Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 20, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

02:12:37

Ep. 101 - Viva & Barnes LIVE! From Ottawa to Washington Law Stuffs

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good evening.
	People, let's get in focus here.
	Okay, we're focused.
	We are centered.
	Eh, I think I put on a few more gray hairs in the last couple of weeks.
	Jeez Louise.
	Salt and pepper.
	They say it adds distinction, except when it's in a bushy fro, it might not add distinction.
	Winston, hold on a second.
	What do you have to say?
	Yes.
	Would you like to say hi to the world?
	Your breath smells like cat food.
	Winston says hi.
	Everyone in the chat, good evening.
	Oi!
	Yeah, what a time to be alive, eh?
	I'm sitting here thinking, if this is not the end of Trudeau, politically speaking, this is the end of Canada, politically speaking.
	This is...
	It's a world gone mad.
	There's no other way to describe it.
	For those of you who don't know what's going on, there have been three weeks of protest in Ottawa.
	I can't even make it as a joke and presume that nobody knows what's been going on in Canada.
	I think what's been going on in Canada is more well-known outside of Canada than it is in Canada.
	I think people outside of Canada are more well-informed than many Canadians living in Canada, because at least outside of Canada, people don't rely on...
	CBC News, CTV News, Global, to be utterly misinformed as to what is going on in Canada.
	The paid lapdogs of the government.
	And even them, I don't think they're able to hide what's going on anymore because they were live streaming from the protests or live reporting from the protests, as I was as well.
	And they were capturing things which cannot be unseen and cannot be viewed.
	And cannot be removed from the interwebs once broadcast.
	Like police officers, you would think the police officers were like, I don't know when you would ever need to knee another living creature.
	It was like they were trying to subdue an alligator in their arrests.
	So, you know, before I even get into the rant, I saw chats come up.
	I'm going to address the chats.
	First, I'm going to thank everyone for everything.
	The last three weeks have been...
	Atrocious and magnificent at the same time.
	Okay, let me read these.
	First of all, Super Chats.
	YouTube takes 30% of Super Chats.
	If nobody likes that or you don't like that, I can understand that.
	We are simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	Rumble takes 20% of their equivalent, known as Rumble Rants.
	And the best way that anyone can support, if you want, like, ongoing bang for the buck, vivabarneslaw.locals.com, where you get Robert's exclusive...
	Robert is much more prolific in terms of exclusive content on Rumble than me.
	I prefer the general, you know, I can't compete with Robert's brains when it comes to a lot of stuff, and I've recognized that.
	So I bring the human side of locals, and Barnes brings the truth on locals.
	So we're there.
	If Canada has another election tomorrow, I'm fairly certain Trudeau would win again.
	This is quite depressing.
	Oh, yeah.
	So before I get into the rant, because it's going to be one hell of a rant, stop delivering to cities.
	They want trucks gone, so agree with their demands.
	Do we know when the debate over the Emergencies Act will take place?
	Do we know when the debate over the Emergencies Act will take place yet?
	And this is where I've got to get into.
	In a second.
	Zachariah Kitzman.
	I love that name.
	We'll smuggle you and the truckers out if we have to, Viva.
	The Underground Convoy.
	We make jokes and I don't even know what's funny anymore because we've descended into such outrageous levels of madness.
	Where do we start?
	I was featured on a...
	I was featured.
	I was in a CTV W5.
	A W5 is like one of the longest-running investigative journalism thingy things in Canadian television on CTV.
	Kevin Newman reported or came to interview me to talk about Rumble, internet, social media stuff.
	And they ran a piece.
	It became clear to me during the interview with Kevin Newman, who was in our living room, that it was...
	Not a hit piece per se, but that they were, for whatever the reason, not favorable of Rumble.
	And I didn't know that I was going to be used as the tool through which to go after Rumble.
	And so we...
	It's a dog here in my mouth.
	So we did this interview a month ago or so, waiting for it to air in February.
	And they aired it.
	They first primed it with a couple of articles in the news, calling it Rumble catering to the far right of the internet.
	And then they started off by talking about...
	Me walking through the protests, documenting, interviewing people, just, you know, unfiltered, just listening to people talk.
	And during the broadcast, at one point, they said, Viva Fry, who's had videos pulled from YouTube and challenged by Facebook, doesn't have that on Rumble.
	And I'm taking notes in real time, and I was like, that's a lie.
	That's factually incorrect.
	I have never had one video permanently pulled from YouTube.
	I have had exactly one video on my main channel pulled from YouTube.
	And it was the Alex Jones deposition.
	That video was initially monetized, demonetized, then removed from YouTube for allegedly violating the terms of service.
	I mean, I documented all of this at the time.
	And it was, and I appealed.
	I think my appeal was rejected, except two weeks later.
	Unbeknownst to me, the video was not only back on the platform, but re-monetized.
	So I took note and I said privately, you know, if you mention...
	Oh, no, I didn't say it.
	I said this on Twitter.
	I said, if you mention that a video was pulled, you might want to mention that it was put back because the impression you're giving is that somehow I've been using Rumble for the no-good videos on YouTube, and you're also suggesting...
	That any of my content has, one, been pulled from YouTube, and two, challenged by Facebook, which I dare say is also factually incorrect, because I don't think I've ever been challenged by Facebook.
	I don't even know what that means.
	I've never had any issue with Facebook.
	And I've only had one video that was ever pulled of my 2,300 and however many videos, and it was reinstated on YouTube and re-monetized.
	Material facts.
	So we'll see if W5 doesn't air a correction, a retraction and a correction, because like I've been saying, like I said to YouTube at the time, When you pull my video alleging that it violated the terms of service for hate speech, this was an analysis of Alex Jones' deposition.
	And that's what YouTube said.
	I said, when you say that, YouTube, that's defamatory.
	You are suggesting for anyone who now sees that this video is no longer available on YouTube, and the only reason they see it is because it's been removed for violating the terms of service for hate speech, that's defamatory.
	Maybe it was that, that, you know, got to someone's ears and YouTube put it back on YouTube.
	To say that someone's content has been removed because it violates the terms of service for hate speech, if that's not true, it's defamatory.
	And to suggest that content that I've ever made has been pulled from YouTube when there's only been one example and it was reinstated, arguably defamatory, factually incorrect, and should be corrected.
	Now, that wasn't the rant.
	I've been retweeting you to Candace Bergen and Ford Nation, also retweeted all the videos to them.
	Everyone needs to do this.
	Force them to see.
	Marion Holtzman, I love your name, first of all, because my wife's name is Marion.
	Thank you very much.
	So let's get into what's been going on in Canada.
	First of all, Kevin Newman, CTVW5.
	Just correct it.
	Just clarify so that your audience understands.
	Anyone in the chat can find out how many videos I've posted on YouTube on my main channel.
	It's been 2,400, 2,500 since 2014 was my first video.
	Not even my penises of the Met where I went to the Metropolitan Museum of Fine Arts in New York and to make the day fun, I made a montage of all the penises of the statues in the Met.
	Not even that was removed from YouTube.
	That was demonetized.
	I understand.
	I still think it's wrong.
	I understand.
	Not one video that I've ever put up on my main channel has ever been pulled from YouTube for whatever the reason.
	A future of beautiful decorations hanging from land.
	I don't know what that means.
	I don't like the way it sounded.
	I'm sorry.
	Without qualification, without caveat, do not condone violence because it necessarily guarantees the wrong outcome, the wrong response from the government.
	The only depressing thing is, I've been saying this on Twitter, we're at a stage of humanity now where you...
	The government does not even need to stage a Reichstag fire in order to justify declaring a state of emergency.
	They don't even need to have a January 6 in order to say that they've had a January 6. When you own the media, when you own those who control the narrative, when you own the purse strings of government entities, when the federal employees are dependent on the government, when the police are dependent on the government, when the media are dependent on the government, you don't even need to stage your own Reichstag fire.
	You could just say you had one.
	And the media is going to toe the line for you.
	But getting to the rant.
	They've been debating.
	We've talked about this last week.
	Trudeau declared the Emergencies Act.
	He invoked the Emergencies Act.
	It was Monday.
	I'm boning up on this.
	I'm learning about it again because I don't think anybody has ever studied the Emergencies Act in law school, even though it's a law that's out there.
	I don't know any lawyer that's ever studied the Quarantine Act in law school, unless you did a master's in it, for whatever reason.
	Emergencies Act replaced the War Measures Act in 1988.
	The War Measures Act, as far as I understand, was only ever declared once by Justin Trudeau's daddy, Pierre, at a time, arguably, when it was right to declare it.
	Because when the FLQ crisis, Le Front de Libération de Québec, I might have messed it up exactly, but...
	The separatist party, where they were kidnapping members of parliament.
	They were setting off, I don't want to say the words, explosive devices.
	There was actual, like, you know, Irish-British fighting type in the streets in Canada.
	They actually kidnapped and murdered a member of parliament.
	So when Pierre Elliott Trudeau declared the War Measures Act and came in with the full force of the military, it was arguably but probably not arguably definitively more justified.
	He went arguably but probably not arguably way too far with it.
	But even declaring it then when there were explosive devices going off, people being kidnapped, yeah, you can understand it.
	It turned into the Emergencies Act.
	But was supposed to meet the same threshold of national emergencies where the provinces lacked the resources to respond to the national emergency.
	Never been declared.
	Not during the Oka crisis where a police officer was shot and I believe killed.
	Shot and killed, yeah.
	Not during the ice storm in Quebec where people were out of electricity for three weeks to multiple months where people were dying, freezing to death in their houses.
	Not then.
	Not during the...
	The Indigenous protest where they were blockading the railways.
	Not then.
	Declared after an injunction had been granted to end the blockade on the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor.
	Declared after that because of a three-week protest.
	Call it an occupation.
	Trucks parked on Parliament Hill where they were honking their horns for four days in the beginning.
	Declared after three weeks of that where the emergency.
	As attested to by the hysterical members of the Ottawa Council were bouncy castles and hot tubs on Parliament Hill.
	A nuisance, yes.
	A national emergency, no.
	They declared it on Monday.
	They needed to ratify the declaration within seven sitting Parliament days.
	Ratify the declaration and the directives, the orders that were going to be granted in order to respond to the emergency and why they would be necessary, proportionate, etc.
	Except Justin Trudeau, who assured us he was going to be respecting the Charter of Rights.
	He was not going to be suspending the Constitution.
	He wasn't bringing in the military.
	Don't worry about it.
	Spoiler alert.
	I believe I saw something that looked like a military while I was documenting those protests.
	Not going to do that.
	But before they could even ratify or have a vote on the Emergencies Act invocation, they implemented it and authorized banks to seize bank accounts of people involved in the protest.
	Effectively, the...
	I don't think the OPP, the Ontario Provincial Police, were not willing to do this.
	They brought in Quebec police.
	They brought in police from...
	The maroon hats were from...
	Someone's going to get it in the chat.
	They brought in the RCMP.
	And they basically turned what was...
	Call it an occupation, if you will.
	The most peaceful protest that had lasted three weeks you've ever seen.
	Because if you have any doubts, you can go watch my 40-plus hours of livestream documentation.
	They turned it into a war zone.
	And I was there yesterday.
	I was there when they detonated two concussive grenades or flashbangs, for whatever the reason.
	I was there.
	Yesterday, Alexa Lavoie of Rebel Media was shot in the leg point-blank with a tear gas canister after the police apparently deployed pepper spray.
	On reporters, Alexa Lavoie...
	Is a reporter.
	She had her credentials on her chest.
	She had a microphone in her hand.
	And I spoke with her.
	She says and believes, and by all accounts it occurred, the RCMP pointed a tear gas canister gun and fired at her leg.
	And you can see the video.
	It's online.
	And it looked excruciating.
	But I think the reaction is more one of horror at this is what our government is doing to the media.
	This is what the government is doing to our people.
	The police force of the government, call it what you will because it has historical comparisons, coming in to carry out the orders of the tyrants to quell and suppress with the most violent means you can imagine.
	A protest that had lasted three weeks, yes.
	That was a nuisance, probably.
	That was the most peaceful nuisance that you'd ever seen, arguably, but not arguably.
