this.
	And yet, from the emergency authorization perspective, they still aren't doing their job.
	So the question is, does that constitute a permissible emergency such that the FDA can continue to abuse their power under the Emergency Use Authorization Act?
	Because their interpretation of the Emergency Use Authorization Law is that they are allowed to approve a drug knowing the drug will be mandated, knowing the drug will condition access like right now it is in New Orleans.
	There's a lawsuit pending in New Orleans because the mayor of New Orleans has said children have to get vaccinated in order to get basic access.
	This is not a biologic licensed drug.
	And yet the FDA knows this.
	The FDA knows they're the center stone of these approvals and authorizations and mandates and vaccine passports, as people call them, is their authorization of them.
	But they are not giving biologic license to the COVID-19 vaccines for any that are available.
	Instead, they're using the emergency statute because it allows them to avoid notice and comment, avoid citizen petitions, avoid the democratic process entirely, avoid hearing dissident scientific opinions, avoid all of this, and they're circumventing it by calling it an emergency.
	When they haven't done the proper national emergency authorization approval, we're into year two of this, and as it relates to children, there is no emergency.
	So first question on that, what is the standard procedure in order to have a formally declared emergency for the purposes of invoking that provision?
	How do you go about it normally?
	Well, my view is it's really supposed to be threefold.
	First, an emergency declared consistent to the national emergency power Congress gave the president, which requires, again, six-month reviews or it's cut off, which haven't occurred.
	Second, that the emergency is specific to the issue.
	In other words, if you declare an emergency because of a threat to people that are over 65 and have multiple comorbidities, that doesn't mean you should be able to declare an emergency to six-month-olds.
	Right now, Pfizer is seeking approval and anticipates the FDA giving it to start injecting six-year-olds with this vaccine.
	There is no emergency for six-month-olds.
	There's no emergency for six-year-olds.
	There's no emergency for 12-year-olds.
	They face greater risk from the flu than they do from COVID-19, according to the available medical data, as alleged in the suit.
	And so in that context, there shouldn't be an emergency.
	And then the third aspect is it's only supposed to be used temporarily where there is no available therapeutic available at all.
	Here they haven't done their appropriate precondition studies to see whether or not ivermectin or a wide range of other treatments could be an effective alternative.
	In fact, the FDA is being contradictory because they've issued authorizations and approvals for other drugs that they say do constitute a therapeutic.
	So that means they can't do this.
	They can't continue to abuse the emergency use powers, emergency powers that they have, to circumvent all these democratic checks.
	The other reason they love it...
	Is they interpret the emergency use authorized statute to be not covered by the APA and to not allow for judicial review.
	So you can't sue over it.
	You can't protest over it.
	You can't petition over it.
	You can't do anything over it.
	Congress has no role.
	The citizen has no role.
	The courts have no role.
	This has to be limited at some point or we have allowed the emergency exception power to swallow up constitutional rights and remedies in America.
	And this is one of the things that I heard in the real Anthony Fauci, which will enrage you, and for everyone out there, if you didn't fully appreciate it, that the emergency use authorization or emergency authorization use?
	Which one is it?
	Emergency use authorization, EUA.
	The EUA.
	The EUA is only open as an option when there is no other way of treating it, no other therapeutic to treat it.
	This is one of the theories, and this is not, sorry, disclaimer, no medical advice, no legal advice, super chats, yada yada, we're live streaming on Rumble as well.
	One of the, no medical advice, but one of the conditions to getting EUA is that there is no adequate or existing therapeutic to treat.
	And in the book, The Real Anthony Fauci, this is one of the reasons the hypotheses for which certain other existing medications with proven track records of safety Not necessarily efficacy or efficiency vis-a-vis COVID in particular, but safety vis-a-vis toxicity documented over decades why they were not only suppressed, but effectively, what's the word?
	Stockpiled, taken off the market, taken from over-counter to prescription, and then ultimately just taken off the market, systematically, you know, from a very early point of the pandemic.
	I never knew this in such detail, but it explains why there could have been, hypothetically, active suppression of existing therapeutics, then demonizing, then ostracizing, and apply the fake news cycle that I just described in the beginning to those medicines so they can then claim EUA and push forward these vaccines.
	I guess the one question is, what's an existing therapeutic that would otherwise preclude Well, frankly, the FDA's own approval of a range of COVID drugs, plus their approval of a biologic license for both Pfizer and Moderna.
	I mean, that's part one.
	And then part two, of course, is all the other alternatives that are out there that have been recommended by a wide range of doctors in a wide range of country.
	There's a wide range of studies about the utility of ivermectin as one example.
	There's hydroxychloroquine.
	There's data and information that supports its possible use.
	Of course, basic things like vitamin D and being healthy.
	And being outdoors, I mean, there's evidence for that.
	I mean, where there's a low vitamin D deficiency, there's a low COVID death rate.
	So, I mean, there's a lot of information out there about possible methods of treatment that the FDA, some of the FDA has authorized and approved.
	And they're pretending that they haven't, just so they can continue the emergency use authorization status that provides a unique level of immunity.
	There may be immunity for these biologic licensed ones, but it's unclear, especially when it's not on the kids' chart yet.
	And so it appears to be the motivation for this.
	But it's like, why is the FDA still using emergency use powers two years into this when the FDA admits there's alternatives available to the emergency use authorized drugs?
	In Quebec, I forget if it was Dr. Tam who's the chief health...
	The chief public health officer of Canada put out a tweet.
	Health advice as to how to reduce your risks of Alzheimer's.
	And I'm reading the advice.
	You know, it was eat healthy, exercise.
	I was like, awesome.
	And I retweeted.
	I was like, awesome.
	Why didn't you ever do this about COVID?
	Why didn't you ever come up with the basic...
	And it was exacerbated by listening to this book in that there were no treatments.
	There were no...
	There was no changing lifestyle to increase immunity, to decrease exposure risk.
	It was all advice being given was counterintuitive, counterproductive, and utterly destructive to the natural immunity.
	But they come out and say, here's what you have to do to avoid Alzheimer's, but when it comes to COVID, lock yourself up, avoid sunlight, lock down.
	Constantly sterilized.
	And it went beyond that.
	When President Trump was talking about different therapies that they were being looked at, they mischaracterized it and libeled him for it.
	When people were out there marketing and selling different alternative therapies, different natural medical treatments that might be beneficial, that might provide enhanced immunity, things like silver, things like vitamin D, other items like that, they were put under federal criminal investigation.
	So, I mean, it was ridiculous the scale they went to.
	And so what we're telling the federal court is you got to step in here.
	The problem has been the federal courts have refused to monitor and regulate and discipline and limit the FDA.
	I'm just going to read this because it's up and it's big.
	Do you think they are the best?
	Better than most?
	Better than you?
	I think most don't.
	So we are using the word elite to describe them.
	They're elitists.
	By the way, Ponson, I think you made this comment on Twitter as well.
	You're right.
	But whenever I use the word elite, just take for granted I'm going elite, even if I can't say it.
	Well, they're elite to send some privileged institutional power and influence.
	So they are elite in a real way.
	They got more power than the ordinary person does.
	They're not elite if what you mean is they are uniquely...
	Capable or uniquely skilled or uniquely talented or uniquely intelligent, but they are uniquely powerful, like the courts.
	The courts are part of our elite in America, and in the Eastern District of Tennessee case, the federal judge cowered like a coward, and more conservatives should start to question their embrace in the legal world of the standing doctrine.
	It is a made-up, fictional doctrine that does not exist in the Constitution.
	Thomas is wrong about it.
	Alito is wrong about it.
	Gorsuch is wrong about it.
	Kavanaugh is wrong.
	They're all, all the conservative judges, whenever they cite standing, they're citing, they're not originalists.
	If you cite standing, you're not an originalist, period.
	Because standing didn't exist until over the 1920s in America.
	And standing, it takes three words in the Constitution.
	Is there a case or controversy?
	The word standing ain't in there.
	The standing has been superimposed by the courts.
	Isn't there a case here?
	Isn't there a controversy here?
	So when people tell me, oh, there's no standing, what they mean, standing is just a political, Pontius Pilate, pretextual doctrine for lazy judges to stay out of and protect government corruption and fraud.
	That's what it is.
	And every judge or justice who signs off on it is not an originalist, and they're a fraud if they say so.
	Two questions.
	First of all, one day...
	One day we'll have the discussion.
	Nate, I can hear Nate Brody's ears burning because of what you're saying about standing, setting that old argument aside.
	The Pontius Pilate, for those who don't get the reference, like me, what did Pontius Pilate do?
	I know he was a traitor, but what did Pontius Pilate do?
	That analogy, how does that apply?
	I mean, what does it mean when you say that?
	I mean, the most infamous image of Pontius Pilate is washing his hands of whether or not to crucify Jesus or not.
	And so the imagery is he's like, geez, you know, I can't make this decision.
	I'm going to let someone else make the decision.
	It's that routine.
	And it's what courts are doing.
	And courts are going to great lengths and great excuses to make up, invent excuses why they would love to get involved, but they just can't get involved.
	And it's a failure of the courts to do their job.
	And the emergency powers are everybody's favorite excuse in the executive branch to circumvent democracy, circumvent citizen concerns, circumvent the science, frankly.
	And most importantly, circumvent the law and the Constitution.
	And that's why we're bringing suit, knowing we're up against it.
	The FDA has never been held responsible in this context, ever.
	So I brought up a lot of claims.
	Different people on the law Twitter and the rest didn't like the idea of suing the FDA because they're on that side of the aisle.
	The left these days embraces state power for whatever pretext it was, like Neil Young.
	But it's one example of what we're facing, but it's worth contesting it, challenging it, fighting it, and maybe we'll need legislative reform ultimately.
	But it's just one of the cases.
	We have those two cases.
	The other two cases that are being filed currently, the National Guard for a range of states are challenging the vaccine mandate.
	A range of governors are bringing those suits.
	Didn't work in Oklahoma because it was one of these really old, frail George W. Bush appointees.
	It was like, COVID, COVID, COVID.
	You know, started shaking and doing it.
	But more people are challenging it.
	More people are contesting it.
	OSHA withdrew their emergency rule and acknowledged they're not going to try an emergency rule.
	Instead, they're going to try a permanent rule.
	Go through notice and comment.
	Go through three or four months of this nonsense.
	They're going to lose.
	On what the Supreme Court already ruled.
	The Supreme Court did not rely on the fact that OSHA announced an emergency rule primarily for its ruling.
	It said OSHA does not have this power, period.
	So going through the notice and comment process is better, but it's still going to get struck down as unconstitutional because everyone knows where it's going to end up under the Biden administration.
	Multiple employee suits.
	The Tyson food suit is now before the court.
	Because Tyson withdrew the claim from state court on the grounds that they're a federal actor.
	So we amended the complaint, added a bunch of federal claims.
	Now they say, no, no, no, we're not really a federal actor.
	And basically, it was a kitchen sink defense.
	If it's not this defense, it's this.
	And if it's not that, it's the other thing.
	And if it's not the other thing, it's this thing.
	And if it's not that thing, then it's another thing.
	We'll see what the judge does.
	George W. Bush appointee.
	I was surprised that his behavior at the hearing versus his ultimate remand ruling was a little bit of a surprise, but that is what it is.
	We'll see if he's willing to hold people responsible.
	We are in discussions with attorney generals across the country about going after Tyson Foods as well in a range of states where EEOC complaints are filed and pending.
	I have a bunch of clients of EEOC.
	Complaints pending in a range of either filed or about to be filed against either Tyson Foods or a range of other employers and a range of other cases as those cases march on through the legal system.
	Those will take longer to develop for the most part, though I'm looking at a case in New York City where they're going to fire a more than 20-year janitor.
	Because they refuse to recognize his religious accommodations.
	I mean, that's the mindset of some of these governments.
	Even while the data accumulates, you can go to read Alex Berenson's Substack, Dr. McCullough, Paul Alexander, Justin Hart, a range of other people who continue to detail and document.
	The biggest experiment for the Pfizer vaccine is Israel.