	And by the way, just so everyone appreciates whether or not you want to perceive this as targeted harassment.
	Targeted violence against an adversarial media?
	Alexa Lavoie is the one who asked Justin Trudeau the question, will you apologize for having besmirched, denigrated, demeaned, and maligned Rebel News?
	Remember, it was an amazing clip.
	And she asked Justin Trudeau to his face.
	He looked at her face and he says, I've said all I have to say to you.
	And then turns away.
	Coincidentally, His RCMP that he deployed under the Emergencies Act saw Alexa Lavoie reporting on scene with her credentials, with the microphone in her hand, and shot her point-blank in the leg with a tear gas canister.
	Come to whatever conclusions you want.
	This is either the end of Trudeau politically or this is the end of Canada politically.
	And people have to understand that you could hate those protesters all you want.
	And you could have thought that that was an occupation.
	All you want.
	You could have thought it was a nuisance.
	All you want.
	Ottawa.
	Ottawa is now occupied by militaristic forces.
	He didn't call in the military.
	He just called in the RCMP, the provincial police from Quebec, it seems.
	The maroon hats, if anybody remembers.
	I hope the people in Canada and those not in the U.S. now understand the similar tactics that went on here in the U.S. regarding the media and the government depicting January 6th.
	Praying for you all.
	I hope everybody appreciates, first of all, thank you very much for the super chat, and especially understand, Trudeau has been openly aggressive towards rebel media, and lo and behold, his own RCMP that he calls in under the Emergencies Act shoots a reporter in the leg with a tear gas canister, and it's beyond a bruise, it's a contusion.
	And then they're swinging their batons, apparently spraying pepper spray.
	This is Canada!
	This is not Canada.
	This is Justin Trudeau's Canada.
	And this is either the end of Justin Trudeau politically or this is the end of Canada politically.
	Thank you, David.
	You've been this country's voice of sanity in the midst of all this media bullshit for the MSM.
	No, and I've never seen anything like it.
	I didn't go down with a preconceived notion of what that protest was going to look like.
	I just saw it with my own eyes.
	True.
	But then there was one more thing.
	The debate.
	The debate.
	That is currently going on.
	Seven sitting days they have.
	They had.
	Running clock.
	Seven sitting days.
	I mean, they debated yesterday and today, so I don't know if they count weekends as sitting days officially, even though they declared them, or they did actually debate.
	Seven sitting days.
	The vote on this is tomorrow.
	Let me just see.
	I saw another chat there that I wanted to bring up.
	Social media claims 90% of Canadians are against the truckers.
	Bull, bull, bull, bullshit.
	Even in Ottawa, and I interviewed people on the street, I still got 50-50.
	I got people who didn't really like the truckers, but supported the cause.
	I had people who hated the truckers, but didn't think it was so bad.
	I spoke to people who lived downtown.
	They said it was honking incessantly for four days.
	I spoke to one guy after a stream, off stream, who said he couldn't get through town.
	I don't doubt it.
	I got conflicting reports from people on the street, locals who live there.
	You can say that they're slanted for whatever agenda they have.
	But I don't believe for a second that 90% support the truckers.
	Don't support the truckers.
	I don't believe it for a second.
	In Ottawa, based on my experience, it was still 50-50.
	And that was the epicenter of this.
	Maybe it's true the more distant you get from the epicenter, the less you know about it.
	Viva, how does your wife react to the new career?
	Does she have concerns, safety, government attention, etc.?
	Is she all in?
	Well, when I ran for the PPC, that was as much all-in attention as we were going to get.
	This is just...
	Who would have thunk?
	First of all, thank you for the super chat.
	Thank you for the question.
	No, when I made the decision to run for the PPC, that was...
	That's all in.
	I mean, that's...
	And that's all in and that's all out for some friends and family who are still under the impression that the PPC is a right-wing extremist, racist, xenophobe party.
	So racist and xenophobic that they got the...
	I'm not invoking my identity.
	To try to quell any of these misconceptions.
	But, okay, this was the chat I was looking for.
	Little Rock, booyah, great to be here almost two years and how you have grown.
	Health is good and really getting used to new leg, amazing.
	Your coverage of the protest was great.
	I have really enjoyed my time here and you are a greatest YouTube.
	Thank you very much, Little Rock.
	And above all else, be well and heal well.
	And I can't imagine what it's like getting used to a leg.
	That you don't have the sensation over.
	So you don't know where it is.
	People don't really appreciate, but you do appreciate the sensorial feelings that go down to your toes.
	I knew someone who had a condition that resulted in numbness under the soles of his feet.
	And you just imagine trying to walk around and feel the contours of the ground just with that type of condition where your foot is constantly numb and you can't feel dips and cracks and pebbles and this and that.
	To get used to an actual new limb.
	Through which you have no sensation, I can't imagine.
	Okay, I'm going to miss some Super Chats.
	I apologize.
	So the debate is going on.
	And watching the debate, I was going to livestream reaction to the debate, but there's so much stuff going on above and beyond the world.
	Just couldn't do it today.
	But you watch the debate, and I've been there now.
	I've seen it for, I don't know how many days, 12, 13, or 14 days.
	I've seen it.
	I've seen it coming in with no preconceived notion.
	And being convinced by what I saw, when I see these liberal MPs talking about a violent protest, harassment, people couldn't walk with masks, they're liars.
	They're liars or they just don't know what they're talking about.
	But when you say something definitively and you know that you have no legitimate basis to say that definitively, you are as good as a liar.
	To say the moon is made out of cheese, it might not be a lie, but if you have no legitimate basis to make such a statement of fact, it's as good as a lie.
	To know that the moon is not made out of cheese and to say it is a lie.
	To not know that it's not made out of cheese because you've never been there, but you have no good reason to say it's made out of cheese is as good as a lie.
	And these MPs who are spewing and repeating these lies, if they don't know better, it's as good as a lie.
	And if they do know better because they have no excuse not to know better, it's a malicious lie.
	I saw people walking through with face masks.
	I saw protesters with face masks.
	The reason why none of them got harassed is because a lot of people were wearing face masks because they didn't want to be identified.
	So don't give me this crap that they were harassing people with face masks.
	I was there.
	People were wearing face masks and other people understood that they were wearing face masks so that they would not be identified attending this protest for the reasons that we're now seeing coming out of the Ottawa police.
	So don't give me this crap that they were being harassed.
	Nobody was being harassed for wearing a face mask by anyone affiliated, related to, or had anything to do with the convoy.
	So it's a lie.
	Sorry.
	Can we all agree that we're at the point where comparisons to...
	Naughty socialist Germany are 100% legit, true to its dictatorial power, martial law, and is enabled to violate human rights on universal scale.
	Never again.
	P.S. Concussions were probably...
	No, no, no.
	There was definitely a concussive stun grenade, whatever it is.
	So these liberal politicians who are giving their five-minute discourses of the most...
	Do you say hallucinogenic?
	It wouldn't be hallucinogenic.
	Hallucinations.
	Fabrications.
	There's a third one to get a rhyme.
	Seven nations.
	It's like a Tom McDonald rap song.
	They are fabricated lies.
	No one was harassed for wearing a face mask for obvious reasons.
	Plus, it was freaking cold.
	So nobody's going to harass somebody for wearing a face mask because it was minus 16 for many of those days.
	Oh, and then talking about, you know, defecation on people's doorsteps.
	There were cameras 24-7.
	For good or for bad, there were cameras 24-7.
	No one caught any of these protesters taking dumps on people's front steps, harassing people, knocking them down.
	I don't want to say video or it didn't happen, but video or it didn't happen.
	And there's a lot of video to disprove everything.
	And these liberal politicians and the NDPs, it's just garbage.
	It's not like one screen, two films.
	It's lies.
	And they're sitting there in their Zoom calls.
	They've got to create the illusion of terror, of panic, of violence.
	They've got to erect those fences around the war monument.
	Then they've got to come in with police to disperse the veterans at the war monument.
	It's atrocious.
	It's just atrocious.
	And they're living in a political fantasy.
	They've got the media that they pay for in their back pockets to sit around, get the one image of a protester so they can say, Look at this violent protester, the police force, this militaristic, straight-out-of-flow-bots, handlebars video police force showing up to break up what was, not arguably, obviously, the most peaceful protest ever, albeit it lasted three weeks.
	Nuts.
	And the...
	Hold on.
	The truckers should do a work stoppage, bring the government to their knees.
	They lie to try to convince people that people are not stupid.
	Thousands of cameras everywhere.
	No hiding the truth.
	This will be Trudeau's downfall.
	Look for it soon.
	From your mouth to God's ears, because the vote is tomorrow.
	The vote is tomorrow, I believe at 10 o 'clock.
	No, I don't even know why I said 10 o 'clock.
	Scratch that.
	I don't know what time the vote's at.
	I think it's later on in the day, because I think they might still have another day of debating.
	I don't know.
	But the vote is tomorrow.
	And these NDPs, New Democratic Party, you may as well just call yourself the New Dictator Party.
	Because if you support this measure...
	But want Justin Trudeau to act judiciously with his new unlimited powers?
	You are just as corrupt as him, and you're just as enabling of the corruption as he is.
	And I have no doubt Jagmeet Singh is right on par.
	Jagmeet Singh is only jealous that he's not Justin Trudeau wielding this power now.
	New Democratic Party?
	My butt.
	Change your name.
	Scrap your name.
	Just call you the new dictator party.
	Or even worse, just the NP.
	You can think of an acronym for that, which I won't say online.
	So that's the news coming out of tomorrow.
	I'm not sure that I'm going to go back to Ottawa.
	I don't think I have anything more to document.
	And the irony, I'm not a credentialed journalist.
	And even the credentialed journalists are getting harassed by the police at every corner stop.
	So I don't think I'm going back.
	I've got nothing more to document.
	I've got no more story to tell the world that they're being lied to.
	And the irony, now that you've gotten all the peace-loving truckers out of Ottawa...
	The only people walking the streets are a very angry and militaristic police force and other people who now might feel that they have the political permission slip to express their faux outrage, fabricated outrage, or misinformed outrage at anybody they perceive to be a freedom-loving Canadian who might, for the last three weeks of the last two years, have finally had a moment of pride to see the Canadian flag.
	Okay, sorry.
	Getting angry and frustrated.
	I see Barnes in the backdrop.
	I'll give him the heads up that he's coming in.
	Is there any power in the opposition party to fight?
	Well, Pierre Poilievre is doing his best to resurrect and save the conservative party, but they've allowed this to happen.
	So, Pierre Poilievre, as good a speaker as he is...
	Their party allowed this to happen.
	Okay, who else finds it a bit ironic that Trudeau invoked the Emergency Act the same week some provinces in Canada erased restrictions?
	Or did I get my news wrong?
	You did not get your news wrong, Brett Cormier.
	The provinces are eliminating their passport systems, COVID responses.
	The only issue is now, it seems that the federal is going to take over with the federal vaccine passport system.
	The only difference with that would be, so long as the feds don't...
	Have it interprovincially, although it looks like they're still going to maintain it that way on flights and trains.
	You wouldn't have a charter violation.
	You would just have an international issue like, you know, countries set their own restrictions for who can come into the countries.
	So, you know, create a vax pass to come into Canada.
	It'll be great for tourism.
	Okay, now that I've gotten myself sufficiently angry.
	Barnes is in the house.
	He's looking good.
	Robert, I'm bringing you in.
	How you doing, sir?
	Good, good.
	Audio.
	Everyone in the audio, let me know if one of us is too loud.
	Robert, you're looking good.
	What's the good word?
	Well, you know, I see you're famous enough now to get your first national TV hit piece.
	Yeah, I said...
	They're going to issue the correction.
	They're going to do it.
	I'm so neurotic, Robert.
	I called them out and I was like, has there ever been one other video that's been pulled?
	I'm thinking of it like, no, because I made such a stink over that one.
	And have I ever been...
	Challenged by Facebook?
	No, because I would have made a stink about that too.
	But yeah, it wasn't such a bad hit piece.
	To me, I just think they don't appreciate it.
	It was the best advertising for Rumble.
	Imaginable.
	Did you see it by any chance?
	Yeah, yeah.
	Classic.
	Robert, what is the good word?
	First of all, before we get started, what do you got in your fingers?
	And what's the book over your shoulder?
	Oh, it's Special Edition Monte Cristo Cigar.
	And that's the...
	What's the exact title?
	Yeah.
	The Contours of American History by William Appleman Williams.
	A good description of American foreign policy up until 1950s or so.
	Amazing.
	Well, look, I mean, the people, the world is just fascinated by the awfulness that's going on in Canada.
	And I just saw a chat that said rumors are that the RCMP are being paid $4,000 a day.
	They're being paid time and a half or whatever.
	Emergency hazard pay.
	There's a lot of them, too.
	But I won't get into that.
	All that I can say is that I do believe they're going to get sued as of tomorrow for what they've done over the weekend from some people.
	I worked for the RCMP and CSIS for 35 years to protect Canadians from threats to democracy.
	Our government treats our citizens in a peaceful demonstration worse like scum or terrorists.
	Robert, what's your take?
	You're looking at this from the States.
	What do people say out in the States?
	I think it was, you know, from a purely political perspective, theatrical perspective, it was a mistake by Trudeau.
	They went in too hard.
	They went in too heavy.
	You don't bring a SWAT team to that kind of event.
	You don't bring troops, you know, troop-like cops to that event.
	And you don't bring the Mounties on their horses to that event.
	And the iconic image that will be forever etched into stone will be that grandma getting run over by a horse.
	Because however they got that photo from above, you know, I mean, even the New York Times put it towards the front of their coverage.
	That's even the New York Times.
	It doesn't want to cover it from a sympathetic perspective.
	And so it's just too bad of an image.
	I mean, it's not quite, but still iconic in the same manner that the man in front of the tank in Tenement Square was.
	I mean, it's probably one of the most dramatic images of police abuse of power over protesters that you could imagine.
	And the sloppiness, carelessness of how they handled it.
	I mean, how they've handled it all the way through, but it will forever stain the reputation and resume and history of Trudeau.
	And now there was a Fox News journalist who tweeted out, this was Friday night, reported that the woman died.
	I said, if this is true, it's going to be squarely on Justin Trudeau.
	And then someone said to me, well, why don't you just wait and see?
	And I said, one way or the other, if the woman died, and I'm going to get to, she didn't die, just so nobody's worried.
	One way or the other, if she did die, this is a literal murder on Justin Trudeau's hands.
	And if she didn't, he got away by the skin of his teeth because the difference between dying and not dying when a 2,000-pound horse is stomping on any part of your body is a matter of luck and not a matter of skill.
	So whether or not she died doesn't change anything as to how egregious it was to strut eight horses.
	In minus 16 temperature, when the roads are icy, in a crowded protest, it's negligence, it's criminal negligence.
	Now the woman, to add sweet cherry to this outrageous abusive pie, is Indigenous.
	She's an elderly Indigenous woman.
	She apparently dislocated her shoulder.
	She's out of hospital now.
	And they filed an SIU, I think it's a special investigative unit, into the injury, where initially the Ottawa police said, no one was injured.
	And then they said, oh yeah, there was an incident when someone threw a bike at a horse.
	These effing idiots, they're being recorded 24-7.
	It's minus 16 on icy streets.
	No one's bringing a bike to the protest.
	The woman had a walker, and that's what they were alleging was the bike.
	So she's out, she lived.
	And by the skin of his teeth, Justin Trudeau did not have an actual death on his hands.
	Yeah, Robert, that image, the entire scene captured on video, these arrogant, militaristic police strutting through a crowd with eight 2,000-pound horses with seemingly no control over them.
	And then people want to blame the protesters?
	What else, Robert?
	And so even the media in the U.S., I mean, Fox News has been all over Canada, but other outlets in the States, have they been...
	I mean, they've tried to minimize the coverage, but that was too visually symbolic to ignore.
	And that's the problem.
	I mean, visuals will tell a much bigger, broader, longer story than the written word will.
	And they kind of etched themselves in stone, in my view.
	I mean, Canada was mostly for a lot of these mandates before the trucker convoys, but even the Canadian polls have shown people not supporting this kind of reaction.
	It's just not a Canadian kind of reaction.
	I get Trudeau couldn't wait to unleash his emergency powers, and Freeland dumb enough to go out and say, we're going to make all these permanent as soon as we can.
	My prediction is that even the very Trudeau-sympathetic parliament may vote this down on tomorrow.
	And that will be doubly embarrassing and humiliating.
	So I think ultimately the truckers achieved most of what they set out for, to expose the raw power of the state against civil protests.
	They did that just with that visual imagery.
	The state is relying upon power, not persuasion, for what it's doing.
	It's relying on its monopoly on the use of force, legal monopoly on the use of force, particularly in Canada, rather than the force of law.
	And on top of that, of course, many of the jurisdictions up there scrapped their vaccine passports or their intentions to tax people based on their vaccination status and even some of their vaccine mandates.
	And parts of Europe and the United States did the same.
	Very liberal jurisdictions in Boston.
	Other parts of the country have retracted their vaccine passports or vaccine mandates, as the case may be.
	A few places are still holding on.
	But the trucker convoy, I think, worked out far more than probably they thought when they initially set out to hop in the rig and head up to Ottawa.
	Someone in the chat said it wasn't a walker, it was a scooter.
	A mobility device for an elderly indigenous woman who was stomped on by an RCMP horse.
	I mean, we're not splitting hairs.
	We agree.
	It's a question of semantics.
	Yeah, so, I mean, yesterday when the truckers were going out, and I was there the moment, I forget what street it was, but whatever, doesn't matter.
	The truck started going out, and the truckers were leaving, and I mean, literally, in the passenger side of the truck, a woman was sobbing, and...
	No one was even alleging it.
	No one was saying cowards, yada, yada.
	The bottom line, they had achieved everything they could possibly achieve without just causing more harm to themselves than would ever yield any more beneficial results.
	It was done.
	The government made it clear they were not just going to suppress this protest.
	They were going to seek out and destroy each and every protester who had parked their car there, canceled their insurance, seized their trucks, so there was nothing more to do but leave.
	And then, Robert, this is where you know you're negotiating with...
	This is where you know you're not negotiating in good faith.
	They said, leave now.
	Just leave.
	And then after they're out, the government comes out and says, we're going to track you down and we're going to seize stuff and make you pay for what you did.
	I mean, this is how the government, the police force, have become the criminals.
	And, you know, I say they pressure them through criminal means to leave.
	They then dupe them to leave.
	And then after they've left, they say, P.S., we're coming after you.
	I mean, it's...
	This is why you can't...
	Lessons may have been learned, but hopefully...
	That's it.
	No, look, no rumors.
	There's two rumors that I'm not addressing.
	I do not believe that anyone died from the confrontation.
	The only rumor was the woman who got trampled by the horse.
	And the other one is the UN planes in North Bay.
	I know nothing about it.
	Not getting into it.
	Other people...
	I'm not a journalist.
	Rebel News will cover it.
	And Rebel News...
	What was the big one they covered?
	They covered just a big story.
	I forget.
	It'll come to me in a second.
	Well, I mean, one of their reporters got shot at with something by the police.
	Yeah, a canister.
	That was Alexa Lavoie, who's...
	I'm going to have...
	When she comes through Montreal, I said, I'm not necessarily going to go back to Ottawa because I'm not credentialed.
	I will get arrested by any one of these happy cops.
	When she comes through Montreal, we're going to have a talk.
	All right, Robert.
	So let's...
	I mean, that's the Canadian stuff.
	We might bounce back in, people, just so you're satisfied.
	But there's nothing more...
	Tomorrow's going to be a big day, and we'll be on it.
	Robert, what's the latest in what you're involved in?
	You've got multiple lawsuits.
	And I'm a teacher.
	I apologize.
	I did not do a lot of my homework this week.
	Robert, tell me what's going on with the vaccine mandate lawsuits that you're involved in.
	Any updates?
	Any meaningful progress or regress in the United States?
	Well, yes.
	So there are three sort of news developments on the vaccine mandate context, and then some news development surrounding my whistleblower suit, which is funny.
	People keep sending it to me and saying, what do you think about this?
	And it's like, yeah, it's my case.
	I'm representing the party.
	I'm aware.
	But it was fully unsealed, and it's the process of being served on the various defendants.
	And it includes two different components.
	One is a whistleblower claim concerning what's called a key tam action, which we talked about some last week.
	Basically, somebody will ask why $2 billion.
	That's how much Pfizer got paid by the government for its vaccines.
	And as part of that process, they had to make a bunch of certifications of things being true.
	And there's just a bunch of lies in there because she witnessed the evidence of those lies and she put them on.
	And it's a long litany.
	I mean, an FDA, former FDA official, reviewed...
	The complaint before it was filed and confirmed that these were just incredible violations across the board.
	Then the second claim is a retaliation claim, a wrongful discharge claim, because as soon as she disclosed this information, they made it look like they were going to do some remedial action, and they just bought time until they got rid of her and fired her.
	And as soon as they knew she had said anything to the FDA, which somehow got out of the FDA, we'll find out what that was all about.
	Then this was done.
	Now, some people asked, why was the suit filed back when it was and not released till now?
	The way a key team action works is when you file suit, you have to file it under seal.
	You can't disclose it or you jeopardize the suit.
	The U.S. attorney then has an opportunity to review it, and they kept asking for extensions, saying maybe they'll intervene because technically the action is brought on behalf of taxpayers of all the United States governments, United States of America.
	Now, she has her own separate claim as the retaliation claim, but the main claim is based on that.
	And the reason for $2 billion, again, is that's the amount of money taxpayers paid that they would not have been obligated to pay if Pfizer had been honest in its disclosures, which it was not.
	As even the New York Times is reporting today, the CDC has been hiding a whole bunch of data they have about The effectiveness of the vaccine.
	And in the words of the New York Times, the reason why the CDC hasn't disclosed it is they were worried about how people might interpret it as to vaccine efficacy.
	So you don't have to be a genius to figure out what the data shows.
	It's a dictator, supreme leader, Francois Legault type measure.
	Can't have a public debate because we don't want people being misinformed by misinformation, how they might weaponize that information to promote certain narratives.
	It's Orwellian, Robert.
	They don't want to release the truth because people might weaponize the truth to promote a narrative of truth.
	So they have to conceal evidence so that people don't use that evidence to disprove the lies in real time.
	The shocking thing now, listening to you talk, reading these things as they happen now, and driving back and forth to Ottawa, 400-kilometer round trip every day.
	I listened to, I haven't finished it, it's a long damn book, The Real Anthony Fauci.
	This rhymes so much with what occurred back during the AIDS epidemic and developing treatments for that, suppressing treatments for that, demonizing whistleblowers, demonizing people who would speak out against the official orthodoxy.
	Robert, I mean, satisfy my own concerns.
	I know RFK has a...
	Call it an agenda.
	He's got a perspective.
	He believes certain events have started to cause certain problems as of a certain date.
	He's an environmentalist, yada, yada.
	Historically speaking, on the AIDS epidemic itself and Anthony Fauci's involvement, the reprisals against doctors, ruining of careers, is it historically accurate?
	Oh, yes.
	Yes.
	It's extraordinary Fauci kept his job through all of that.
	It's also, we're repeating it.
	We're repeating two different things, the eugenics era and the AIDS era, the early AIDS era in particular, which was people panicked in response to someone having HIV.
	The movie Philadelphia just changed Tom Hanks' character to being unvaccinated and maybe healthy rather than suffering the way he was suffering.
	And you see it's the same discriminatory behavior.
	It's just now being celebrated by Hollywood, now being celebrated by our so-called betters.
	And the same with the Dallas Buyers Club portrays, you know, what great lengths Matt McConaughey's character had to go to to get basic medications because of the same suppression.
	I mean, I saw the Dallas Buyers Club.
	My God, it makes more sense now, especially with the names that shall not be spoken of treatments now.
	Explain the Dallas Buyers Club and what was going on as to why HIV or AIDS patients had to go underground to get treatments that were not being offered by doctors.
	Explain it all so that they can analogize it to this.