	Take a look at the data, folks.
	We can't really talk about it in detail here, but you can take a look at the actual data and see whether this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated or if it's a pandemic of the vaccinated.
	You know, Justin Trudeau, after getting COVID, is telling everybody to get vaccinated so you don't get COVID like he just got when he was triple shot as his pretext to hide in the bunker wherever he's currently at that weird home.
	But those dynamics in the vaccine mandate cases continue to develop.
	Most employers are stepping back from imposing vaccine mandates, but not all.
	In the Defense Department, the military is denying almost all religious accommodations.
	So that will now go back before a federal court in Florida.
	And there's more military lawsuits coming on grounds of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and on grounds the federal court in Texas said was a violation.
	So the federal employee suit vaccine mandate has now been stopped.
	The OSHA mandate's now been stopped.
	Head Start mandate's now been stopped.
	Federal contractor mandate's now been stopped.
	The Medicare mandate is still in force, but it's playing out.
	How it's going to play out with the religious accommodations is yet to be determined.
	Military mandate is the one that's going back to court, probably the earliest of all of them.
	And then the employee mandate suits continue to go through.
	Vaccine passport cases filed in Minneapolis.
	Good luck with finding a liberal judge.
	Unsurprisingly, a liberal judge in Minneapolis, where we've seen what justice looks like in that city over the past criminal trials in recent time, decided the vaccine passport was just fine there in Minneapolis.
	So that will be going up on the Court of Appeals.
	There are people looking at filing suit or have filed suit.
	There was briefly an injunction issued, may still be enforced in Massachusetts, as a court of appeals had a problem with the vaccine passport obligation and vaccine mandate imposed on firemen and policemen.
	There are suits pending in L.A., in San Francisco, that are going to be pending or are pending in the state of Washington, going up through the appeals chain on the various vaccine mandates and passports imposed by governments in those cities, counties, and states.
	So the fight has had some big wins along the way, precedent-setting wins, but is still continuing and ongoing, and people will continue to bring them.
	And we'll see how they all turn out in the end.
	And I just brought up a chat that said, I bet none of them have had their jabs.
	I made that humorous observation on Twitter where when Trudeau says, I've come in contact with someone and therefore I must isolate for five days.
	I'm feeling fine, but you know, whatever.
	If you're feeling fine and under Ontario and even auto regulations, you're fully vaccinated, you don't need to isolate.
	So you're lying about something somewhere, period.
	But Robert, I'm reading from the New York Times, people.
	The only reason I'm doing this is so that YouTube can't give me a hard time.
	The New York Times.
	Let's just make sure everybody sees it.
	Hold on.
	Get in focus.
	Get in focus.
	There you go.
	There you go.
	Okay.
	Israel considers fourth dose vaccine dose, but some experts say it's premature.
	Some scientists warn that too many shots might actually harm the body's ability to fight the COVID-19 virus.
	But Israeli experts say there isn't time to wait.
	I mean, this is the freaking headline.
	This is live experimentation.
	I mean, it is sad and pitiful that it's Israel doing this live experimentation.
	Yeah, I can get away with making that because no one can accuse me of what they could accuse you of, Robert.
	Yeah, it's ironic and it's disgusting that it's Israel doing it.
	And there's no time to wait.
	There's no time to wait for the science.
	But trust the science.
	But there's no time to wait for the science that we're trusting.
	Oh, I mean, I would say one other question that was commonly asked on our locals board for the topics this week was when can they be held criminally liable?
	Because it was an ex-Wall Street executive said that he felt Pfizer and Moderna should lose their immunity because he believed that there's evidence of criminality in their behavior as reflected in the fact that Pfizer is now joining the FOIA suit against the FDA.
	Where the court ordered over 50,000 pages of documents be turned over every month.
	The FDA is still refusing to do that.
	And Pfizer is now joining and intervening in the case because they want to prevent disclosure of whatever it is in those files and in those records.
	And there'll be some forthcoming information about a whistleblower case that I'll be able to discuss in greater detail as soon as the court issues an order on sealing everything.
	The government has allowed that to happen, so that's why I can talk about it.
	But in addition to that, the question that was raised is, why does Pfizer want to hide this information?
	And now here's the problem with the only way you can remove immunity from anybody related to an emergency use authorized vaccine.
	Is if the U.S. government agrees at the Attorney General Department of Justice level, they engaged in criminal willfulness.
	The problem is...
	That has never happened in the history of the United States in terms of the vaccine laws.
	So that's the problem.
	And I'll have more information about the whistleblower case about what the U.S. government completely failed to do in that case.
	So the people that I get putting that information out there, but I think it's people that believe that's a hopeful possibility.
	It won't be until there's a new president in.
	Period.
	Because this Justice Department, there's no chance it will get involved, and I'll be able to prove that next week when we discuss this whistleblower case.
	And I was only going to make a joke that, Robert, the FDA is not trying to, sorry, Pfizer is not trying to hide it.
	They just want 55 years to release the first batch of documents.
	It's not hiding it.
	It's just very, very slow.
	You'll get the information when you're dead, okay?
	So people don't complain and don't mischaracterize it.
	Robert, one thing I didn't understand, I heard it in Robert, in RFK's book, I know we've discussed it.
	I still don't fully appreciate the emergency use on children's, why they needed to get authorization in order to have immunity for the vaccine on children.
	I didn't understand the interplay of immunity and the need to get to children in order to retain that immunity.
	So what it is, is there's, I would call it three categories of immunity.
	There's emergency use authorized immunity.
	That's undoubtable, indisputable.
	That is complete.
	There's no gray area there.
	Drug companies are completely immune for any drug they put into the marketplace, no matter how negligent they were, no matter how grossly reckless they were, no matter to a large degree how intentional their malfeasance or misconduct may have been.
	Again, you have to show criminal willfulness, and the Justice Department has to agree with you.
	You have to have both of those.
	Just having criminal willful fraud doesn't get you there.
	You have to have the Justice Department agree there's criminal willful fraud.
	And that's why it's never been done before, because the Justice Department never goes along.
	Otherwise, you're completely immune.
	The second category is whether you are issuing something under the PREP Act.
	You're probably immune, but there's gray areas there.
	Are you immune if there isn't a legitimate emergency announced?
	For example, even if there's been a declared emergency, what if it's not a legal emergency?
	It's not clear you're immune.
	What if once the emergency is withdrawn, are you immune?
	Maybe not.
	So there's gray space that the big drug companies do not want.
	There's a reason the FDA is playing this bait-and-switch game.
	Of continuing to approve biologic licenses for these COVID vaccines, but continuing to only allow them under the Emergency Use Authorized Act on the grounds they're not available.
	It's all nonsense, but that's the bait and switch they're pulling.
	There's a reason for that.
	People can assume there's a reason for that.
	So there was criticism that said, oh no, the PrEP Act will immunize them.
	Not necessarily.
	There's a lot of uncertainty there.
	And the big drug companies know it, and that's why the FDA is playing the bait and switch game they're playing.
	Then the third category is if you're on the kids list.
	If you get approved on the kids list, there's a new set of vaccine immunity that applies.
	They've been building this for 30 years.
	It's now more apparent than ever.
	That a lot of vaccines that kept getting added, this was Bobby Kennedy's complaint for a decade.
	He goes, why are we adding all these vaccines?
	I mean, we've gone from, you know, four or five basic ones in the 1950s to whatever.
	I mean, there's some states that have like 60 plus vaccines on their kids list.
	It's like, what?
	What's going on exactly?
	Is all of these really medically necessary?
	Are all of these necessarily beneficial?
	Well, it's because they've created a 30-year precedent of if you're on the kids list, approved for kids, and you're labeled a vaccine, that's the other thing, by the way, we're challenging the Children's Health Defense case.
	We're challenging the FDA redefining vaccines.
	I don't believe that was a legal action.
	They didn't go through the notice and comment process, citizen petition process, APA permitted process, any of it.
	And it really, it was not a medically appropriate redefinition, period.
	What magically changed that we had to redefine the word other than let's give some immunity and mislabel a drug?
	Because what happens when the people miss marketing?
	Like right now, Moderna's out there under the guise of, I think it's make it your vaccine or whatever, something like that.
	They're advertising during the football games, advertising to kids, effectively, just like the FDA did through Big Bird, where they're not listing the side effects as the law requires.
	All of the laws we built up for drug safety have been completely eviscerated and ignored during the COVID-19 vaccine context.
	All of them are gone.
	Well, maybe we don't need any of those laws then.
	Let's toss them aside and let the public decide what's a good drug.
	The big drug companies don't want that because then maybe people look at holistic medicines that they've been trying to suppress for the last 50 years.
	So you look at the, we brought suit for the Children's Health Defense against the FDA on grounds that they're the ones mislabeling the drug.
	They're the ones mismarketing the drug.
	They're the ones not complying with their own rules and laws that they impose on everyone else.
	And that is what's happening here.
	But the kids list provides magical legal immunity.
	And that's why they want it on the kids list.
	That's enough to make you angry.
	We recently breached 10,000 live viewers on YouTube.
	I'm trying to see what we are on Rumble.
	So go ahead and drop a comment in the comment section and let the chat go crazy.
	P-date from the U.S. update, I guess, from the USA administration.
	We hear you and we plan to shut down the Super Bowl to send a message.
	First, then go to D.C., then to the state capitals.
	This will show the world that we mean business.
	P.S. Trump.
	Oh, you almost got me.
	You almost got me on that one.
	Thank you very much for that.
	It's probably a decent transition into some of the, there were a couple of interesting election law developments this past week.
	So, I mean, the one you sent me that I read was from, I think it was from Wisconsin again, but it read like the lawsuit that we had already read and discussed last week about the declaring certain statutes.
	Unlawful or unconstitutional as relates to the election law.
	It was Wisconsin last week, Pennsylvania this week.
	Okay.
	So what Wisconsin did was Wisconsin state legislatures voting to revoke their electors from 2020.
	It's mostly a political thing.
	It doesn't have any legally binding effect constitutionally, but it has political value.
	And then in Pennsylvania, a Pennsylvania court determined...
	That the mail-in ballot laws, as they were applied in 2020, was in fact unconstitutional and illegal.
	Now, that will go up before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which has a very liberal Democratic majority, so we'll see if it gets affirmed.
	But again, it's another indicator by another court when they actually evaluate it on the legal merits, determining that what happened in 2020, in terms of the methods of ballots allowed, Did not conform to the law.
	And there's been findings like this by the Arizona audit.
	There's been findings like this by different actors in Georgia.
	David Perdue is running for governor, has joined a lawsuit that is challenging on those grounds.
	So more evidence from more courts in this context that, in fact, on the legal merit, because there was a lot of debate about those 2020 election lawsuits.
	And about whether, you know, oh, they were dismissed on the merits.
	And I was like, yeah, most of them really weren't.
	Not if you looked at it in detail.
	None of them went to jury trial.
	None of them went to a meaningful bench trial.
	There was a little one in Nevada, but that was about all.
	Adam Laxalt, who's running for the Senate in the state of Nevada, was part of those cases.
	And he can tell you how there wasn't much.
	Meaningful evidentiary review by the courts in those cases.
	And the same in Arizona.
	When they did a signature match check, it came back the way the court didn't want, which was that the signatures didn't match, according to the Democrats' own expert.
	Not enough of them within the margin of the vote in Arizona.
	But what we're seeing is when the legal merits are actually reached, like now in Wisconsin, like now in Pennsylvania, courts are saying, you know what?
	This actual process wasn't legal all along.
	And we'll see what happens.
	In Wisconsin, the Court of Appeals enjoined that court's order, but only did so not on the merits, did so because they said, well, there's an election coming up in a couple of weeks.
	We want to evaluate this more before we look at that.
	I don't think they should have gone that route, but it is what it is.
	I think the Wisconsin Supreme Court ultimately is going to rule the same way the trial court did there.
	And there was a big front-page New York Times article, no less, on how dark money, what's called dark money, this is money that's spent mostly in secret without people knowing about it to influence an election or a campaign politically, was spent for Democrats in 2020.