	Fauci tried to weaponize his control over HIV to preclude who could get...
	What medications?
	Even though it was clear evidence that a lot of his proposals were not working and there were alternatives that were.
	Big Pharma saw HIV as a huge profit-making opportunity, so they didn't want competitors from unpatented drugs, similar to here.
	So that, in the Dallas Buyers Club, tells the story of one guy just trying to get medication for himself and friends who were suffering bitterly and were mostly suffering because of the conduct and behavior of Anthony Fauci.
	And it has a big pharma tie-in as well.
	Also, Fauci's always been long obsessed about a vaccine for HIV.
	So it has that obsession.
	No surprise, Moderna's trying to claim they're going to have a vaccine for HIV soon.
	And this is the time period where now we have a lot of very effective treatments for HIV.
	In fact, there was even a TEDx presentation years ago by a doctor who talked about how she thought she had...
	She's accidentally given herself HIV in a test.
	And one of her friends said, well, would you rather have diabetes or HIV?
	And her friend's point was that certain kinds of diabetes are actually less treatable right now than HIV is from an everyday quality of life standard.
	So it's very representative.
	It's also representative in the ADA context.
	The Americans with Disabilities Act was drafted in substantial part to prevent...
	A response as employers and public places and public accommodations and schools did towards people with HIV, which is they panicked.
	It wasn't based on science and they discriminated against people without a basis.
	It was based just on prejudice and paranoia.
	And of course, now we're witnessing the same thing all over again.
	And so it's extraordinary in that sense.
	But the HIV example and Fauci's complicity in it.
	If you knew it, people like Bobby Kennedy were able to accurately predict where this was going two years ago.
	That's why he was warning.
	He's really been warning about aspects of this for five, ten years, about all the problems with vaccine mandates.
	But this in particular, he was a very early aggressive signal of warning about this because he knew Fauci's history.
	And the book well documents and demonstrates it.
	And so the difference here is it's really been more reckless.
	You know, we have a disease that's not very deadly to most people.
	And we have a vaccine that even the CDC is now known for months and is hidden, is not effective in the way they said it was.
	And that relates to our suit that, you know, a lot of this new information will be part of our motion for preliminary injunction against the CDC and the FDA and Janet Woodcock, a federal suit that's pending in Texas concerning the attempt to authorize this for people, for kids.
	They were going to try to authorize it for six-month-olds, as young as six-month-olds.
	They got enough blowback that they stepped back from the edge on that, the precipice on that.
	But it hasn't stopped them, so that suit's going forward.
	And then the Tyson food is moving forward, and it got support this week from a case in the United Airlines case that went before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
	The question has always been, when your damages are something that can be compensable monetarily, the federal courts have said you can't get an injunctive relief because you can get remedied at the end of the day if you're right.
	I've never fully agreed with that, but that's the position they've generally taken.
	The question here is, all of these companies, for the most part, are not firing people.
	They're putting them on unpaid administrative leave that's making it difficult for them to get unemployment benefits.
	My argument has been that is a continuous coercion telling them, just forfeit your religious beliefs and you can get your job back.
	And that's ongoing coercion of violation of First Amendment rights that should be enjoined, that is subject to injunctive relief, even under existing law.
	Two judges in the Fifth Circuit agreed, two to one decision.
	The dissenter was your classic whiner.
	You always know the whiners because they'll start off screaming about the most fake data.
	Nobody spreads more lies than federal judges.
	How about Supreme Court justices?
	She's at the peak of the top of the federal bench.
	We'll get to one of the Trump cases where you could know where it was going just by the bogus introduction by the political judge.
	But the Fifth Circuit bravely said, two judges said, look, this is clear continuous coercion.
	And that's always been subject to injunctive relief.
	And that actually relates to one of the claims I have against Tyson Foods.
	In Tennessee.
	So we'll see if the court applies the same logic.
	But it was a very good, important ruling.
	We'll see what happens with it as it goes up.
	Two different judges issued four different injunctions against the military for taking any disciplinary action against anyone.
	Based on religious objections to the vaccine, noting that it's quite clear that the military is routinely and repeatedly violating people's religious freedom rights as protected under the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act and cannot meet the strict scrutiny standard required thereunder, which means it's only a matter of time, I believe, before the federal judge in Florida, a federal judge in, I think, Georgia joined him in a separate case.
	But I think that judge in Florida...
	Is showing strong signs of being inclined to enjoin the military's ability to discriminate against anyone for religious reasons related to the vaccine.
	And that part of that will be the last, you know, vaccine mandate.
	To fail in that aspect of trying to override religious objections.
	A Boston Court of Appeals enjoined the vaccine mandate on firemen and people who worked for the fire department.
	And not long after that, plus I think the trucker convoy, the Boston mayor...
	Pulled back and said, no more vaccine mandate, no more vaccine passport.
	In Philadelphia, they pulled back the vaccine passport on restaurants.
	So we'll see if some other places start to walk back.
	A bunch of countries in Europe, of course, followed suit as well, as well as a bunch of provinces in Canada.
	So it looks like, especially as they've been losing the vaccine passport battles and losing some of the vaccine mandate battles.
	The most people that were trying to push it have walked back.
	Not all.
	Still some employers pushing it through, trying to, and firing people.
	New York City fired over 1,000 workers related to it, refusing to recognize religious objections.
	But all of that may have led to the U.S. Supreme Court has set for a hearing next month.
	First, it went up to Sotomayor, and Sotomayor denied it on behalf of New York City workers who were being fired because of their assertion of their rights under the Title VII and constitutionally because it's against a state actor.
	And what a lot of people don't know in the Supreme Court context, if a justice is over that circuit, what normally happens is that justice refers it to the whole court and the whole court votes on it.
	In this context, there's been a bunch of justices, Breyer, Sotomayor, Barrett, who've been refusing to follow that protocol and just denying it right out of the gate.
	Gorsuch has previously descended from this.
	What a lot of people don't know is if the First Circuit justice rejects you, the justice assigned to your circuit, you can go to any of the other justices and ask them for the injunction.
	You're not bound by that one.
	And that protocol is there.
	For issues exactly like this, where you have a real disparity, you're not stuck just by the geographical luck of where you are.
	And they went to Gorsuch, and Gorsuch this time referred it to the whole court, and the court has decided to have a hearing on the violation of religious rights in the New York City vaccine mandate context.
	I think that ruling is going to be favorable, and it's going to mean a bunch of employers and a bunch of governments are going to be on the hook for a bunch of money.
	Because of the people that they put on unpaid leave or fired based on religious discriminatory reasons.
	So that was a mostly promising news.
	There was a bad case out of New Jersey where New Jersey Court of Appeals cheered the vaccine mandate and said you could do anything.
	It's one long liberal MSNBC lecture of fake news by a bunch of judges.
	But the big rulings were favorable for those of us challenging.
	The vaccine passports, vaccine mandates, these vaccine rules, these religiously discriminatory provisions this past week.
	Robert, what does this mean?
	Barnes, will Canadians become the new Cubans if the temporary American asylum bill passes?
	Do you know what that is?
	It won't.
	I mean, the idea is that if you're Cuban for the most part and you make it to the United States, there's much more liberal asylum principles that are applied to you.
	But I know people are trying to pass something to...
	Well, it'll be interesting to watch.
	Liberals, you know, it's been the left wanting to expand asylum to be even economic.
	What happens if it's a bunch of Canadian truckers who want to move to Michigan?
	Well, but what happens then?
	But the problem is, as I've now learned for myself, is that in order to travel to the U.S. as a foreigner, you need to be fully vaccinated.
	So how can you even get in to claim asylum if you can't get in because of the reason for which you're claiming asylum?
	Preventing from getting in the first place.
	What do you do?
	You cross on foot or you lie or you sneak in and then claim asylum?
	How would that work?
	That's kind of the means across the southern border.
	I mean, that's how most of them come in.
	Most of them don't come in legally.
	Some come in seeking.
	And my understanding is they're not imposing a vaccine mandate on people seeking asylum or seeking immigration.
	You mandate to travel here unless...
	You actually want to become a citizen here.
	Then they're carving that out because they know a lot of the people coming across the border are not vaxxed.
	It's unbelievable.
	Gadsad put out a tweet, and I didn't realize.
	I'm just going to take a picture of this and come back to it.
	Gadsad put out a tweet and says, jokingly, I might have to claim asylum.
	Do I come in from Canada or do I have to go through the South and then walk up?
	It's a joke.
	It's an actual joke because to travel in lawfully for a weekend, for a business, for a vacation, you've got to show whatever.
	If you want to sneak in...
	And I'm saying this respectfully, not maliciously.
	In order to claim asylum, you can't come into the Canadian border.
	You've got to go through the Mexican border where they're not checking things and then claim asylum once you get in for not meeting the criteria that is required in order to travel there.
	And the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take up Biden's challenge to the Remain in Mexico rule.
	Because right now, if you...
	Come to the southern border through Mexico and request asylum.
	You go to a legal process.
	You don't just come across illegally.
	They send you back to Mexico.
	That was the agreement the U.S. reached with Mexico.
	There's treaty implications there to some extent.
	The Biden administration has been ordered to comply with it.
	They've tried to dodge it and evade it.
	But they're mostly right now in compliance.
	Emphasis on the word mostly.
	But they're asking the U.S. Supreme Court to set it aside, to allow them to set it aside.
	The irony is if they did, that would be the way to do it.
	If you're unvaccinated, take it.
	Fly down to Mexico and ask for asylum across the border.
	And I mean, right now they are being persecuted for their political beliefs.
	They fit the definition of asylum candidates.
	Okay.
	Someone just said, Anyutka19, can you please talk more about the FDA decision to wait on the shots for under five years old?
	We are very concerned.
	Please, please, please.
	We covered that, right?
	Yeah, it'll be a couple more.
	What is it?
	They postponed it for at least a couple more weeks.
	The politics of it blew back on them.
	Also, their testing results are a joke.
	And the question is how long...
	What's interesting is my whistleblower case for Brooke Jackson is that it's having more ramifications than even I was optimistic that it would have in two places.
	Politically, it's having ramifications because I think it played into...
	The FDA is going to be under the radar, under the microscope for what they did, and the evidence must be even worse than what we even fully know about.
	Because I think that's part of the reason they walked back, that they were going to authorize it, then suddenly they walked it back and said, maybe in a couple of weeks, maybe in a month.
	It's unclear.
	And the other thing is, as came out by a former BlackRock executive on Alex Jones' show, He says that the suit has had a substantial effect on Wall Street.
	That a range of investors look at the case and think that it poses serious problems for the future of these vaccines in particular.
	But that's why Moderna has taken the biggest hit.
	But that they have doubts about what it will do to the vaccine market in general, whether there'll be a blowback legislatively, blowback politically, in such a way that big pharma will be put under a real microscope.
	What if these stories start accumulating and getting out to where they reach?
	I mean, you have embalmers and funeral homeowners reporting very unusual blood clot patterns that are only consistent with one source of injury.
	You have the oddity of Bob Saget's death, which has still not been really explained.
	And the family went in to seal and hush it all up for some reason.
	A little odd.
	I'll just say one thing with Bob Saget's death.
	I was doing something this morning because I'm an absolute idiot.
	And I was trying to take a very heavy object off a top shelf on a swivel chair.
	And the second the object got off the edge of the ledge, I was like, this is too heavy for me to carry.
	The swivel chair starts spinning.
	I'm like, I said, I'm going to die because something's going to fall on my head.
	If that had happened to me, you know, people would have, the rumors would have spread, but everyone knows my status and how long ago it was.
	But yeah, you know, I envisioned it for a second.
	They would have thought somebody whacked you, maybe.
	Well, that's the other thing.
	So, all that to say, people, look, I'm not even going to entertain those jokes.
	So, yeah, Saget and Cernovich, I want to address one thing.
	You know, Cernovich and I like him, and there's no buts to this.
	He put out a tweet that said, it's none of our business how Bob Saget passed away.
	And he's sort of is a gentleman, despite what people think, and I agree with him.
	The only caveat is that when people take to social media to publicize certain highly politicized political issues, and then things happen, then you've sort of incidentally or indirectly publicized other aspects of your life based on other aspects which you've deliberately publicized.
	So Saget, you know, make some jokes.
	The woman, the stand-up comic.
	Who is literally talking about how she went out and got a whole bunch of shots.
	She went out and got shingles just to boot.
	And then she says, Jesus loves me more.
	And as she says that, she literally faints, falls, and cracks her skull.
	She publicized one aspect of her life.
	Therefore, it indirectly, incidentally, and unfortunately publicizes another aspect.
	And that's the case with Bob Saget, just because of the nature of the jokes and the proximity.
	But I respect...
	I get the idea of sealing the records, but if he's a public figure, he is, and if his death may be the product of someone else's criminality, that makes it almost more of a public issue than a private issue, or at least to the degree that the full autopsy, which to my understanding was not done by a private agency, is a matter of public record.
	It gets closer to public disclosure rights than it is...
	And Sunshine Laws and Open Records Acts than it is purely private.
	If this had been a purely private autopsy, different dynamic.
	But once a state actor is involved, and then you have a public figure whose death may be the product of someone else's criminality, raises additional questions.
	But clearly the suit is having broader ramifications.
	Now some people ask, some people are still misled out there because there's some people out there saying that you can sue.
	Pfizer if it's willful fraud.
	Not unless the Justice Department agrees with you.
	That's the problem.
	The problem with the law is you cannot sue them at all unless the Justice Department says you can sue them.
	So I can sue them for defrauding because that's a whole different issue.
	But suing them for causing injury, you can't right now unless the Justice Department says yes.
	So all these people out there saying, oh, willful fraud, they'll be bankrupt.
	Well, only if the Justice Department joins you.
	Now, politically, people can see the tea leaves, and I've received inquiries from Wall Street people who want to go into detail about the suit, because clearly it got a lot of people's attention up there, especially if the thought process is, this technology doesn't work.
	MRNA technology, if that's what Wall Street concludes...
	Moderna is going to be worth pennies on the dollar, even compared to where it's at.
	It's already taking a massive hit.
	It'll take four or five more massive hits.
	And before this, there were a lot of people that thought mRNA was a pipe dream for vaccines in particular, but drugs in general.
	So if all of everybody's warnings turn out true because the injuries start to accumulate and there's a public belief that they were caused by the vaccine...
	Then, yeah, it's going to have its effect.
	But it's a sign of how litigation can impact things.
	Even when the lawsuit itself, you have to really climb an uphill battle without the U.S. government's involvement.
	It can have a very broad impact elsewhere.
	If people see the underlying evidence, which is substantial and extensive, then I think it...
	Makes people second guess.
	There are some people who told me not to take the case.
	There are some big lawyers that fled the case because their focus was different.
	I'll put it that way.
	But there's ways to fight these cases.
	I don't mind underdog cases, number one.
	That's all I have.
	But number two, there's ways you can use these cases to get a good public policy outcome that your client is seeking, even if there's hurdles in the legal system that don't allow justice to be easily done.
	Before I bring this chat up...
	I can't bring that up.
	I was reading a chat and I don't understand it.
	Someone was suggesting we should see what Alec Baldwin's whereabouts were related to Bob.
	We'll get there.
	They haven't finished that investigation yet.
	But everybody really has to listen to, read the real Anthony Fauci because the parallels between...
	The one thing that struck me, Robert...
	Above and beyond the reprisals against those who would speak ill of controlling the media, eliminating the control group.
	That is something that I found shockingly analogous between the two, is the desire to eliminate the control group.
	If everyone is, then all is.
	And unless there's a control group, you have nothing to compare it to.
	And that's what we're living through right now.
	Not to get more scientific than that.
	Oh yeah, it's the number one argument.
	That vaccine skeptics have made, which is we want to see a comparison of the healthy, of using agree-to health metrics, let's do broad observational studies of the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated in a wide range of vaccine contexts.
	And the CDC has been unwilling to do that.
	And the smaller scale versions of those...
	Observational studies that have taken place.
	Let's just say they're not favorable to a lot of vaccines that have been promoted as wonderful for you.
	And it's always been, it's Bobby Kennedy's number one argument.
	It's like, if I'm wrong, if being unvaccinated puts you at greater risk of bad health outcomes, then let's do a big study to figure it out.
	And why is the U.S. government scared to do such a study?
	Why is Big Pharma scared to do such a study?
	I'm not saying I'm done.
	We'll see what happens.
	We'll see what the next six weeks happen.
	By the way, I just took some notes because people were bringing up a couple of things.
	The RCMP texts.
	Robert, have you heard about the RCMP texts?
	Yeah.
	I mean, it's...
	You should remind people what...
	I linked it as part of the Barnes Brief news of the day at VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com The, you know, it was...
	It's revelatory.
	Like, the...
	What's amazing is the police are ruining...
	The support of the last group of people who really support them.
	And now I have never been in that equation.
	I've sued a lot of cops over my time period.
	So I've always had a more mixed view of police.
	Plenty of them are good.
	Plenty of them are protective.
	Plenty of them go in for good instincts.
	There's also plenty of them that go in for the wrong reasons.
	I mean, if you're a sociopath and you like to abuse your power, what better position than to become a cop?
	I mean, it's just being realistic.
	It's going to have a disproportionate number of bad actors.
	People who, in that chat, can't wait to show, you know, what's the respect my authority from South Park and Cartman.
	That captives a certain subgroup of police, and there are clearly plenty of them who probably volunteered to work the protest up in Ottawa.
	Couldn't wait for those people to feel their jackboots.
	And now, that reminded me that that was the story that Rebel News broke that I can't take credit for or responsibility for.
	Because if it's not true, this is why I'm not a journalist.
	I could not bear that responsibility, nor could I bear that...
	I don't want credit for that.
	But Rebel News broke.
	It was either Rebel News or Key and Bexty, and I don't want to give it to the wrong person.
	Either way, the text threads between the RCMPs basically saying, hey, dude.
	If a horse gets hurt, that's a great tactic in a protest.
	And then, I forget the details, but it's RCMP allegedly testing each other, but allegedly, I don't know, couldn't verify, can't verify, Rebel or Kian Bextie broke the story.
	And I said it as a joke.
	Hey, if a horse gets injured and has to get euthanized, blame the protesters.
	If a horse comes in...
	And it causes a problem.
	Great tactic.
	But there's a text thread allegedly between RCMP officers saying, good idea, bring it in, and if a horse gets hurt, even better.
	We should totally do that.
	And then this also threads into another rumor, but not a rumor, which was that Otto was saying, if we arrest you, truckers with dogs, and you can't get your dog within eight days because they'll be impounded, they'll be considered...
	I forget the word.
	Not abandoned, but basically abandoned.
	And we know what they do with abandoned dogs.
	And this is the media.
	When they pull out every single filthy, dirty, oppressive trick, go after the kids of the truckers, go after the dogs of the truckers, and then basically weaponize injury to animal for the purposes of getting that incident that you need to demonize peace-loving people.
	We're all living through it, and we're seeing it in real time.
	I mean, I sued a department over stealing a lady's dogs because they didn't like her dogs.
	It's all places the government, in my view, should have less power.
	Maybe none.
	And it's control over your licenses with your control over your job.
	It's control over bank accounts and seizing assets.
	It's control over people's animals, which are constantly misused if you dig into it at all.
	It's control over custody of children.
	They have too much power in that respect.
	They should have far less.
	And all of those areas are just being exposed here.
	And then they should...
	Pretty much almost never have emergency power.
	But Trudeau has given everybody a crash course in why these powers should not be in the possession of any government.
	Petty tyrants.
	Absolute petty tyrants.
	Hold on, but there was something else I wanted to say about...
	The other way to put it is, legalized power invites the abuse of that power.
	Almost invariably.
	Me being what media would surely consider a schizo and online...
	I'm going to finish this.
	They could be mercs for hire.
	I'm going to read this because I think it's a legit question that you're asking.
	Some of the police could be mercs for hire.
	They don't got names and badge numbers.
	That's sus.
	Some of them have names.
	I did notice a lot of them had names.
	Some of them don't.
	Some of them just have numbers.
	There's reports of a UN plane.
	Some of the cops were blocking out their number or their ID.
	There's one.
	David Anber, by the way, got the mandate from the woman who was accosted by the police officer who had a convenient place strap over their name.
	They grabbed her phone, said, what are you doing here?
	Get out of here.
	You want to get arrested?
	Like, you want to see a police state?
	You don't need to go to China.
	You don't need to go to Iran.
	You don't need to go to North Korea.
	You just need to go to Ottawa.
	You just need to come to Canada, where they can seize your bank accounts for declaring a donation to a registered charity, a registered not-for-profit, Retroactively criminal to freeze your accounts indefinitely.
	And for what purpose, by the way?
	Freeze your accounts?
	What are they going to do?
	Seize all your assets to pay for the damages?
	It's nothing shy of criminal.
	And if they don't shut this crap down, God have mercy on all of them.
	Someone said, viva, I'm worried for you.
	You know what?
	May it happen to someone with the means and the network and the ability to fight this.
	Because they will unfortunately probably just pick on the truckers.
	They'll pick on the easiest and most abusable people in all of this.
	But everyone should see it, everyone should know it, and no one should put up with it, period.
	The other impact of the Parliament's vote, I mean, even if it's close, will be on courts.
	The arrogance of Canadian courts has been notorious throughout this thing.
	But I don't know if they'll stay as arrogant if they see blowback reflected in Parliament.
	Because if you're just watching mainstream Canadian news, you think this is shutting down a wild and rogue insurrection.
	If all of a sudden you see in Parliament a whole bunch of people voting against it, then it's going to be, well, hold on a second, maybe this isn't quite what I thought it was.
	It's like the U.S. Supreme Court was hesitant to get involved.
	Until they kept seeing more and more protests show up in more and more legislative action, more and more governors saying things, more and more congressmen saying things, more and more public personalities saying things.
	That got their attention over time.
	And courts that started out very arrogant and condescending, even conservative courts, about vaccine mandates not being the basis of challenge, about any of these emergency orders not being the basis of challenge, slowly started to completely reverse as they saw public opinion turn aggressively against it.
	And so I think that vote will have some impact.
	And we'll see.
	I mean, the Canadian Civil Liberties Organization has brought a challenge to it.
	So we'll see how that works.
	A very lefty group and a very lefty group.
	And that's the silver lining in all this is my goodness, even left and made the new Democratic Party.
	If you actually want to get votes and have people respect you for voting.
	Let me rephrase that.
	Have people respect you enough to vote for you?
	People were saying that when I ran, when I went door to door in September, they said, I'm going to vote for the NDP because it's a protest vote to Truda, but they weren't very eager to do it either.
	You want to earn your vote?
	Take a stand against actual tyranny and do what is actually required to be a new democratic party and not a new dictator party.
	Someone just said something.
	Oh, I forgot it.
	I'm sorry.
	It's fallen out of my head.
	Oh, no, it hasn't.
	Robert, this is officially our largest Sunday night stream ever.
	We're over 30,000 on YouTube.
	And I don't know how many we are on Rumble.
	I'll have to go check it out afterwards.
	Thank you.
	If this is the force multiplier of the truth, may it multiply and may it be forceful.
	So one of the military guys, after I interviewed the...
	Robert, you're going to poop your pants just listening to this.
	An Iraq veteran 13 years ago who was blown apart in an IED.
	That killed three of the four people in their vehicle.
	He was the only one that survived.
	The crater was two meters deep.
	He showed me a picture.
	He's a very frail man now.
	He's young, but frail.
	And I won't say delicate, but not big-boned Polish dude like myself.
	And I don't know if it had to do with the injury.
	I could see as I was talking to him and...
	Looking at him, I could see physically on his face, he had a big scar down his nose.
	He had scars on his face.
	He had scars all over his body because he was rebuilt after the IED detonation.
	He was at the protest and he was, manhandled would not be the right word.
	He was physically assaulted by the officers arresting him.
	Had his hands tied behind his back with zip ties for two hours.
	Apparently standing in the cold.
	This is all on his interview.
	And then they drove him 20 minutes away outside of town.