	A lot of Democrats complained about dark money until they were...
	We're getting the ones getting fat off of it.
	And some of it doesn't even, it was the misuse and abuse of nonprofit organizations.
	And most of that money didn't even discuss all the money that poured into the election side of the aisle.
	While Mark Elias, the lead Democratic lawyer that helped create and has bragged about his success, you know, getting a bunch of state actors to impose these novel and now...
	Determined to be illegal in the state of Pennsylvania and Wisconsin rules, has apparently been busy talking to grand juries about whatever he was up to back in 2016 in illegal actions, whether or not he was involved in a money laundering operation at Perkins Coal in order to help the Clinton campaign spread Russiagate.
	So a lot of things that some of us said, both about Russiagate and the 2020 election, are now bearing fruit.
	Not only in the legislative arena with a lot of positive public legislative reforms, but we're seeing it in court actions as well.
	I also want to make sure the YouTube overlords understand what we're saying.
	Not illegal in the sense at the time.
	At the time...
	These determinations are that it's illegal.
	There may not be any consequence for 2020.
	But the election fortification...
	And I will just quote from the Time magazine.
	Someone said dark mode.
	I don't know what dark mode is.
	Time magazine.
	Politics 2020 election.
	I'm just reading verbatim, YouTube.
	The secret history of the shadow campaign that saved the 2020 election.
	Let's just get the good paragraph here.
	If no one's read this article, go out and read the bloody article.
	I'm going to put it in the chat.
	This is from the article.
	There was a conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes, one that both curtailed the protests and coordinated the resistance from CEOs.
	Both surprises were the result of an informal alliance between left-wing activists and business titans.
	The pact was formalized in a terse, little-noticed joint statement of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and AFL-CIO published on Election Day.
	Both sides would come to see it as a sort of implicit bargain, inspired by the summer's massive, sometimes destructive racial justice protests in which the forces of labor came together with the forces of capital to keep the peace and oppose Trump's assault on democracy.
	Can you believe?
	The pathological confession through projection, accuse your enemies of doing what you're doing.
	What they just described as Trump's assault on democracy, I just read it, people.
	I did a video on it back in the day.
	So that's what they did.
	So proud and so loud, they wrote an article in Time magazine about it.
	And now some of those, because what they described in the article was some backroom dealing.
	Let's go issue some rules based on this regulation, which would affect how people voted, collected votes, collected ballots, yada, yada.
	It was all directives issued in accordance with the law at the time, allegedly.
	None of it got to lawsuit litigation's judgment in time.
	And you can blame apathy, maybe arrogance, maybe pomposity on...
	Whomever.
	One justice prevented that from being heard before the elections and after the elections, and her name was Amy Coney Barrett.
	Who made that?
	Okay, good.
	So that's it.
	These were the rules at the time.
	This is what corruption is, people.
	It's lawful corruption because you're not...
	The days of slipping briefcases under the desk or at the time people were saying, you know, bringing bags of things in, those are over.
	It's lawful corruption in the sense that until it's declared unlawful, I'm just interpreting the rules as I like and issuing directives as we like.
	And by the way, meeting with social media tech giants to control the dissemination of information, misinformation, because we've declared it misinformation and therefore we have the moral and legal authority to curtail its dissemination.
	It's fucking nuts.
	It's crazy.
	Careful, Vivo.
	Canada has a racist behind every place.
	All right.
	Where do we go, Robert?
	So, I mean, speaking of the efforts of big tech, so one, of course, was the suppression and collusion to cover up the Hunter Biden story, which is detailed in Red Handed.
	What was actually being covered up was the scale of corruption involving the Biden family, primarily through Hunter Biden, with high-end contacts of Chinese intelligence and military-backed entities and officials and investments.
	But was also, we see an example of it, in the attempts to get Spotify to censor Joe Rogan, just because Joe Rogan has allowed dissident voices to be platformed on his podcast.
	I'm going to dig back in my memory to a tweet from George Takei, who always has the most wildly opposite and untenable...
	He said to everybody pretending that to be outraged by Spotify and Joe Rogan compared to some government stuff, Spotify is not a government actor.
	And this is not a First Amendment issue because it's not a question of Congress passing a law that curtails free speech.
	This is private enterprise.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	My goodness, have we had this discussion before?
	Without getting into the utilities discussion, my only retort to George Takei...
	While you talk, Robert, I'll try to pull up the tweet, was when you have politicians pressuring Spotify to remove Joe Rogan, are we not breaching or crossing a certain threshold, or is it not a distinction without a difference?
	How do you reply to the reflexive, ignorant response, I loaded it?
	How do you reply to the response, this is not a First Amendment issue because it's not Congress, it's a private company making a business decision as it relates to Joe Rogan?
	Well, I see it as two different aspects.
	So one component is in terms of Spotify's original source of this was Media Matters and some organizations on the left are putting collective pressure.
	And this goes, I think it's BlackRock, is BlackRock has a major economic ownership interest in a range of musicians' portfolios, including Neil Young.
	You know who else BlackRock has major financial interest in?
	Pfizer and big pharma companies.
	And are they leveraging one to help the other?
	There's a reasonable allegation of that kind of corruption because why does Neil Young, who's been a kind of a critic of institutional big pharma in the past, suddenly is a big pharma advocate and defender to such a degree he's going to withdraw his music portfolio, which he doesn't even own a majority of anymore, from Spotify in order to try to censor Joe Rogan.
	And the real objective is to get a bunch of other musicians to step up to do so and to censor Rogan.
	Rogan's response was a very diplomatic response.
	Apparently, he's going along with Spotify, which is now going to put warnings on Joe Rogan's content.
	Now, the interesting thing here is my understanding of Rogan's contract with Spotify is Spotify would breach the contract if they censor him at all.
	I haven't seen the contract, but this is my understanding of it.
	My understanding of the contract is he required Spotify agree to no sensorial control.
	And that means Rogan could walk.
	And I think Rogan may be underestimating his leverage here.
	Because there are other companies out there, Rumble, others, that would be happy to give him a deal more lucrative.
	Than what Spotify gave him.
	With no censorship at all.
	With no strings at all.
	Happy to welcome him entirely.
	He could get a better deal than he's got from Spotify.
	Better than 100 million?
	Better than 100 million?
	I mean, what was his deal with Spotify?
	Yes.
	Better financially than that.
	There are companies, I mean, Rumble's publicly stated that they're raising capital to be able to expand their reach.
	And they're going to use that capital as part of it.
	To get content creators to rumble, to promote rumble, to be able to meaningfully compete with YouTube.
	And that's part of their main objective, part of the reason why they're raising capital in the way they are from retail investors.
	And I guarantee you, they would be happy to have someone like Joe Rogan.
	And Rogan doesn't...
	So I think Rogan underestimates his leverage.
	He could get a lot better deal and maybe let Spotify breach the deal so that he can just walk...
	And get more money, more freedom, more liberty to do what he wants to do.
	And I think that would be the best outcome for Rogan because the problem for Spotify financially is that they depend primarily for their market cap on subscribers and primarily they depend on their subscribers for their subscribers on music libraries.
	If these big corrupt Wall Street companies, again, Blackstone, BlackRock.
	Both connected not only to big pharma, but deeply involved with China, according to Peter Schweitzer's book.
	And if they're going to leverage their purchases, this is the concern when BlackRock buys a lot of real estate.
	Are they going to leverage this for somebody else's politicized purposes that have nothing to do with a rational economic interest?
	Because not in the economic interest of Neil Young to pull his portfolio from Spotify.
	That's going to lose him money.
	So why are they doing it?
	Because maybe the people that really control his portfolio isn't him, but people who want to leverage it for their friends in China and their friends in Big Pharma.
	Because Rogan has been so effective challenging this.
	I'm going to read two chats and then I have a question about the ownership of Neil Young's music.
	Britt Cormier, how can you sit there and say that the government does not follow its own rules?
	That is impossible.
	Our government is made up of the best of us.
	FYI, I speak both English and sarcasm.
	Ralph from The Simpsons.
	Me fail English?
	That's impossible.
	Christian Sandoval, thank you very much.
	And then this.
	Hold on, just bring this up and let it sit there for a few more seconds.
	Because this number, 1-2-3-4-5, I remember this.
	Epic Times reports that Hershey's are terminating unjabbed employees, trying to force them to sign non-disclosure, non-disparagement with a covenant not to sue, accusing them of lying about religious beliefs, of not really being Catholics since the Pope endorsed it.
	Yeah, I mean, Hershey should spend more time not hiring child slave labor in Africa than it worries about vaccine mandates.
	But I mean, some of these companies that are making these big noble stands that they think they're making to force vaccines and fire people for having sincere religious objections to it, they're just going to get sued.
	And ultimately, I believe they're going to all lose because they don't know what they're doing.
	They have incompetent corporate lawyers.
	A lot of big corporate law firms should be sued ultimately for their conflicts of interest.
	I have no doubt that Hershey's corporate law firm probably has Big Pharma as a client.
	And so the question is, which client are they protecting?
	Which client are they promoting?
	Wouldn't surprise me if a lot of their lead partners have stock holdings in Big Pharma.
	So, I mean, I think a lot of these lawyers that are out there pushing it, there's going to be lawyers like me looking to sue you down the road.
	So you better think twice.
	You better up that malpractice coverage.
	And so I think that a lot of them are going to face consequences in ways they're not anticipating.
	They should be seeing the writing on the wall when the OSHA mandate fails, when so many of these other mandates fail, when more and more courts are stepping up to the gap because they've just gone too far.
	They've gone too far because this vaccine mandate was always too far to begin with, but they're also going too far because the world can witness.
	Why are we experiencing more COVID deaths after two-thirds of a country is vaccinated than we did when there was a zero percent vaccination rate?
	What's the math on that?
	People can see it every day in their lives.
	I'm like, hold on a second.
	This isn't the magic cure-all you said it was or a business necessity for us to do it.
	And more and more people know people that, I mean, according to Richard Barris, People's Pundit, did a recent poll.
	Over 5% of people reported serious, severe adverse effects from the vaccine.
	So these are people, and the younger they were, the healthier they were.
	The more they experienced adverse events from the vaccine.
	And the long tail risk is still disproportionately towards the vaccine than it is the virus, according to some in these lawsuits.
	And the legal claims that are yet to be adjudicated, but there's evidence to back them up.
	And so I think a lot of them are just making fundamental errors and mistakes in this process.
	But going back to Rogan...
	Rogan definitely has a lot more economic leverage than he realizes.
	And Spotify might recede into the background of just being a music provider.
	And they will lose subscribers.
	I think they will lose more subscribers by trying to screw over Rogan than they will by worrying about the music portfolios.
	But the big concern is that Wall Street investment companies, big ones, BlackRock and Blackstone, again, corrupt ties to China in both instances, are leveraging control and ownership.
	Of other economic interests to try to protect big pharma and maybe in part to protect Chinese interests at the expense of Spotify.
	And if it goes that route, well, you know, maybe that'd be better for everybody if Joe Rogan was exclusive to Rumble rather than Spotify.
	Two things.
	First of all, getting back to the risks.
	I'm reading strictly people.
	I've lowered the light.
	Let's see if that...
	Yeah, there you go.
	That works a little better.
	I'm reading from CTV News people.
	I'm just going to scroll to the bottom where CTV issued a small correction.
	You need to see this, people.
	Small correction.
	Get it flat.
	I'm going to read you the correction right now.
	A previous version of this article stated that the risk of contracting a serious side effect after COVID-19 vaccination is less than one in a million.
	The correct figure, based on data reported to the Public Health Agency of Canada, Is roughly 1 in 10,000.
	That is from a CTV article.
	And that's just the short-term effects.
	You can sit and spin, by the way.
	Not you, Robert.
	The biggest concern by a range of doctors is long-term effects.
	Because mRNA has never been used in a vaccine before.
	And my postdoc wife can confirm that.
	I just want everyone to know.
	Nobody's making up crap here.
	Second thing, Robert.
	I've heard the allegations that Pfizer has an interest in Neil Young's library.
	All I was able to find...
	It's more because BlackRock has a big interest in Pfizer.
	BlackRock owns half of Neil Young's library.
	That's the time.
	I thought it was another...
	I forget who it was.
	Sony Records.
	I thought someone else had the licensing rights of Neil Young's music.
	Is there a difference?
	That's right.
	My understanding is it's been sold to BlackRock.
	Half of it has been sold to BlackRock.
	I mean, the way these get structured, but the long and short of it is the legal financial operational control appears to be strongly in BlackRock's possession, and they have ties to Big Pharma and ties to China.
	And for some reason, is it a coincidence that it's Neil Young's portfolio being used to try to leverage Spotify?
	And just so everybody knows, I'm neurotic and I don't want to make a mistake.
	And I looked into this, I saw the same claims.
	I was like, I don't understand it enough to even make a tweet on it, and I didn't.
	So I understood someone had the licensing rights of Neil Young's music.
	I appreciate there might be differences between licensing rights and ownership rights, and I couldn't verify or confirm, so I did not tweet on the subject.
	This might be a good segue into our next subject, Robert.
	Is there anything an employee could do if their company is going to charge a healthcare fee if they don't get the vaccine?
	I think there's some legal actions that people are looking at bringing in that respect, but that has not yet been adjudicated.
	So it's unclear, is the short answer.
	And let's just go into...
	I'm just going to see if this video has...
	You see, there was initial interest in the video, but maybe people are getting fed up with Quebec stuff.
	Robert, this will be the segue into Quebec law, Canadian law.
	The first news story breaking out of Quebec is Francois Legault, Supreme Leader Frank, who...
	Locked us in curfew for the one-month curfew that lasted five months a year ago.
	Went with a curfew 2.0, which initially did not allow for dog walking after curfew, but changed that science based on public outcry.
	Recently announced they were going to charge a, what do they call it, a healthcare contribution.
	And I always think to that episode of The Simpsons, we're like, we need to think of a way to redefine a painful tax in a way that voters will buy.
	I forget what they called it.
	They announced that they were going to tax the unvaccinated in Quebec.
	You don't get the jab, fine.
	You're going to have to pay something.
	And it's going to have to be more than $100 because that's not enough.
	And this came out a few weeks ago.
	I did a few videos on it, and people, I think, were flabbergasted by the insanity coming out of Quebec.
	And I said at the time, they're going to drop this because it's idiotic, unconstitutional, immoral, and unconscionable.
	But they went further and actually said, we're going to table legislation.
	And the legislation is going to say, you're going to have to pay between $100 and $800 depending on your revenue.
	And Robert, you and I discussed this.
	I said, how are they going to know that?
	And you rightly said, well, they're going to have to add a question to your tax forms.
	Are you vaccinated?
	And that was literally what they were discussing tabling in the legislation to put forward whenever they sit again to pass legislation.
	Lo and behold, people, long story short, they dropped it today.
	In their press conference where we're looking at two buffoons try to pretend to be smart when they are buffoons.
	And I'm talking Floswell ago and his medical, whoever the person is now.
	Absolute morons.
	And they look like absolute morons who are winging interviews by the seat of their pants.
	I swear to you, step me up.
	Put me on that platform.
	I could feel that press conference better than these idiots.
	They've abandoned the tax because it had public outcry.
	International outcry, and we made the news for the wrong reasons.
	So, hey, small victory.
	These idiots backtrack on there.
	Trust the science, because public outcry said you can't do that.
	Well, and my understanding is Sasquatch and some other provinces up there are looking at to show the success of the Court of Public Opinion of the Trucker Convoy of re-examining or withdrawing their COVID-19 restrictions, including the vaccine passports.
	I don't want to give credit where credit's not due or give inspiration where it's not due.
	The timing is coincidental.
	It's interesting.
	And I am predicting that Trudeau is going to buckle.
	Ford is going to buckle.
	Because if they go in there and do dumb stuff with the truckers, people like citizen journalists and citizen analysts like myself will be there to show it.
	It's not going to go well in the sense that people know what is going on and the jig is up in a sense.
	Walk it back, you political hacks, and pretend it's the science.
	Let me bring this one up here.
	Interesting how New York Times can hide behind the title opinion, but people like Rogan can't.
	It's very interesting.
	And Robert, did you see the hit piece that came out on Project Veritas of the evening that we attended?
	I mean, oh yeah, it's extraordinary.
	I mean, the Project Veritas experience was fun.
	Some people were baffled by the interpretive dance autobiographical presentation that's part of what they're calling the Project Veritas experience.
	But James O 'Keefe has a history in dance, going way back, does a great moonwalk.
	It was a fun, dramatic way of explaining his entire experience.
	What's fascinating was the degree to which the legal battles he's been through has heavily shaped his perception.
	Instead of backing down, he doubled down.
	But the degree of, I mean, it wasn't just the bogus criminal cases he'd been part of.
	He'd been subject to bogus smear campaigns, bogus, obviously a lot of defamation and libel, but bogus claim, you know, he was metooed before, long before Kavanaugh was on a totally bogus claim.
	And his willingness to embrace that and confront it and challenge it, be honest about the experience that he went through, the second thoughts and doubts he had, you know, through that time period.
	And instead of, you know, even when the FBI raids him, his response is to go public and sue.
	It's not to cower away.
	And I think that he served as an inspiration to a wide range of people because I think that's the only effective strategy that works.
	If you capitulate, they just come and hit you harder.
	You don't bow before a corrupt king.
	You kick the king in the knee.
	And it's the only thing the king will respect in the end.
	So, yeah, it was a fun experience.
	Met a lot of interesting people.
	I mean, you were mobbed a lot more than I was.
	I mean, it was just like a mob walking around.
	It was like the truckers at the trucker convoy, you know, when you showed up.
	I don't want anyone thinking, like, that Marion and I went as a vacation.
	I don't want anyone thinking the luxury to travel.
	I don't do it as a luxury to vacation.
	It was a stressful trip from beginning to end, not the least of which was because I had to leave three kids and two special needs dogs with my mother-in-law, who's a goddamn trooper, by the way.
	Three kids and two special needs It's a beautiful thing.
	But, Robert, the evening was amazing.
	The interpretive dance, it was like the history of rock.
	But it was the history of Project Veritas.
	But then there's a hit piece in the Rolling Stone.
	But I'm going to say hit piece because I don't know if the Rolling Stone thinks that this is going to make me more...
	If this is going to turn me off of Project Veritas or turn me on to Project Veritas.
	This is the headline.
	Rolling Stone.
	Too much vino and Project Veritas.
	My extremely weird evening with James O 'Keefe.
	It's from...
	I'm going to have to take my glasses off.
	Laura Jadid.
	Listen to this.
	My God, I'm an old man.
	I'm an old man, Robert.
	The strobes are pulsing.
	The fog machines are pumping.
	Three professional dancing wearing haute couture costumes that appear to be made of newsprint contort themselves on a stage of the all-encompassing roar of Lady Gaga's bad romance.
	Their dance partners dressed in blue windbreakers and FBI caps.
	It was kind of amazing, by the way.
	And I had no idea this was going to be there.
	I thought this was going to be a book launch.
	Run their hands lasciviously up the mainstream media sirens.
	Behind them on an enormous screen, graphics emerge through Warzone CGI smoke.
	The New York Times logo followed by a versus, followed by Veritas.
	Be brave, do something.
	For once, no one can dispute the truth of a Project Veritas claim.
	This is, as promised, an unforgettable experience.
	I don't know if that person wrote that thinking that was going to be a hit piece or turn more people onto Project Veritas.
	But my goodness, Jadid, well done.
	Because you've just amplified Project Veritas.
	Robert, I had no idea they're, again, amplifying a message.
	I had no idea their fundraising went from what it went to to what is it currently at now?
	It's in the millions of millions.
	And I think people that wanted to accuse him of being motivated by money or power or recognition or ego are recognizing otherwise.
	Because what's happening is he is turning out to be one of the best investments you can make.
	He is pouring it into supporting whistleblowers, pouring it into more reporters.
	And that's why he just continues to explode in his coverage.
	And it came out with Judicial Watch, did a FOIA response, found out that Big Pharma is involved in talking to the FBI and other people about Project Veritas.
	I mean, it's a guy that's going up against the Biden administration, the New York Times, and Big Pharma and Big Tech all at the same time, and big media.
	But all it's done is he's, you know, exposés on CNN, exposés on a big pharma, exposés on the COVID vaccine, exposés on a wide range of topics and issues and continues to be one of the primary places whistleblowers now go.
	Whistleblowers don't go to the New York Times anymore.
	Whistleblowers go to James O'Keefe and Project Veritas.
	Why?
	Because he's shown repeated success at being able to get their story out to a large There are three congressmen there just that night just for the Miami event.
	And it was fun to get to chat with them and a wide range of other people.
	Amanda Milius, who produced the plot against the president.
	Producing a film on the real story behind what happened to John McAfee, an authorized story by McAfee's family and loved ones, and a range of other topics.
	All this sort of force coming together, in large part because of the work he's done and the success he continues to achieve.
	And people who invest in him get to see bigger and better results.
	I mean, his book is about being an American muckraker, and he continues to have precedent-setting results.
	To the degree that if you ask...
	What journalist in the last 10 years has broken the biggest number of insider whistleblower stories?
	The answer is James O 'Keefe and Project Veritas.
	This is where, when you read through the article, you realize it's intended to be a hit piece, but it might just be a promotional piece, where the author, the journalist, says his stories are circulated widely on right-wing conservative media.
	I was like, dude, the Acorn story was circulated.
	Everywhere.
	Left-wing media, mainstream media.
	So, nice try.
	I mean, the Biden administration isn't sticking the FBI on him because it's only in some small little corner of the world that his stories are circulating.
	That isn't why that happened.
	The corrupt Landro political machine of Louisiana didn't target him as a kid because he was being inconsequential in his coverage and his exposés.
	Big Pharma isn't asking the FBI to take a special look at him because he's being ineffective in his journalistic exposés.
	So his journalistic exposés have much better...
	I'm going to ask you the origins of the word muckraker in a second, but I just want to say one thing first.
	I had no idea what it was going to be.
	I had no idea who was going to be there.
	I didn't go there for clout, and I didn't go there to be preceded.
	Whoever came before of Marjorie Taylor Greene, it's not headhunting for political trophies.
	Matt Gaetz.
	Amanda Milius, Jenna Ellis was there, and I finally got to meet Jenna Ellis after making videos about her.
	Wonderful interview with Brian Stetler.
	The one thing I found truly moving, and I may cry easily, sometimes I cry during commercials, was when they brought out all of the whistleblowers in person after the montage.
	And I'm going to tell you this, hate James O 'Keefe as much as you want.
	What I loved is that the entire evening...
	Was not about James O 'Keefe.
	It was actually about the whistleblowers themselves.
	And so, think what you want.
	Yeah, it was a dance thing.
	It was tracking the progress of James O 'Keefe and his career.
	The punchline, the celebration was not James O 'Keefe and his success.
	It was the people who sacrificed everything.
	And those were the whistleblowers that they brought out on stage afterwards to a roar of the crowd.
	And then my personal experience with the whistleblower from the original Acorn story, I'm coming from Quebec, people.
	Where you can't, you know, if you're not wearing a mask outside, people jump off the sidewalk to avoid you.
	You can't go anywhere without wearing a mask.
	Repression.
	And I see this woman with perhaps the most beautiful baby I've ever seen.
	Other than my babies.
	A big, juicy baby.
	Wonderful cheeks.
	And the kid looks at me and wants to hold me.
	And I felt I had an initial response, which was, don't reach out for this kid because she's going to not want you to infect the kid with COVID.
	And I was like, ugh.
	And she gave me her kid.
	She'd never met me before.
	She had no idea who I was.
	And she gave me her baby to hold.
	And the baby...
	You know, played with my facial hair, and I loved it, and it was beautiful, and it was what human experience was intended to be before the government literally ruined it.
	And that's my lasting memory of the night.