	Because that's what they do for mischief charges.
	Drove him out and dumped him in the middle of nowhere.
	And then he had to make his way back.
	This is a...
	Okay, I'll get angry again.
	I'm going to get angry again.
	This is a survivor.
	But he made his way back.
	He made his way back.
	And he was back yesterday.
	So it turns out guys who survive...
	Being blown up, aren't deterred by cops trying to use force and dump them in the wilderness.
	I mean, that's the other thing.
	I mean, they've been making great memes about this.
	You know, the trucker with Trudeau.
	Trudeau keeps getting madder and madder.
	And the trucker keeps saying, nah, nah, don't want to do that, eh?
	You know, I mean, this was not good visuals for them.
	And I don't think Trudeau and the rest really ever appreciated that.
	They're so used to just power and so eager to exercise it.
	That they don't understand that this is just not popular.
	I mean, this is why Democrats across the U.S. now are second-guessing everything, because they've been doing focus groups and they've been doing polling.
	They're wondering how they almost lost their governorship in New Jersey, how they got wiped out in a Virginia that was looking double-digits Democrat just last presidential cycle, close to it.
	And what are they finding?
	They're finding a bunch of people don't like these restrictions.
	And it's what Richard Barris, the People's Pundit, and I talked about.
	Two years ago and a year ago said they really think these things are popular and they don't understand they're not.
	And it's what happens when you lock yourself into an echo chamber because you're not hearing the dissident voices.
	You're saying those are crazy people.
	Those are far right, far left, whatever.
	Those people are extreme.
	They're radical fringe, to use Trudeau's language.
	And they don't realize that they're not.
	They're ordinary, everyday, you know, Joes.
	And that's why they're not understanding the blowback.
	And they're going to keep getting it.
	They're going to keep getting it.
	They're going to keep getting it.
	And I think that they're going to go down in flames politically over time.
	This is not the 1920s where eugenics could blow through and nobody was going to fight back or had the power or wherewithal to do so.
	And this is not even the AIDS epidemic.
	Where people did fight back, but not enough initially.
	This is just going to blow back on them.
	It's going to continue to blow back on them.
	And they don't understand it.
	They don't appreciate it.
	And it's going to take constant hits in the court of public opinion and in law and, you know, cumulatively and politically for them to start to retract.
	But it's not a coincidence.
	They started losing lawsuits, plus the trucker convoy.
	Magically, they rediscovered, oh, maybe we don't need this restriction after all.
	No, it's amazing.
	And then despite all of that, you have Trudeau doubling down, tripling down.
	It's a kid making noise up there.
	But that interview with this guy, I don't know if he was frail or if he was atrophied as a result.
	I'm not a big person myself.
	This guy was frail.
	And the idea that he would have been physically assaulted, physically manhandled the way he was, despite his...
	He lost a medal.
	On his chest.
	In the kerfuffle.
	So he had the medals on his chest.
	These freaking people.
	Okay.
	So these people.
	It is just a treasure.
	I'm going to get so angry.
	Okay.
	So stopping that.
	Holding my breath.
	So he talked about it.
	And I doubt any mainstream media outlet interviewed him.
	And may the world know who he is.
	It's on Viva Clips.
	It's a five minute clip.
	Heroism that you can't possibly imagine.
	And he came back after being manhandled and abused by police officers who have never seen one second of what this guy saw.
	Robert, hold on, there was one other thing.
	Truckers, pets, we did that.
	Rebel.
	Give, send, go sued.
	So, we might have news on give, send, go.
	I'm going to see if...
	There's going to be a lot of pending stuff with give, send, go, and I'm reluctant to actually have public discussions that might hamper compromise or otherwise, you know.
	Hurt them.
	If they want to do it, we'll do it.
	But Robert, so the retroactive criminalizing of stuff is illegal in the U.S., I presume under the Constitution.
	Oh yes, of course.
	Which amendment is it?
	It's actually in the Constitution itself in general.
	It was in the original Constitution that you can't do ex post facto laws and things of that nature.
	And so you can't retroactively apply something in the way that...
	And to be honest with you, I don't think they can in Canada really either.
	The legal analysis I've seen and heard...
	Is that this is a complete misuse of those available laws.
	And I just think they thought they could get away with it.
	And because they thought they were really on not only the moral right, but political right.
	And they don't understand that they're not.
	So I think the latter will probably catch up to them before the former.
	So I think all of that and like attempts to try to do anything.
	Here's my guess.
	This is already backfired.
	It will continue to backfire.
	A lot of these threats will not end up translating into concrete action.
	And nothing's going to happen across the border here.
	They're not going to make that mistake.
	I mean, they've already made a bunch of political mistakes.
	I mean, if this was popular, this should have been almost a near-unanimous Emergency Act support in the Parliament.
	The moment he knew he had trouble there is the moment he should have walked right back from the brain.
	But he didn't.
	Because he's an idiot.
	And because he's a power-mad idiot.
	And so I always say they have the moral compass of Kissinger and the IQ of people who are born from six generations of incest.
	And that's basically what you have here going on.
	I want to know why Anatoly said I'm disingenuous.
	I don't mind that.
	And I do want to bring in Edward Langer.
	Edward, I'm telling you one day you will actually love me.
	You will like me.
	Canada has no constitution.
	A charter is not a reason for their...
	A charter is not a reason for their believing in it.
	Fine.
	You said previously, I was double-jabbed, which I am.
	And I asked you, so what now?
	And I ask you that legitimately.
	So what now?
	It will not change anything in my past.
	It will not change anything in my future.
	And so what now?
	Are you going to ostracize me the way they are trying to ostracize others?
	And if so, then we look in the mirror.
	So with that said, and I totally, why am I disingenuous?
	I'd like to know.
	I'm very open to criticism.
	But with that said, Robert, So the get send go.
	Hold on a second.
	I'm going to bring this out.
	Okay, sorry.
	I didn't even mean to bring that one up, but it's good fade, Pete.
	I want to share my screen for one second.
	I'm going to go share screen.
	I don't have anything bad on this computer, regardless.
	I don't have another computer.
	Chartopedia.
	Here we go.
	Share.
	You got to see a lot of my madness behind me.
	Here we go.
	Provision.
	Any person charged with the defense has the right...
	Gee, this is from the Charter that Supreme Leader Justin Trudeau said he would respect while invoking the Emergencies Act.
	Not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offense under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the general yada yada yada.
	And that's pretty much uniform.
	I mean, it almost has to be required under certain treaties.
	It's a principle of international law and so forth.
	As soon as they were threatening this, I was like, most of these are bluffs.
	They might actually take action on it, but it's not something that will be long-term taking action on it.
	You can get a bank to free some accounts for a couple of weeks, a month, etc.
	What this has really done is educated a bunch of people.
	These are powers the government shouldn't have.
	Government shouldn't have power over licensures.
	Government shouldn't have power to seize your accounts outside of proof beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury.
	Or just a court order.
	Just the oversight of a court.
	Not no court order and immunizing for it.
	I mean, that's nothing shy of criminal.
	And that's the third thing.
	All immunity should be scrapped.
	Now, that does bridge us into the Trump cases where...
	The court is giving immunity to everybody except Trump.
	Okay, so bearing in mind, I know nothing about it.
	I might know more than I know, but I don't even want to pretend.
	What's the deal, and where is it going?
	It's because Trump is in heavily politicized jurisdictions.
	So he had a case go before the New York courts and a case go before the D.C. courts.
	In the New York court case, his point was, this is the most...
	Clear-cut First Amendment violation ever.
	And the court was like, well, maybe you're a criminal, so I'm going to let it keep going.
	It's just politically motivated decisions.
	And we'll see how it ultimately turns out.
	But it's because the New York courts are so political, which they are proving over and over and over and over.
	And though I appear to have...
	A court that's not driven by politics in the Dustin Heiss and Don Lemon case because the judge ruled against Don Lemon this week and said we will be having a trial by jury.
	It will be held in June.
	And as I told people, I've heard songs that it's nice in New York in June.
	So we'll see how all that turns out.
	We might be having coffee in New York in June.
	This Viva on the street.
	I'll go into the court and I'll listen and then I'll come out and I'll just do a Viva Live and we'll talk about what happened in court because it's federal so no cameras, no nothing.
	Okay.
	Unfortunately, yes.
	I mean, it won't stop Don Lemon's lawyer from harassing the Dickens out of my client in the interim, but we'll deal with that as it comes.
	But otherwise, that's how I see that case.
	I didn't see it as a meaningful address of the First Amendment standards for limiting retaliatory punitive power by a prosecutor.
	The second case is in the District of...
	Well, two different cases in the District of Columbia.
	They decided to add the Trump organization suit to a...
	Inaugural dispute, which I think is ridiculous.
	But, you know, again, it's D.C., so if it's Trump, all the rules get thrown out.
	And the other one was, you know, the congressman who sued because Trump inflicted emotional distress on them and violated the Civil Rights Act, which by itself is...
	Which congressman, I believe, I think I know, but I'm going to make a mistake.
	Let me guess.
	Let me guess.
	Swalwell.
	Yeah.
	Him and Benny Thompson, I believe, is the other one.
	I tell you, I know I know more than I know, but I...
	So, Swalwell.
	Robert, could you...
	Swalwell, if I'm not mistaken, he's the California congressman who threatened to use nukes against Americans because if you want to fight a war, we've got nukes and that'll be a short-lived battle.
	I believe he had an affair with a Chinese spy and I'm not saying this to mock you want to stay rich, you want to stay happy, don't have affairs.
	Set that aside.
	Normally, if you want to be on the...
	Foreign Intelligence Committee, you shouldn't be having spies with our main adversary.
	Just saying.
	That's not a problem for the Democrats.
	So he's had...
	It's not rumor, right?
	It's a confirmed...
	He had an affair or a relationship with a confirmed Chinese spy, and yet he is still sitting on committees?
	Oh, yes.
	How does that work?
	No limitations whatsoever.
	Bang, bang.
	I mean, they allowed him to, you know, grandstand on impeachment related to phone calls with Ukraine, you know, after this was known.
	So it's absurd.
	The whole suit is ridiculous.
	In the 1870s, they passed all the different Civil Rights Acts for the most part, though they've been amended over time.
	But this one was mainly for dealing with the Ku Klux Klan, not allowing U.S. Marshals and others to implement federal policy in the South after the Civil War.
	And so it's been very limited in its application in general.
	And so it's ridiculous to apply this as if that's what happened.
	But you know that's going to be the case, because here's a motion to dismiss, and the judge starts off with like a two-page introduction.
	He could have said, here's the facts that have to be assumed is true, but that's not the nature of his ruling.
	It's clear he's on his high horse about January 6th from day one, pretending things are fact that are just not by putting it in introduction outside of the statement of facts section where you could then you could apply it in a certain legal standard.
	But the case, he had to throw it out against Don Jr. and Giuliani.
	The whole case is crap.
	But he found all these excuses for why Trump could be sued.
	Even the U.S. Supreme Court said you cannot sue the president, period, for anything he did while he was president, period.
	No, no, no carve out.
	This included someone who was fired by Nixon for retaliatory purposes for exposing certain corruption in the Nixon administration.
	That was the suit the Supreme Court made clear.
	Can't sue.
	Can't sue.
	It has been repeatedly applied to the benefit of Democratic presidents in the District of Columbia, in particular, for the Clintons, for Obama.
	So now they come in and it's Trump, and all of a sudden this judge is going to great lengths to figure out how do I carve out an exception with such plain language from the U.S. Supreme Court.
	I say this with my own caveat.
	I don't think anybody should be immune.
	I think everybody should be subject to suit.
	So that part I don't have a problem with.
	I have a problem with carving out exceptions just for your political opponents, which is what this court did.
	So under the existing Supreme Court precedent, he decided that Trump is magically outside of this immunity because his statements don't concern his official duties.
	And I was like, that's kind of interesting because I brought a suit against Elizabeth Warren.
	And Deborah Halland, for things that clearly did not relate to their official duties, and they have much smaller immunity than the president does.
	The Westfall Act is much more limited than the president's immunity.
	And they said that anything a senator says, and anything a congresswoman says, is completely immune from any defamation suit.