	Yeah, people drink wine at a party, and if that's your criteria for inappropriate behavior, my goodness, don't ask Bill Clinton and Barack Obama what they did in university, whatever.
	It was beautiful.
	Muckraker, Robert, what's the origin of the term?
	Because I never heard of it before, and my only complaint about the book is that it should have defined what muckraker was as a, what's the word, etymology of the term.
	Do you know what the etymology is?
	Sure.
	Beginning of the 20th century, a wide range of journalists, independent expose reporters, people like Upton Sinclair, who wrote The Jungle, famously said, I aimed to hit America's heart and accidentally hit their stomach.
	But a great book, The Jungle.
	It was exposés of what was happening by people in places of institutional power.
	And the idea was you were going into the muck.
	In other words, like the swamp, the dirt, the grime, the corruption, the fraud, the malfeasance, the misconduct.
	And you were mucking it to expose it.
	And so that's where the term muckraker originated, as far as I understand.
	I'm sure somebody in the chat or comment section might have more knowledge than I, but that's my basic understanding of it.
	And there was a lot of great reporters in those days.
	And you had some of those through the 60s.
	Now, I always thought Bob Woodward pretended to be a muckraker.
	I had that conversation years ago with Ben Bradley at the Washington Post before it became public who Deep Throat was.
	And I speculated at the time that the real reason they hid the identity of Deep Throat was because it would expose Bob Woodward and the Washington Post as agents of corrupt law enforcement, not agents of...
	Cleaning up corruption in the Nixon administration.
	Of course, once Deep Throat was identified, I was right.
	Ben Bradley just smiled and smirked when I asked him that question.
	The Washington Post is a young Yale student before I left in protest.
	James O 'Keefe is in the muckraker tradition that was really strong at the beginning of the last century and has faded out as we have a bunch of kids as journalists and we have a bunch of corrupt people.
	As so-called journalists.
	As an example, the Washington Post had to admit they had conflicts of interest with many of their key editors and reporters covering the FBI and the rest because they have family connections that are connected to those corrupt actors.
	That's where we're at, where democracy dies in darkness.
	I mean, when you're owned by Jeff Bezos, when you're partially owned by a Mexican billionaire, Carlos Slim, like the New York Times is, you're no longer an independent journalist publication.
	You're just a propaganda sheet.
	The only real journalistic publication these days, increasingly, in terms of muckraking, is James O 'Keefe and Project Veritas, and they've proved it, and they'll continue to prove it.
	And I'll tell you, the interesting thing, back in the day, It's the progression of success.
	It was James O 'Keefe doing it personally.
	Then you get too big, like Andy Ngo, where you can no longer be the one on the street doing it.
	And this is not a...
	I'm not judging Andy Ngo.
	James O 'Keefe got to a point where it could no longer be him.
	And then it could be journalists.
	And then it could no longer even be the journalists.
	It has to be people from within.
	And what I found amazing, inspirational, and...
	I am a proponent of the idea that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to be afraid of, except when it comes to the government.
	So James O 'Keefe now has tentacles and has inspired people to go out and do this and has showed them that if you do do it, not only are you not going to be ruined, you might actually be built anew.
	And once that momentum gains, nobody's safe.
	And it's a beautiful thing because it's the accountability of transparency that comes with actual journalism and not the propaganda that we see from journalists that have a vested interest, either beholden to the government or for their own ego, for their own professional success.
	It's beautiful.
	And I think Project Veritas has attained a critical mass where they're no longer, despite the media slanders, they're no longer fringe.
	And they're no longer a minority, and they're no longer toxic to people who want to spread the truth.
	And so, God bless and Godspeed, James O 'Keefe and Project Veritas.
	It was amazing.
	It was great to meet you again, Robert, twice in two years.
	I had a joke there.
	I won't say it.
	But now, Robert, speaking of conflicted interests, and January 6th, I think we mentioned that there, what's the rumor Trump is, if he runs again, Oh, he could definitely do it, and he could have done it beforehand.
	There were people that called on him to do so beforehand, knowing and anticipating how the January 6th incident would be mischaracterized and abused.
	We're seeing...
	Trudeau tried to utilize it in Canada with the same script, almost too verbatim.
	And originally he was trying to pitch the story that he was under threat, and that's why he had to hide out.
	Not that he was under threat of only political exposure for the fraud that he is.
	He should just admit he's Fidel Castro's kid, and everybody will accept him a little bit better.
	Google it, people.
	Google it if you have any doubts.
	Genetics leaves hints.
	I am my father's son.
	No one can say otherwise.
	Trudeau is his father's son as well.
	So with that said, sorry.
	No doubt.
	So the two things.
	You can always issue a preemptive part.
	Carter did so.
	For the draft dodgers.
	So, in fact, he promised to do so.
	And when he won, he pardoned a bunch of draft dodgers.
	So, I mean, he didn't even know their names.
	I mean, so, yeah, Trump could have done so all the way back.
	And he was told if he did anything like that, if he pardoned Snowden, if he pardoned Assange, if he pardoned any of the January 6th people, that he would be guaranteed to be impeached and would be put under criminal investigation himself.
	And that came from people like Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham.
	And it's probably not a coincidence that Mitch McConnell, you know, his wife and his wife's family and Mitch McConnell's own wealth comes heavily from corrupt ties to China.
	I mean, our Senate majority leader for all these years has basically been an agent of China, an undisclosed foreign agent.
	That's what's basically detailed in this book, getting personally rich off of it.
	I have my own reasons for, I mean, McConnell interfered in the Covington kids case, but that's another story for another day.
	Barnes does not forget and always holds the line.
	Just so anybody who's new to the chat, new to the channel...
	It's one of the eternal truths, you could say.
	Never forgive, never forget, hold the line.
	Wait, stop for one second, Robert.
	I never responded to the chat vote.
	What is the expression?
	Always in cash, never in writing?
	Or never in writing, always in cash?
	What is it?
	It's both.
	So it's either way.
	You can do it either way.
	But we'll have a little fun little t-shirt on that that a lot of people have asked for coming out soon.
	Coming out soon.
	But yeah, it reveals.
	So yes, he absolutely could have pardoned.
	He absolutely can pardon him.
	And it's good that Trump's hitting the road because when he hits the road, he realizes his vaccine idolatry is not popular.
	And he's realizing that his January 6th mutinous is not popular.
	And that he needs to find the right balance in that capacity.
	Now, his lawyer is currently in federal court fighting a January 6th subpoena.
	Of course, it's the federal court in the District of Columbia, so shock, shock.
	That court's ordering him to go through an entire privilege log and is ordering him to turn over a bunch of documents on short notice.
	Because the federal courts in D.C., as they did this past week in a sentencing case, a Trump appointee, no less.
	You know, is obsessed with the...
	What I said from the get-go, there's not a federal district court judge in the District of Columbia that can be impartial on these cases.
	They feel personally attacked by what happened on January 6th.
	These cases need to be out of D.C. The jury poll is Richard Barris, the people's pundit, for those people who don't know him, documented in a poll.
	Over 90% of potential jurors in the District of Columbia...
	Have already convicted every single one of the defendants.
	So there's no way they can get a fair and impartial jury trial.
	As I also predicted, a bunch of the defendants that are being represented by John Pierce have either fired him or are complaining to courts about how utterly incompetent and incapable he is.
	And so those are the issues that continue to percolate in the January 6th cases.
	On the John Pierce side, one thing that did get wrapped up this past week Yeah, before you get there, I just want to ask, because someone who thinks like me is going to say, okay, Robert, yeah, fine.
	The judges in D.C. are all conflicted because they feel personally attacked.
	Are you not proposing a problem with no solution?
	What would be the solution to that?
	Oh, because there's federal judges throughout the rest of the country that don't feel personally attacked because they don't live in D.C. They don't practice in D.C. So there's, I mean, almost all of these defendants are not from D.C. They should be tried in their home district.
	That's where they should be tried.
	That's our tradition in America.
	Tradition in America is you get tried where your home is more often than not.
	Certain tax cases, they have to transfer it to your home district.
	They can't try it in D.C. or other places.
	But it's D.C., the jury pool is impossible.
	You're entitled constitutionally to an impartial jury pool.
	Not possible in the District of Columbia.
	You're entitled to a judge that's not only impartial.
	But perceived, reasonably perceived as impartial, you cannot get that in the District of Columbia.
	They should try these defendants in their home districts, and all the lawyers should move to transfer for jury reasons and judicial bias reasons on these cases.
	Because these judges are saying crazy things that don't correspond to the facts.
	Brandon Straka had to deal with this judge as well on a nutty, nutty routine that was embarrassing.
	That would be embarrassing if they didn't live in the District of Columbia.
	I mean, that's the other thing.
	These other judges, now they don't feel personally attacked, some of them actually live in real-world towns, real-world places, with real-world people, not in the tiny bubble that is the District of Columbia.
	District of Columbia judges are notoriously completely disconnected from the real world.
	It's a town that's mostly owned by foreign governments these days, in terms of you look at where the lobbying money comes from, as is heavily detailed in Red Handed as well by Peter Schweitzer.
	So, I mean, I just don't think that they should be, they can be impartial.
	People have asked, I will try to find a way to get involved.
	The difficulty is conflicts of interest.
	Like, John Pierce has ignored that.
	Big law article this week on how that creates a lot of problems, and he may get kicked out of all the cases, ultimately, because you don't always have, you may have one client that has a different interest than another client.
	You may have one client that may testify against another client.
	That's a problem, and that's why what I've recommended is people set up an independent amicus-type group where we could provide free legal information and advice that all the January 6th defendants could benefit from without being burdened by representing any one of them to such a degree we're conflicted out of helping all the rest.
	So we're still trying to figure out a way for that to work functionally.
	But what's happening in the District of Columbia is proving it is unable and incapable of being impartial.
	In these cases, just as the jailers and the U.S. Marshals who should be embarrassed, the United States Marshal Service should be embarrassed by how atrocious they are treating these pretrial detainees, many of them, some of whom now have been detained for more than a year.
	Which, in my view, is a due process violation under these cases.
	Because these people are not in imminent risk of harm.
	And I think, constitutionally, only flight should be the grounds for you to be denied bail.
	And none of them are flight risk.
	They haven't proven that at all.
	Robert, even if the criteria were flight and threat risk, none of them.
	Period.
	Full stop.
	And also, in Canada, typically, the principle is it's the domicile of the defendant where the jurisdiction is proper.
	So in any of these cases, you go to the domicile of the defendant.
	They don't want that.
	The Justice Department is terrified of that because that's places like Arkansas, places like Tennessee, places like Ohio, places like the free state of Florida, as Matt Gates said at the Project Veritas experience.
	A wide range of places that they're scared of.
	It shows you they're terrified of the whole rest of the country.
	That's what January 6th cases are really all about.
	It's the politicians and the privileged class being terrified of their own country.
	Because down deep, a lot of them are more loyal to foreign governments than they are to America.
	And the idea that there are any...
	I don't care what you think of January 6th.
	The idea that there are any of the defendants that are still or have been incarcerated in pretrial detention for a year, six months...
	Two months.
	Compared to those who have been let out under other circumstances, I will always err, so no one accuses me of a double standard, always err on the side of pre-trial release under conditions, but not sucking and blowing at the same time.
	But Robert, oh, what was I just about to say?
	Oh, no, the guy from Oath Keepers, Rhodes, who now, you know, I tried to tweet that, but I'm picking fights with people who don't know I exist.
	People celebrating his indefinite pretrial detention because his wife or his ex-wife or his ex-girlfriend posted pictures of him with tunnels so he becomes a flight risk or a tunnel risk.
	I mean, Robert, the guy Rhodes, even if you accept the accusations of seditious conspiracy, did nothing violent, overtly violent, accused of whatever, and is in now...
	How do you make sense of it?
	How do you explain it?
	How do you justify it?
	Or is it just outright not justifiable?
	Well, it shows how politicized our federal courts are.
	I mean, we're seeing courts in the Justice Department go to great lengths to help everybody who, even people who set people on fire during the BLM riots, take a walk.
	I mean, for example, this week it came out, and this is one of the reasons why you filed lawsuits, it came out in discovery that the mayor of Seattle was prepared to give Black Lives Matter the police precinct itself.
	Some of the police precincts in Seattle itself within the CHAZ zone were going to be handed over to BLM, who apparently has been busy buying Canadian commie real estate, ex-commie-owned real estate in Canada.
	That's what they're doing.
	They're building a real estate empire.
	Apparently they're motivated to...
	Maybe by some of the same people as red-handed in terms of their motivations of the leaders of Black Lives Matter in terms of their organizational activity.
	While some of those defendants in those cases, they're recommending lower sentences or just getting to completely walk away even when people were died as a consequence of their actions.
	Here they're, and I've seen them, same federal courts, put elderly people in prison for five years over tax issues.
	Or sometimes old tax issues.
	You know, I mean, it's the politicization of the federal judiciary has always been present.
	We're just seeing it on amplified display over what happened in 2020.
	Because if he was going to flee, he would have already fled.
	He didn't flee.
	He was out for, you know, over about a year since the incident, knew he was under criminal investigation, never fled.
	So there couldn't be more compelling evidence.
	The person is not a flight risk.
	The constitutional standard is supposed to be that there's no other conditions of release that you could impose that would prevent flight.
	And what that means is the person has to be more likely than not to flee, number one.
	And number two, more likely than not to be successful fleeing.
	Here's the reality.
	Less than 1% of all criminal defendants ever flee.
	It is a minuscule probability.
	And if you look at who flees, who flees?
	People that are gangbangers, people that have been in the criminal world their whole life, people that are not U.S. citizens.
	Nobody else practically flees.
	It's a tiny, tiny, tiny percentage.
	And not just that.
	Who the hell can flee in today's day and age?
	You need to be double vaccinated to leave the country.
	So people are ragging on the vaccination department.
	These are the days of back holiday where you could just travel across state lines and never get extradited.
	Those days are gone.
	It's nuts.
	But I just want to plug, because you mentioned it, this came up in a podcast I did with Coffee and a Mic today, which I tweeted out.
	We had briefly discussed the BLM American version, buying lots of real estate in Canada, fancy real estate.
	And I said, I don't judge anybody by their success.
	I don't judge anybody by the way they live unless they tell other people to live in a way that is not in conformity with the way they live.
	So I don't mind politicians traveling.
	How does owning X company real estate in Canada help Black Lives Matter?
	Well, Robert, getting there in a second.
	I was going to say, politicians traveling to Bermuda, I don't care.
	Unless you're sitting there saying, lock down and hunker down and don't see your family because of COVID, but I'm going to scamper off to wherever.
	I don't mind consistency.
	I mind hypocrisy.
	So the BLM saying, we're a socialist Marxist movement.
	You know, eat the rich.
	But I'm going to go get rich.
	Yeah, you might have crossed the line of hypocrite somewhere along the lines.
	So, coffee and a mic.
	I did a podcast with him today.
	It was great.
	It's on Twitter.
	Yeah, so they're going to lock this guy up indefinitely.
	And so everybody doesn't know.
	I'm not trying to glamorize Mr. Rhodes.
	I forget his first name.
	That's the only reason why I'm Mr. in him.
	The dude is not a nobody.
	He's a lawyer.
	He's an ex-military vet.
	I don't know where he lost his eye, but he wears a patch, which I think is going to be great ammunition for left-wing media to demonize the guy with the patch.
	They do that with photos always.
	I mean, go back to Trayvon Martin.
	They portrayed him with a photo that was much younger than he actually was at the time, whereas they portray...
	The people they don't like...
	They show you the mug shots of.
	The people they do like, you know, Ahmaud Arbery, for example, you know, they portrayed him in his, you know, like his, I think his high school senior photo.
	You know, God bless, but that wasn't what he was on that day.
	But I think we have four other topics, one of which is the Edgecombe trial, another is the mask dispute in Virginia, another is Google, and another is Rittenhouse bail.
	So on Rittenhouse bail, we can get to briefly.
	Okay, let's go.
	Lin Wood agreed to the distribution that he had agreed with me six months ago.
	Back it up even more.
	They had, because Pierce had raised, what was it, a million plus in bond that they had to post?
	Well, yeah, so the back story is, well, two million.
	Two million was raised for bail.
	And it was raised through the Fightback Foundation by Lin Wood.
	And so Lin Wood had agreed many months ago with me that he was amenable to basically splitting the money.
	There was $150,000 that was due to Ricky Schroeder and that the rest split 50-50.
	Who's Ricky Schroeder?
	Go ahead.
	Who's Ricky Schroeder?
	Oh, an actor.
	Okay.
	Why is $150,000?
	He contributed $150,000 towards bail on the grounds that it would be paid back to him if bail was exonerated.
	That money always had to go back.
	The question was the remainder, about $1.85 million.
	What Linwood had agreed with me was he would agree to split it 50-50 if there was grounds to do so, and he was amenable to that from day one.
	They came back to that settlement, and Linwood, to his credit, kept his word.
	So $925,000 went back to the Fightback Foundation, and $925,000 went to a trust for Kyle's benefit in terms of securing legal expenses, securing security and safety costs, making sure he can continue to function while he's the continuous target of harassment.
	While that harassment has gone down, it has not been completely eliminated.
	It still occurs, still happens.
	There's still crazy people out there that misconstrue and misunderstand the kid.
	But so that was a good settlement.
	And then somebody that had...
	Now, one of the concerns I had raised way back was that John Pierce owed a lot of money to a lot of people and that that made it dangerous for him to be involved in the case period and definitely be anywhere near fundraising.
	While John Pierce, to his credit, withdrew any request for any of the funds to come to him.
	But that took forever to get him to get to, to be frank.
	I had harassed Tim Pool, no less, to help motivate Johnny Boy.
	And Cassandra Fairbanks, I think, has still blocked me on Twitter because I was critical of her promotion of John Pierce at the time.
	But to his credit, he finally withdrew.
	But it turned out, Johnny Boy...
	Ode a bunch of litigation-related debts.
	And those companies appeared, and they were like, well, one of them did.
	They're like, no, this money belongs with us.
	And this was the risk of having John Pierce anywhere near any case concerning John Pierce.
	But the court, you know, some people were saying if Biden wanted to put a really no-nonsense judge on the bench, he should put Judge Schroeder on the Supreme Court.
	That's the other topic we have to briefly discuss.
	I'm going to bring this up.
	I'm going to bring this up.
	Edward Langer says, Viva, let Barnes finish his point.
	You're starting to be rude.
	Edward, I know you like Barnes more than me.
	I remember your comments and I don't hold it against you.
	But I will interrupt Barnes where I think it's necessary for the crowd to understand what's going on.
	And Edward, seriously, jokes aside, thank you for coming back because I haven't seen you in a while.
	But Robert, I want people to appreciate this.
	In Canada, we can't even take money into our lawyer bank account if it's an advance on legal fees.
	Specifically because our bank account can get seized by creditors, and if we have trust money, which is in advance on legal fees, it's not ours, so it has to go into a trust account.
	You don't have this requirement in the States.
	No, we do.
	We absolutely do.
	But the problem is, Pierce has figured out a way to resolve his debts by...
	Borrowing money from litigation funders.
	And that's a risky environment.
	It was especially risky when they were raising money from the public.
	I raised this concern early and often.
	Got a lot of pushback from a range of people, including people like Cassandra Fairbanks who blocked me.
	But it turned out to be a problem.
	But the based Judge Schroeder responded by pointing out that they didn't even have a Wisconsin lawyer there to advocate their point.
	So he wasn't interested in what they had to say.
	So he just threw them out.
	And the deal that protects Kyle's immediate security future was preserved and protected.
	And again, I negotiated that six months ago.
	So I was glad to see.
	And credit to Lin Wood for keeping his word on that.
	Because legally, Lin Wood was in the right.
	Legally, he had the stronger legal position.
	I didn't think he was morally in the right.
	But legally, he had the stronger position in terms of Wisconsin law.
	It generally authorizes the money to return to the person who put it in, and the Fightback Foundation is the one that produced it.
	And I had worked extensively negotiating with Wood's people to come to a better solution that could protect Kyle's needs, which was the original intention of those donors.
	And to his credit, he kept his word, even after there had been a lot of criticism focused on him that politically I thought was unnecessary, but that ship has sailed.
	Credit to Linwood for doing it, and it was good for Kyle to get that bail granted.
	Now, in terms of speaking of people who got caught red-handed, Google got caught red-handed twice this past week.
	First, the state of Arizona that filed suit on the grounds that Google's entire, and then D.C. followed suit after Arizona won in state court in Arizona.
	And what the suit is based on is the fact that Google's entire model is based on tracking you and surveilling you on a constant, continuous basis, much like Facebook, much like the others.
	With an addition, and I shall interrupt you, Robert, you cannot control or prevent them from doing it because it's baked into the undeletable apps, despite warranties and representations, unless I misunderstood the lawsuit.
	That's exactly right.
	I mean, the issue is their business model is based on something they can't achieve.
	Their business model is based on tracking people constantly and surveilling them continuously, often in secret.
	But the problem is that people don't want that.
	And because people don't want that, they have to engage in illegal conduct for their whole business model to work.
	And their illegal conduct, aside from all their antitrust behavior, their illegal conduct is they lied to you.
	They tell you, you can go into privacy mode and that they won't be able to track you and they won't be able to trace you and they won't be able to surveil you when they built in through all their free apps.
	Because again, if something's free, you're the product.
	That's what they did and that's how they used it.
	And so Arizona brought suit that it was consumer fraud under Arizona law.
	Arizona won the summary judgment motion, almost all of it.
	I put it up on our locals board so people can see the highlighted versions of it.
	At vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	And so it was a big win against Google because, again, Google has admitted 95% of their advertising profits derived from location services.
	And the reality is probably 95% of the people would prevent them from doing so if they could technologically.
	But Google precludes it because of their monopoly influence over the Android system and of the App Store.
	And then the District of Columbia followed suit and brought suit against them on those grounds.
	More and more attorney generals are looking at bringing suit.
	More and more individuals are bringing suit.
	And it's the kind of suit that if the damages were honest damages, Google wouldn't exist anymore in its current business model.
	So it will be interesting to see how it ultimately develops.
	But that was very good legal news for the week.
	And the basis of the lawsuits were consumer protection laws and not antitrust laws, right?
	So it's basically fraudulent warranties and representations that they're not delivering on, and they don't need to argue monopoly or the other complicated arguments in law.
	They're going after consumer protection law, which is, generally speaking, interpreted very much in favor of the consumers, not in favor of the big bastard companies.
	And speaking of which, yeah, the antitrust suit, the biggest one they face outside of the government suits, is Rumble's suit against Google, which is marching forward in Oakland, California.
	And they haven't even moved to dismiss the entire case.
	They've tried to move to dismiss part of the case, waiting on the judge's ruling, but part of it's going to go into discovery.
	And so the Rumble is going to get to discover a lot of interesting things about what Google has been up to.
	So Google continues to face a lot of legal risk from a lot of legal places.
	And I think they're hoping the Biden administration helps bail them out.
	Their friends in China help bail them out.
	But they may be increasingly at serious, substantial exposure that's being underrated in parts of the market that don't fully understand exactly what the consequences of some of these suits can be.
	So all of that will be interesting to watch.
	And what did Zuckerberg ultimately name his kid at the request of?
	Well, even President Xi of China said it was inappropriate for him to name Zuckerberg's kid.
	So even Xi has limits that Zuckerberg doesn't.
	Fantastic.
	I'm going to bring this one up.
	Please run.
	Never write if you can speak.
	Never speak if you can nod.
	Never nod.
	It's beautiful.
	I screenshotted that twice because I love it.
	By Barnes.
	If he knows where it's from.
	$20 SC coming in barns is the info goat, greatest of all time.
	Robert, what were the other two subjects that we had to close up before I add one more to the list?
	So, yeah, another one is the Virginia system.
	Virginia school districts didn't like the governors.
	I mean, it shows elections have consequences.