	But somehow it's Trump, and even though he's talking about the certification of his own re-election, that doesn't relate to his presidential duties.
	It's a preposterous claim by the court.
	But the court doesn't stop there.
	The next statement by the court is that Trump was imminently inciting violence with his speech.
	He notes that, of course, imminent violence didn't happen to the people who heard his speech.
	He admits that the imminent incitement standard is extremely restrictive on what you can bring outside the First Amendment.
	So what he does is he actually kind of changes the language.
	The language is directly incite.
	He changes it to indirectly imminently incite.
	Now, he doesn't have eminence.
	It's obvious he doesn't have eminence, but he just pretends he does.
	If a generic speech where Trump specifically said, go protest peacefully and patriotically, imminent incitement of lawless action, then every speech can be.
	It's a ludicrous decision by a political hack of a judge pretending to be impartial as another reminder that judges...
	Particularly those appointed by Democrats in the District of Columbia are not capable of being independent judges.
	And some congressmen should start coming up with a list of judges who need to be impeached because they cannot perform their oath.
	They dishonor the robes they wear.
	They disobey the oaths they took.
	And there need to be consequences somewhere when it keeps getting this egregious and this predictable.
	Robert, so the first thing I guess is when he said peaceful, you didn't hear it properly because it was a dog whistle.
	It meant violence.
	And by the way, when you said he's talking about his duties, I'm just, Robert, I have to do it.
	I have to do it.
	This is the first time ever.
	It's the first time ever we're going to do this.
	We're doing it.
	We're doing it, people.
	I couldn't help.
	Duty.
	Okay, I'm stopping there so I don't get copystruck.
	But Robert.
	So this was on a motion to dismiss?
	This is now basically long story short.
	Well, the judge made clear what his goal was.
	He says there'd be a lot of interesting discovery here.
	So he knows that they want to discover everything, invade Trump's privacy and privileges again, as they've already allowed for the committee to do, the congressional committee to do.
	They want to take a deep dive and swim in it.
	And the court says he's particularly interested with this Roger Stone connection.
	It was, I mean...
	Almost every fact the judge said is false.
	Just false.
	Nobody lies more than federal judges lie.
	And it's just false fact after false fact after false fact.
	But putting that aside, motion to dismiss, he can get away with that to some degree, but he should have couched it differently.
	He said, assuming the complaint is true, he doesn't do that.
	Throughout the case, he just asserts these as absolute facts.
	He just takes those facts and says they are true as a matter of objective truth and presumes that for the purposes of a lot of his argument.
	But basically, it's the most extraordinary ruling to remove immunity in a way that's so politically discriminatory and so self-apparent that at some point the Supreme Court should look at this case and reverse it because it's such bad logic and such bad rulings.
	I've got to put lips along because my lips were so chapped from yesterday.
	They're still chapped.
	So it was only the dismissal of a dismissal, but only as it relates to Trump.
	So basically, they came and said, dismiss it all.
	And the judge said, okay, we'll dismiss it for Don Trump Jr., Giuliani.
	But Trump will allow it to proceed because maybe in discovery they'll find something.
	Because that was his third claim.
	I mean, this specific civil rights law was meant to deal with two different categories of it.
	One is meant to deal with people injured in their person or their property.
	And the second was preventing officials from doing their job.
	And if you study the history of the law, it was meant for executive officials.
	It's very dangerous to start applying this to legislative officials.
	Because you can start saying that lobbying now is a civil rights violation.
	The specific language is by force, intimidation, other unlawful criminal action.
	What this judge had to conclude was that there were sufficient facts to claim that Trump planned...
	Conspired to plan and joined to cause a riot for the purposes of imposing emotional distress on Democratic Congressmen.
	From a speech.
	You couldn't get there.
	But if you can get there from a speech, you can get there from lobbying, you can get there from public representation.
	I mean, this is an attempt to dramatically expand the law, to throw everybody underneath it.
	And if you can get the president, you can get anybody.
	And it's an attempt to criminalize speech.
	The lobbying, I can even understand it more easily for the lobbying because you're using money.
	So maybe the illicit means are not...
	You know, threats or violence, but rather...
	Well, I mean, bribery itself is criminal.
	But the degree to which you're saying anything that could impact a congressman's emotional well-being, an injury to his person or property is generally never...
	In fact, the court admitted no court had ever found emotional injury to be sufficient.
	He just decided to invent it.
	Just add it to the equation.
	You know, he found very easy standing, which was by itself problematic.
	The other problem here was the idea of this was to prevent them from doing what exactly?
	From voting?
	From voting on electoral certification?
	They're actually meeting in terms of it's a different capacity, but that's not what the law...
	The law was intended to do things like preventing someone from arresting someone, preventing transfers of property, preventing...
	I mean, things like that.
	That's what the law was for.
	The idea that it would be to impact the, you know, the congressman is so distressed he couldn't vote.
	That wasn't true.
	He could vote.
	I mean, so it's getting ridiculous.
	So it's a ridiculous application of the civil rights laws, ridiculous application of the immunity provisions, ridiculous application of the First Amendment, and endangers everybody.
	Hopefully the courts will get involved and overturn it in time.
	But it's a bad ruling.
	Another ruling that shows what a bunch of political hacks occupy too many positions in the federal court.
	But it would be overturning the non-dismissal.
	Yeah, because otherwise Trump's subject to invasive discovery by these hacked congressmen for two years.
	If I was Trump and if I was subject to that, I would really dig into Benny Thompson and Swalwell's history.
	They're claiming emotional distress.
	Well, let's see.
	What else might have caused some emotional distrust?
	Your corruption, your sleeping with spies, your other, you know, get into it.
	Because a lot of these people could not handle that same discovery.
	Of course, once the court suddenly step in and say that's not pertinent discovery.
	But this is a legal decision.
	It's not a sincere legal decision.
	But how does it work on appealing this type of decision?
	Because the judge will say, look, I'm not going to overturn the non-dismissal of the dismissal.
	You have to go up on interlocutory, basically to request a writ, effectively.
	But the Supreme Court in the past has done that in these kind of cases because they involve issues like presidential immunity, First Amendment limitations, etc.
	This court went too far, so hopefully the U.S. Supreme Court will step in.
	All right, well, let's see.
	Now, what else is on the...
	What does that segue into, Robert?
	What else is very interesting in the United States?
	We had...
	I think we talked about Baldwin last week.
	There's been no real news on Baldwin, a civil suit against Baldwin from...
	Well, there's now the estate of the dead woman.
	The husband and the child are now suing.
	So he's been sued by other ones, but that suit's been added.
	I broke it down.
	People can see the breakdown on...
	America's Untold Stories with Eric Conley and Mark Grobert.
	I was about to say unstructured.locals.com because that's what I had locked in my head.
	And we broke it.
	We talked about it for about an hour.
	Both the political side of it, legal limitations.
	So you can see the good breakdown of the Baldwin case there.
	Now that would be on America's Untold Stories.
	Mark Grobert, Eric Conley, and Robert Barnes.
	By the way, Baldwin's response was to post an Instagram of him and his kids and his wife.
	Might not been...
	Might not have been the most thoughtful response under the circumstance.
	The most important thing is Grobert is still alive.
	Everyone was worried about that for a week because he was out with a cold.
	But summarize it in a nutshell.
	Basically, it's an obvious liability lawsuit against Baldwin.
	Who are the defendants?
	And the plaintiffs are the husband and the kid, right, for emotional distress?
	Yeah.
	In particular, which has its own history.
	And Baldwin and everybody sued.
	You know, the production companies, other people are sued.
	A bunch of John Doe's are sued.
	So we discussed the benefits and drawbacks of that kind of suit.
	A big L.A. firm brought the suit with local New Mexico counsel.
	It is further evidence based on the other statements the local D.A. has made that there will be no criminal prosecution of Alec Baldwin.
	Okay, so that's where Posobiec had said, Alec Baldwin got away with it.
	We have not yet had a conclusion to the criminal investigation.
	Your assessment, Robert, based on leaks or based on statements is...
	She made some statements that basically sounded...
	I don't think they would have sued if they thought criminal case was coming, because often you wait to see how that works.
	And secondly, statements the DA made.
	And it's consistent with what I said all along.
	It's a Soros DA.
	No way she's going to prosecute a big Democrat like Alec Baldwin.
	The odds are then stacked against me, which I like.
	I still think he's going to face charges.
	And not out of malice, out of justice.
	I just want to bring this one up right here.
	This.
	It sounds like they froze the account of a single mother for donating $50 to the crowd.
	Be careful, because from what I've been reading, and there's blue check marks fighting it out on Twitter.
	Apparently the woman who came from Chilliwack, BC, they have not found any donation coming from Chilliwack or under that woman's name.
	So just be careful.
	I can only confirm that I know of one big account.
	I'm not mentioning names.
	One participant, whatever, whose account has been frozen.
	I have not heard or seen any verification for anyone with a $50, whatever, even $1,000.
	I have not seen any confirmation or obtained any confirmation from anyone involved that but for the organizers who have been arrested have had frozen bank accounts.
	And by the way, Robert, let's bring it back to January 6th.
	Tamara, one of the organizers of the Freedom Convoy 2022.
	An indigenous woman.
	She was arrested.
	We saw the video go viral Friday night.
	Arrested.
	I don't want to say she looked happy for it.
	She looked, in my mind, very unhappy.
	Couldn't believe what was happening to her.
	Handcuffed and whisked off by cops.
	Still in jail, by the way.
	And everyone should understand this.
	Hold on a second.
	I watch every day for the last three weeks from Germany.
	I cried of hope and anger.
	Canada is leading the way.
	I'm in awe.
	You're an antidepressant, Viva Frey.
	Thank you very much.
	May this end the right way so that we don't end up in sadness.
	But thank you very much for the chat.
	And just to say this, Tamara has been in jail and her bail hearing was suspended until Tuesday morning.
	So a woman, the woman was not the relevant part, but she's a woman.
	She's indigenous.
	She organized a peaceful protest and started a GoFundMe, turned into a GiveSendGo, registered not-for-profit under Canadian law.
	She was arrested under either mischief or inciting mischief, and she will have been detained now for Friday to Saturday, Sunday, Monday to four days.
	Four days for what is arguably at worst felony mischief, and that's at worst, and probably misdemeanor.
	And she's in jail, and she's going to have a bail hearing Tuesday.
	And I know now from David Anber, who is representing defendants, has not been able to get bail hearings for some of these defendants, arrested on nothing more and nothing less than mischief.
	So this is...
	Trudeau did not even need to have a January 6th.
	There was violence at January 6th.
	We saw it.
	Whether or not it characterized the entire protest, I'm much more skeptical now than I was before.
	They are detaining people for days.
	For mischief charges.
	So let that sit in, people.
	Robert?
	He was citing January 6th from the get-go, so you knew it was the script he wanted to use.
	It just turned out the Canadians were not as good at infiltrating trucker protesters as maybe some U.S. governmental actors were in January 6th with the whole approach.
	But the...
	Speaking of criminal cases, aside from Durham sneaking around various aspects of Clinton-connected people who were involved in spying on Trump illicitly in 2016, with the help, clearly, of insiders in the intelligence agencies and law enforcement, there was an extradition this week that wasn't really given much coverage, but probably should have.
	During the Obama administration, there was a sort of a left populist kind of guy, business background, who got elected to the presidency of Honduras.
	A coup took place that later was clearly sponsored and supported by Hillary Clinton's State Department that put a different man in charge.
	Well, he and his brother helped facilitate massive money laundering and drug trade, along with other things, over the next 10 years or so.
	But the brother ended up caught, ended up because of just independent drug investigations that led to him.
	And now the guy who was president of Honduras, who Hillary Clinton helped put in that position, and was an ally of the Clintons, is also now being extradited to the United States to face major drug charges.
	You know how significant and connected it is to the Democratic Party by the fact that the mainstream media gave it almost...
	Zero news coverage.
	You're talking about a former president of a country, a very recent president up until 2020, I believe, of a country for about a decade who's getting extra out of the United States for massive complicity in the drug trade and probably illicit immigration activities as well because the cartel took over a lot of that during that time period.