	Virginia won, the Republicans won legislative seats, the governorship, and the attorney general.
	The attorney general reversed the old attorney general and said, no, you cannot mandate vaccines, universities in Virginia, because you don't have that statutory authority from the legislature, which was the proper interpretation compared to the last politically motivated attorney general.
	The governor came in and said, it's time to free the kids.
	And no more mask mandates can be, you know, and that this should be up and local parents should be determining local school policy.
	And some local school districts were so enraged, they filed suit demanding the mask go back on those three-year-olds and four-year-olds and five-year-olds.
	We'll see how those suits turn out.
	So far, when those suits have faced the higher appellate level, they have lost.
	But at the district court level, there's courts in Tennessee, courts in Texas, courts in other places that have tried to force masks on children on the grounds that somehow it protects the disabled, which makes no sense to me whatsoever.
	It's fascinating.
	The violations of the ADA are that the entire process of what's happening is the vaccine mandates and mask mandates is what violates the ADA.
	Not an absence of a vaccine or a mask mandate, but the courts are only applying it in one way or other in the other way in too many of these instances.
	But I think ultimately the governor will win those cases, but we'll see how they ultimately translate.
	I'm just imagining, first of all, I'm reading this chat, but I'm imagining a world in which people get vaccinated and believe that others need to be vaccinated to protect them.
	They wear masks and then believe that other people need to wear masks to protect them.
	They are vaccinated.
	Well, speaking of insanity...
	The good Louisiana pastor, I think it's Tony Spell, if I recall correctly, his name.
	First, he's facing criminal misdemeanor allegations in East Baton Rouge for simply holding church during the pandemic, which is absurd.
	I mean, it's just like the Canadian pastor case.
	But it's not been covered enough because that should not be happening, period.
	And now he faces additional fines because he shot and killed an alligator in the backyard of his church.
	And it turns out that there's special, I don't know where these laws and rules came from by some Louisiana bureaucrat, who knows, but apparently you've got to be careful before you kill an alligator in your own backyard.
	And this is like Louisiana where they've got plenty of those.
	I mean, I thought, you know, there's the great TV show that I like to watch with the alligator hunters down in the bayou.
	I was unaware of this regulatory rule, and it sounds as ridiculous, almost as ridiculous, as him facing criminal charges.
	For simply holding church during a pandemic, especially in the state of Louisiana, the same state where there's a current suit against the mayor of New Orleans who's trying to impose a vaccine passport on little children.
	That will be going to Orleans Parish.
	The case already been filed and there'll be hearings soon.
	Hopefully the Louisiana courts step in before all of this insanity related to the pandemic policy goes any further.
	The charges for killing the alligator, was it reckless discharge of a firearm or was it killing an animal?
	You can't kill an alligator without special permission, apparently, outside of limited circumstances.
	I've never heard of this.
	This is what happens when you let bureaucrats determine regulatory policy.
	I remember years ago, somebody got arrested for catching the wrong fish at the wrong time on a public park.
	I mean, it's like, where do these rules come from?
	Well, see, catching...
	This is what, Robert, where they go haywire is you can catch a fish that you're not supposed to catch if you're not fishing for it deliberately.
	But even if it dies for whatever the reason, you hook it in the gill, you have to throw the dead fish back in the water.
	You can't keep it.
	These are some of the laws in Canada.
	So you're not allowed fishing for, let's just say, bass and walleye during spawning season.
	So you can't specifically target them.
	So there's certain lures and whatever.
	If you catch them, you have to throw them back, even if they die.
	It's bureaucrats who have no idea of anything, but just more laws, less justice.
	I mean, I guess the solution is you kill the alligator.
	You don't tell anybody you kill the alligator.
	You just get some alligator boots out of it.
	Well, I mean, if they're eating the alligator, I have absolutely no problem with killing the alligator.
	Robert, the gift I brought back for my kid.
	Was an alligator head from...
	I mean, I feel sick.
	It's an actual alligator head from one of those gift shops in Miami Beach.
	But I made sure to ask and verify on the paper the alligators were farmed, used for their meat and skin, and they're just finding an extra use for their dehydrated heads, which are quite...
	It made someone...
	It's an amazing gift.
	Everyone's a little grossed out.
	I need to field one, Robert.
	Peckford.
	Brian Peckford, who is allegedly, not allegedly, apparently, the last living drafter of the 1982 Charter of Rights in Canada.
	The one that I've been talking about for two years, which is not worth the digital paper on which it appears on the interwebs.
	Peckford is a Nova Scotia, someone correct me, New Brunswick or Nova Scotia, drafter of the 1982 Constitution.
	The Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada, who is suing the federal government.
	For, I believe it's the travel restrictions, the requirements to be vaccinated to travel, but for some of the restrictions that have been imposed because of COVID.
	And look, he's invoking the exact same provisions of the Charter that I have been saying have been violated for two years.
	Mobility rights, enjoyment of property.
	There's any number of them between Article 2 and Article 7. He will be taken seriously by court.
	People say, Viva, why aren't you suing?
	It's not to be denigrating or to be modest or to be lazy.
	I am not an asset in front of court as a plaintiff.
	I would be a liability.
	I'm not an asset in front of court as a lawyer.
	I would be a liability because I have a social media presence and I've said things that if I get in front of a judge, they will look at me with the same stink eye they might look at a January 6th individual.
	Peckford...
	Who is one of the original drafters, the last living drafter of the 1982 Constitution, has a little more clout and respect, like it or leave it, in front of the court.
	He's filed suit.
	What do I think of the suit?
	It should succeed on the merits.
	Because what they've been doing for the last two years has been entirely unconstitutional and wholly unscientific.
	But you've got to get to the hearing on the merits.
	I don't think, from what I understand of the lawsuit, they've made the mistake of going for an injunction, which has a higher threshold of evidence.
	We've seen it, Robert.
	He's gone for a permanent injunction, declaration that these measures are unconstitutional.
	They should succeed on the merits, especially because by the time it gets around to a hearing on the merits, this urgency, this crisis will probably be declared over if it's following the tangent that it's been on right now.
	So it's inspiring, it's encouraging, but people have to appreciate...
	Assets and liabilities in life and in court.
	And I know where my assets are in life, and I know where my liabilities are in life right now.
	Peckford is from Newfoundland.
	Sorry, thank you very much.
	I don't think it's Peckford.
	I think it's Peckford.
	It's from Newfoundland.
	Maritime province.
	Saying that what they're doing is unscientific and unconstitutional, and it cannot be justified.
	Godspeed, because I think he should win, and if all things go well, he will win.
	Robert?
	The two other topics we had was the Edgecombe...
	Well, we had like 50 potential topics, but two of the ones to get to this week are the Edgecombe trial verdict and the Queen's Gambit Netflix defamation suit.
	On the Edgecombe trial, there was a lot of...
	This was the trial of the individual African-American was on a bike in Milwaukee.
	He got into some sort of dispute with a lawyer who was driving.
	The lawyer ended up...
	Getting shot and killed by the man on the bike.
	The man on the bike left, I guess you could say, for six months.
	And so he was charged with first-degree murder and then the lower categories of murder.
	And his defense was that it was self-defense.
	And there was a good amount of skepticism by a range of people on that self-defense claim.
	But from my listening to the closing arguments, it wasn't quite clear to me that self-defense...
	Didn't apply at some level.
	The issue was that, you know, there was no evidence that the lawyer used a weapon against him.
	At the time, he pulled a gun and shot him in the head.
	And then the fact that he fled.
	What's interesting is his lawyer did a very good job of using the fact that he fled, which was going to come into trial, as a way to pick the jury.
	And excluded from the jury, anybody who thought fleeing automatically met guilt.
	And so that's why I think he did a really good job in jury selection, number one.
	Number two is closing argument, which I understand, you know, for some people they were critical of, but I think was actually the smarter closing argument than the government's, which was, it was heavily rhetorical, it was very emotional, and it appealed to a range of cases like the Arbery case and other cases.
	And the defense's version was he got into a dispute with him, he punched him in the mouth, he fled on his bike.
	All of a sudden, the lawyer chased him down, the lawyer hopped out, that his physical demeanor and disposition, he thought he was at risk, and that's why he fired the gun.
	Now, legally, the question is whether he really believed he was defending himself, and then secondly, whether that belief was reasonable.
	If he really believed he was defending himself, but it was unreasonable, then he's guilty of reckless homicide.
	If he really believed he was defending himself and it was reasonable, Under Wisconsin law, then he is not guilty of either.
	A lot of people thought he would be convicted of first-degree murder.
	The jury did not.
	The jury convicted him of reckless homicide.
	And the defense, you know, laced their commentary, not only with a lot of emotional appeals and historical analogies, they quoted, you know, famous people.
	I think that style of defense is often better than a prosecution that's kind of more limited and narrow as their prosecution presentation was.
	The one thing that, you know, a lot of people that were critical of the verdict, my thing was, one, it did appear the lawyer chased him down from the brief video that they do have.
	And then the second part, he's chasing down a guy on a bike.
	What was he planning on doing?
	You know, having a discussion over being hit earlier?
	The second thing is it turned out he didn't have a knife in his pocket.
	What was that knife for?
	So, you know, I...
	I did think there was reasonable doubt as to first-degree murder under the circumstances, or at least I saw a credible argument for that, and I thought the jury probably made the right verdict.
	There were some people that were very critical of that jury verdict because they thought he was guilty of first-degree murder.
	I didn't see evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of that.
	But again, I only watched the closing arguments.
	I only knew of the facts, the overview.
	I was tuning into Nick Ricada.
	Everyone knows Nick.
	Yeah, he did a great job.
	He did a great job breaking it down.
	Had it with Andrew Bronco.
	Good Logic was on there.
	Legal Bytes was on there.
	So it's a great format he's doing of presenting it.
	And he has to remind people that they're going to make live commentary during the trial because that's the point of them doing a panel.
	And if you want just the uncensored part, you can always go to...
	Law and Crime, because they need the subscribers these days, apparently.
	But yeah, it's a great style of presentation.
	It's introducing people to the substance of trials.
	And Nick does a great job in that all the way across the board.
	Everyone in the chat, you can call me the coward.
	You can call me the pushover.
	You can accuse Robert and I of being easy people to steal from because we don't believe that theft should escalate to being shot.
	If I get punched in the face...
	By someone on a bike at a traffic light?
	I'm not chasing them down.
	My goodness, I'm collecting my teeth.
	I'm definitely not doing it in Milwaukee.
	I'll collect my teeth.
	I'll go to the cops and the dentist, probably in that order.
	But to chase someone down in your vehicle...
	It's not to say...
	It appears he was drunk.
	It appears from the blood alcohol test that he was drunk.
	Well, that might explain the heightened sense of impunity.
	And when I found out he had a knife in the pocket, that sounds like a guy that was coming at with an aggressive, violent posture.
	That tells me other things about what a person could reasonably perceive him or perceive him.
	Maybe unreasonably.
	And I think that's where the jury made a reasonable verdict.
	They're like, that reaction was an excessive reaction and not reasonable.
	But we believe you really believed it was reasonable.
	And that's where reckless homicide is what the verdict was.
	Someone said Edgecombe didn't see the knife.
	He's being chased down.
	Yeah, there's no evidence he did.
	But the key to me of that, why does that still matter then?
	It's because we're not there to see what his physical, the lawyer's physical posture looks like.
	All of the body language we can't really see from the video.
	The fact that he's got a knife in his pocket tells me something about what it's likely his body language looked like.
	And it wasn't, hey, how are you?
	Let's cut a deal and let's feel better and go home about this.
	Just give me an advance for my dental work and we'll be on our way.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Bottom line.
	It would have been easy to avoid, and you can argue over the justice after the tragedy.
	But what's the Queen's Gambit defamation suit?
	I didn't even get to that.
	What's fascinating is it turns out that really maybe the whole Queen's Gambit story, you know it's based on a novel, was heavily inspired by a highly successful Russian chess female player who had to deal with a lot of discrimination in her successes.
	And the movie decided to name her...
	And say that the fictional character actually played against men, unlike her.
	Except that was completely false.
	She played against men all the time.
	And she was trying to overcome the obstacles of sexism in her actual life history.
	Her life history might be more interesting than the fictional Queen's Gambit popular series on Netflix.
	And they just lied about her.
	And so she filed a libel lawsuit.
	Netflix said they had all these different defenses.
	That, well, it was substantially true, which it wasn't.
	It was patently false.
	Their other defense, they brought an anti-slap claim to make it expensive for the fact that she sued.
	They argued that no one would think that it was being factual because, hey, it's a fictional series.
	That would be my defense.
	That was my defense.
	The problem is they used a real name.
	If you do a fictional show...
	That uses real people's names, and it's not coincidental that you're using their names, and there's no question it wasn't coincidental that they used her name, because she was an actual historical person who had, in fact, played against men, and they said she hadn't.
	They wanted to say, look how great Queen's Gambit is, this fictional character, unlike this historical person, who really actually lived the real story that we're kind of hijacking and not paying for.
	Arguably, she could have had additional arguments.
	But she was just, because they lied about me in the film.
	And they did lie about her in the film.
	None of their defenses flew, and the judge recognized that.
	He's like, these defenses don't fly.
	If you do a fictional movie but recognize a real person in the middle of it, that's a clear reference to a historical fact, because a lot of fictional films borrow from historical fact to authenticate their fictional film in the sense of making it accurate.
	Historically, of being something that's believable and trustworthy.
	And that's what they did.
	And so it clearly...
	Her suit was right.
	It turns out Queen's Gambit made a gambit that didn't work on the chessboard or in court.
	And my biggest complaint about it was when I watched it.
	I was like, why didn't they...
	I think I'm thinking of the same person.
	I was like, why did they not just make this a documentary on the actual woman and not some...
	Some fantasy.
	They couldn't actually find an inspirational female chess player who actually existed and did what the Queen's Gambit did.
	They had to make some fictional fantasy and throw in some other...
	And that's based on the novelist, but the novelist was honest about her history.
	And that was their other excuse.
	Well, we didn't know.
	And the judge was like, it's in the book.
	And he's like, a simple Google search discovers it.
	And you were consulting chess experts.
	All of them knew this.
	They said otherwise.
	That's just complete irresponsibility.
	So it was actual malice because she's a public figure.
	And so it was a good ruling.
	But a ruling that hasn't got a lot of public attention.
	Queen's Gambit's popularity and Netflix's support in a lot of the media.
	Darn it.
	I didn't even know there was a lawsuit.
	I would have been interested in it because I had my issues with the Queen's Gambit as a show.
	And Robert, it seems that we're taking flack in the chat.
	People are saying, you know, this is a problem.
	Yeah, guys, this was the 10-minute overview of two people who did not dive into the depths that Nick Ricada did.
	Oh, and Edgecombe.
	I get a lot of people have strong feelings.
	I think people came into Edgecombe.
	With certain beliefs based on things before the trial.
	Now I understand that there, and it's fascinating watching because I saw a lot of analogies in some of the commenters' reaction to Edgecombe that I saw from the left in Rittenhouse.
	People that had already preconceived something about the story and kept filtering it through that story.
	I knew almost nothing about it.
	All I did was watch the closing arguments from the prosecutor and the defense.
	And I was like, hmm, there's a pretty good self-defense claim here on First Degree.
	Based on the presentation.
	And if the defendant did a really bad job on the stand, well, the prosecutor did an awful job of presenting that in close.
	And so some of it was stylistically, I think, from a jury.
	As I've always said, cases are win and loss at jury selection.
	The defense lawyer even mentioned during jury, it showed you how important it was in closing argument, that when they had selected him.
	They had said, hey, flight doesn't always equal guilt.
	And by the way, it doesn't.
	I agree with that entirely.
	People flee for a lot of reasons.
	And it was smart to tap into the cultural experience and to tap into the Arbery case.
	That's a smart defense work.
	You might disagree with the analogies, but that's just smart defense work.
	Giving an explanation for why.
	I think the key thing was there were people who perceived, at least according to the defense lawyer, this defendant as someone who didn't have a bad history otherwise.
	So that, I think, filtered things.
	Second thing, if all you do is watch that video, You see a guy on a little bike and all of a sudden a car pull up right behind him and somebody hop out.
	I'll be honest.
	That strikes me as someone who's being aggressive and provocative.
	That doesn't, you know, I mean, it just looks that way.
	Again, this is about beyond a reasonable doubt standard.
	All presumptions in favor of the defendant.
	And then the cop, they did document that the cop screwed up.
	I mean, that's almost every case.
	People don't realize it.
	But there was, I mean, they documented a bunch of mistakes the cops made.
	So it's like, okay, I'm supposed to convict a guy of first-degree murder?
	Again, just based on closing arguments, I see the jury being right about reasonable doubt about first-degree murder.
	I understand other people have different assumptions and different beliefs.
	That's fine.
	Have at it.
	But at least from the closing arguments, that was the more persuasive claim.
	And in fairness to me, just so everybody knows out there, Edgecombe was black and the victim was white.
	His wife was Filipino.
	According to the comments that Nick and Andrew were making, Andrew Branca and Nick Riccato were making during the close, some of the claims of the defense lawyer that were not objected to during close made it look like the lawyer was part of the white power structure.
	I don't know if that's true or not.
	I don't recognize his name, so I doubt that was true.
	I think he was a drunk lawyer who got pissed and decided to escalate a fight in a dumb way.
	That's my view.
	General rule in life, folks.
	Never mess with someone who has a higher threshold of pain than you do.
	Or a higher threshold of violence than you do.
	And if you don't know that answer, presume it's higher.
	I was going to say, you never know that until you do it.
	Just don't do it.
	Go home with a bruise, but go home alive.
	And when I heard the facts and I knew nothing about it, I didn't know race and I had no racial filter through which to analyze this.
	I was like, okay, fine.
	Punch him in the face.
	You talk about provocation and then...
	What's the word?
	Two steps back, Robert?
	And then when I hear the guy chases him down in a car and gets up, I know what I'm thinking.
	I don't know enough to come to any conclusions.
	I just know that had everyone calmed down and gone home, they would be alive today.
	Or their lives would not be ruined.
	So not...
	What was it?
	Reckless?
	Reckless homicide.
	What was that carry for a maximum charge?
	They believed he would face first-degree murder.
	Yeah.
	So what they concluded is that the defendant leaked.
	Now, maybe they didn't go through.
	Maybe this was their public policy balancing check.
	They didn't like the lawyer's conduct.
	They didn't like the defendant's conduct.
	But so they decided to compromise on reckless homicide.
	You know, that could have been what practically went on.
	But legally, it's the defendant really believed he had to defend himself with the use of force that he used.
	But that belief was unreasonable.
	And that's what drops it from first degree to reckless homicide.
	So I think that's where I saw it.
	And I think what this person is saying wouldn't surprise me in terms of interpretation of events.
	But again, even without the race issue involved, though I think it matters in lived experience.
	Put it this way, if there were black jurors on that jury, they're going to be more sympathetic to the black guy on a bike getting chained by the white lawyer in the car.
	Just realistically.
	And that's more consistent with their lived experience in many instances.
	It's just, now they don't, they didn't, for whatever reason, they didn't have video of the, in my understanding, there wasn't reference to it in the closing, of the earlier confrontation.
	And so we'll, and a lot of people said he was awful on the stand.
	Well, then the prosecutor did a real lousy closing argument.
	And the question is, how much of that is eye of the beholder?
	Remember, people that didn't like the Rittenhouse case or didn't like Chauvin or didn't like the lady cop that was put on trial, they all said the same thing, right?
	That tends to be very eye-of-the-beholder belief.
	I'm a little skeptical that he did terrible on the stand when the prosecution almost never referenced it in close, unless the prosecution is just incompetent.
	And someone says 60 years max for reckless homicide.
	Is there a minimum?
	Is there a statutory minimum for reckless homicide?
	Well, in Wisconsin, my understanding of sentencing is pretty flexible.
	Unless it's changed.
	He'd probably get like 10 years.
	Alright, this dude's still going to jail.
	Everyone's life is ruined.
	Much in the same way of the McMichaels and Ahmaud Arbery.
	Robert, this has been amazing.
	We've surpassed our time limit, but only because we had too much on the menu.
	Who do we have tomorrow night for the sidebar?
	Patrick Witt, who's running for Congress in Georgia.
	And who was with me in the foxhole in the election law disputes in Georgia and worked in the Trump White House.
	I actually went to Yale, too.
	And he's experienced a wide range of crazy things that have influenced his decision to try to make a difference by running for office directly.
	So we'll have him on.
	And then in the coming weeks, we may have the Duran on to discuss.
	They had a very good video.
	Not only on Ukraine, but on Trudeau.
	The despicable nature of his speech that he gave.
	They called it the second deplorable speech.
	Which I thought was a good analogy.
	It'd be fun to have them back on.
	And then there's a bunch of other people we have invites to that we'll see.
	Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	And not to commit someone who's not here, but I believe Jenna Ellis would be interested in coming on here.
	And I will be going on Jenna Ellis.
	We've got a full lineup coming up.
	Tomorrow, people, let me just get this chat out.
	I'm going to be in Ottawa tomorrow.
	I might, Robert, I mean, this is where I have to figure things out.
	I might be getting the interview with two dogs.
	Sorry, go for it.
	I would say briefly, yes, Breyer retired.
	Look for the judge.
	Breyer has the...
	I mean, not on the schedule that he wanted, but he retired.
	And Biden has said he'll only pick someone based on their race and their gender.
	They have to be an African-American female.
	Look for it to be the judge from South Carolina, the district court judge from South Carolina that Lindsey Graham went out and promoted today, basically admitting he will vote for out of the gate.
	And that gives him the 50, that gives Biden the 51st vote that he needs.
	That South Carolina district court judge is part of the, well.
	Protected by the Jim Clyburn political machine, which has a lot of power in South Carolina.
	And so look for her to probably be the Supreme Court nominee from the Biden administration.
	I'll get into greater detail probably on our locals board about her political history.
	I have about a dozen Hush Hush episodes coming this month in February.
	To catch up, a little bit behind.
	And we'll be doing some bourbon with Barnes.
	And I'll be posting information about the vaccine mandates, including some of the medical scientific issues, debate related there too, exclusively at thevivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	And I might try to do a local...
	I'm going to do more locals exclusive live streams, like maybe once a week.
	I can't keep up with your pace, Robert.
	Tomorrow...
	I may have to try to figure things out so we can have a free discussion with a couple of the doctors who might do some quick interviews.
	We'll see how we do it.
	Kamala Harris.
	What are the odds on Kamala Harris being a Supreme Court Justice, Robert?
	Zero.
	End it for once and for all.
	Okay.
	Amazing.
	Tomorrow night, people.
	Tomorrow night, during the day, I will be in Ottawa live streaming with my five battery packs.
	Sunday night, we're going to do this.
	And I hope everyone likes this.
	This was amazing.
	Robert, it was fantastic.
	We had breakfast together on Sunday in Miami.
	What was the place called?
	Havana, 1957?
	Havana, 1957.
	It's a local chain that produces food and drinks consistent with Havana in 1957.
	I went to Miami for the mojitos in Miami.
	But it was good.
	The Project Veritas experience was fun, too.
	I didn't have drinks for breakfast.
	I had a coffee and I had a lot of meat.
	With eggs.
	It was delicious.
	It was a version of a Cuban coffee that you had.
	Yeah, it was delicious.
	And one day, people, we'll see.
	All right.
	Everyone, just stay tuned.
	Tomorrow, 10 o 'clock in the morning, War Room.
	Jack Posobiec is filling in for Steve Bannon.
	I'm going to be on for 12 minutes.
	And then I am marching up to the Capitol Hill.
	Parliament Hill.
	I'm in trouble now.
	Parliament.
	Tomorrow, all day live stream.
	And then the live stream tomorrow night with Robert with the sidebar.
	People.
	See you tomorrow.
	Robert, stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.

▲