	And so it will be interesting to see if anything else comes of that.
	Hopefully he doesn't spend too much time in the kind of jail that an Epstein associate does because the big French fashion model guy who was in jail related to Epstein charges, he somehow not only managed to hang himself, the cameras managed not to work right around that time.
	Robert, please, I don't want to go anymore.
	I'm going to rip out my hair.
	I'm going to rip out my hair.
	Who's the individual?
	What was he in jail for?
	He was in jail for charges related to Epstein.
	I won't try to pronounce it.
	For the audience, someone in the chat, his name, because I'll butcher that worse than I did Sasak.
	I can't even say Sasak watching.
	I can't even do it.
	I'm going to pull it up if I can.
	Hold on.
	Somebody in the chat will have the...
	It is in French, so you would be able to pronounce it correctly.
	Keep talking while I'm going to try to find the article and I'm going to pronunciate his name properly.
	What was he in jail for?
	On what charges was he convicted?
	And how did this happen to him as well?
	He was one of Epstein's top associates and was a recruiter.
	In my recollection, he was big in the fashion industry and model industry.
	And so he was one of the people that had been...
	I think he was in a French jail, if I recall correctly.
	The fact that he hung himself, that he Epstein'd himself right away was a little suspicious.
	There we go.
	Yeah, there it is.
	Jean-Luc Brunel.
	Brunel is found dead by suicide in prison.
	Brunel, he had been charged with doing bad things to minors over the age of 15. Under the age of 15, I think.
	No, this is over.
	No, it is over the age of 15. That'll be shocking regardless.
	Disgraced modeling agent and Jeffrey Epstein associate Jean-Luc Brunel died by suicide in his prison cell Saturday night in Paris.
	The Paris prosecutor's office confirmed to ABC...
	I'm just trying to check anything.
	Does anyone see?
	I just got a YouTube notification that Travel Fund 69 is live.
	I don't know if anyone sees that because I don't think anyone sees it.
	Let's just see here.
	He hanged himself.
	The prosecutor's office declined to confirm those details.
	In December 2020, he was charged with the very bad things of minors over the age of 15 and very bad things harassment.
	A crime in France.
	At least they have crimes in France.
	In a statement on the client's death, which was in French, and sent...
	I'm sorry, I'm not trying to laugh.
	It's like, what a weird caveat.
	Which was in French.
	Yeah, it's France, people.
	They said Brunel's distress.
	Was the one of a 75-year-old man who was destroyed by the judicial media lynching, and we should question it.
	Our client firmly asserted he never abused any woman.
	He made multiple efforts to prove it.
	His decision was not...
	So it does not look like he was convicted.
	Let me just see if I can do this.
	My understanding was he still faced potential charges.
	But I don't know all the details.
	So it doesn't look like he was even convicted.
	It just looks like he was in jail.
	Pre-trial entertainment, and he pulled an Epstein.
	Amazing.
	Dead men tell no tales.
	And according to published reports from the Daily Mail and elsewhere, the security cameras were not working.
	I could have gone.
	Go read the articles yourselves, people.
	You can find the details.
	Jean-Luc Brunel, 75-year-old man.
	How old would Epstein have been had he not done what he did to himself?
	I would think late 60s, if I recall correctly.
	Same vintage.
	Yeah, no doubt about it.
	So if I was that Honduran fellow, I'd be careful right at the moment.
	But it was interesting that you don't normally see the extradition of a recent president of a nation with incredible allegations detailed against him.
	Make almost no mainstream media coverage.
	It was quite interesting.
	We only heard about the death.
	I just want to pull up one thing.
	Let me just see.
	Come on.
	Where's Travel...
	No, that's not what I wanted to bring up.
	TravelFun69, if you want to see what's going on live in Ottawa, check them out.
	But yeah, the main thing is I never heard of this guy until he allegedly Epstein himself.
	It's nuts.
	It's nuts.
	Why does Viva have...
	No, I don't, by the way.
	Funny story.
	My wife looked at me today and she said, Dave, your hair finally looks like your avatar.
	And I was like, booyah.
	Then we're done.
	Mission accomplished.
	Yeah, okay.
	Epstein's alive.
	I've heard that as well.
	No denigrating.
	Anything is possible these days.
	Robert, what else do we have on the menu for tonight?
	So the...
	That's most of the big sort of criminal case news.
	In terms of some of the January 6th, there's been some sentencings, there's been some delays in trials, but nothing of major news other than the government continues to hide documents and discovery, is trying to do an ambush trial, and we'll see if an actual trial, meaningful trial, occurs.
	For people wanting to stay up to date with everything January 6th related, the best source is Julie Kelly at American Greatness.
	There was, in the good news version of illegal events this past week, the state of Texas filed suit against the Biden administration's mask mandate for all forms of transit, including the one imposed on airlines.
	And it's because they're the source of power they used for that.
	In fact, we discussed it back when they first instituted it.
	I was hopeful that a state would sue a little sooner, but still good that a state...
	State now has sued because they're relying on the same power that they used for the eviction power.
	They just don't have this power.
	They just don't have this authority, in my opinion.
	And so I think that the mask mandate case should prevail.
	We'll see if it does.
	But that would mean there would be the airlines could no longer rely on the excuse of a mandate for its imposition, nor could any other public transit.
	Robert, I'm going to read you.
	This is how amazing the internet is and the aggregate knowledge of the interwebs.
	Someone just sent me something.
	They know who they are because they're probably watching...
	I'm not going to even try to share this for fear of disclosing.
	This is apparently a statement coming from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police from their website.
	Take my glasses off.
	Old man Dave has to see this.
	It's a statement on material circulating on social media regarding some RCMP members.
	Statement.
	What's the date today?
	February 20th.
	Okay.
	The RCMP is aware of the material circulating on social media pertaining to a chat group that includes some of its members, and we can confirm that we are looking into the matter.
	Robert, how ugly do I look before I continue?
	Am I ugly or not?
	I'm good.
	Okay, fine.
	Let me keep going.
	We can confirm that we're looking into the matter.
	The material is not representative of those who have committed themselves to serving Canadians with integrity and professionalism.
	Yeah, we saw the videos of that, by the way.
	They serve integrity with their knees to their ribcage.
	Check me out on Twitter if you don't want to see that.
	Since the beginning, our members have worked tirelessly along our municipal and provincial policing partners in Ottawa and across the country to end illegal blockades.
	This is coming off the website.
	To end illegal blockades.
	Show me the court order that declared it illegal, and I will agree with that assertion.
	And unlawful protests, safely and peacefully.
	All members of the RCMP know that, whether on or off duty, they have a responsibility to hold themselves to the highest professional standards and are subject to the code of conduct of the RCMP at all times.
	Those include acting with integrity, fairness, impartiality, yada, yada, yada, and avoiding any particular conflicts between their professional responsibilities and private interests.
	And that's all I got for now.
	Let me just pull one thing.
	So basically, they're not disputing.
	They're confirming it's real, then.
	Methinks they doth protesteth too hard.
	Too much, sorry.
	Yeah, we saw it.
	We're looking into it.
	All right.
	You know who sent me that.
	Thank you.
	You can Google this.
	This is on the RCMP, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Gendarmerie Royale de Canada.
	Yeah, it's probably true.
	We're looking into it.
	We undertake to respect the highest levels of duties while we knee people in the ribcage.
	Veterans, we've seen it.
	And I have two...
	I'm going to make a...
	It's going to be like that snake game where you eat the pellets and you grow longer.
	The growing longer of this video is going to be RCMP or police abuse.
	And every pellet that makes it longer is going to be a video clip on the social medias showing the outright police abuse.
	So yeah, thanks RCMP.
	You've caught...
	You've brought your people back 100 years.
	That's to pull another family guy.
	Anyone's going to know that reference.
	But RCMP, you've done irreparable damage.
	And you're continuing to do it.
	And I was sitting there, Robert.
	And I was looking at the front lines move forward.
	It was like one foot...
	It was like an inching tide.
	And I just wanted one of them to walk away.
	Or one of them to turn around and say no.
	It would have been...
	But no, they didn't do it.
	Just following orders.
	Everyone's got families to feed, mortgages to pay.
	So we're going to go freeze accounts, freeze mortgages, starve people out of feeding their families because we got our orders.
	And that's the RCP's way of serving Canadians.
	Outrageous?
	Outrageous.
	I mean, contrast it to the handling of a real conflict like the Kim Potter case where she ended up convicted, now surprising.
	To me, at least, the judge actually did lower the sentencing range, gave her a two-year sentence, which means probably about another 10 months or so in jail for her in Minnesota.
	So she went way down on the sentence politically.
	I guess I felt she had enough breathing room to do so, because I had doubts whether she would, though the various grounds she cited were really grounds by which shouldn't have been convicted in the first place.
	The appeal will still go forward because of its collateral impact.
	But she mooted a lot of the political impact, potentially, of the appeal by reducing the sentence so dramatically.
	Explain to the people, because it's not just a radical reduction in the minimum sentencing, but with time served, when she didn't let her out for Christmas, you get...
	Credit for that.
	Day for day credit for that.
	So effectively, what happens is a two-year sentence, usually in a state like Minnesota, will be...
	14 months, 12 months, and she's already served two months, so basically she's looking at getting out next year, in all likelihood.
	And I think it reflected the judge's recognition of what took place in the trial, but it was really strong reasons why the judge should have limited, should have given, there should have been a different outcome in the case itself.
	But we'll see what happens on appeal, given some of the different legal issues present in that proceeding.
	In terms of politicized judgments, As we've seen in other contexts in New York, and as we previewed last week, the judge saying while the jury was deliberating that he would dismiss the case as meritless, what he failed to recognize, and they're going to have to deal with this in courts in the future, a bunch of the jurors had signed up for notifications from the court.
	They should have made sure that didn't happen, by the way, because those notifications can include pretrial rulings about things that the jurors shouldn't even know about.
	But the jurors thought they were being real conscientious by getting notifications from the court.
	So while they were deliberating, they got a notification that said the judge said this case is crap and I'm throwing it out.
	So it makes the verdict completely useless.
	And now Palin has a robust appeal, in my opinion, where the Second Circuit does anything about it.
	It's still open.
	But how can you expect the jury to come back with any...
	Verdict against the New York Times when they're being told during deliberation, the judge says there's no case here and I'm going to dismiss it anyway.
	So exactly what we warned of happened.
	Well, Sean Nichols, who wants to judge me, how did I get double jabbed without doing the research?
	Sean, if all of your life decisions have been wonderful and perfect, God bless you.
	And if I've made a mistake and it only impacts me, that should be none of your business.
	So with that said, but Robert...
	So, Kim Potter's judge, I forget her name now.
	I forget her name.
	Doesn't matter.
	She basically, she sentenced her to two years for the, what do they call it?
	Wrongful death?
	Murder?
	What was the conviction for?
	She explained that it was, that conviction usually has worse facts attached to it than this case, of course.
	It was, I first agree, reckless.
	I'm forgetting the exact terminology.
	It's a brain fart for both of us.
	But either way, it carried.
	A long sentence.
	And when the judge denied her release for Christmas to come back for sentencing, and we were like, this is crazy.
	She's going to go to jail for a long time.
	After that, two years.
	And that's virtually, I mean, so I say virtually nothing.
	It's two years of a person's life, and it's immeasurable.
	There's no appeal to this, right?
	She can still appeal.
	And her appeal will still go up, but the power of the appeal has a little bit less value because of the circumstance.
	But speaking of political cases, the latest conspiracy of Mark Elias to fortify our elections...
	Is to misuse and abuse the 14th Amendment and get local democratically oriented election boards to strip people of ballot access, even existing congressmen like the one we met down at the Project Veritas event, Madison Cawthorn.
	Now, constitutionally, they don't have the authority to do that.
	So I don't think that will pass muster, ultimately.
	But it shows it's the latest attempt to find some loophole in the law, expand it dramatically to attack your political enemies when you would never apply it to your own allies.
	And it's comparable to what's happening in the redistricting context.
	So at the federal level, the U.S. Supreme Court tried to stop courts from supervising redistricting, though the whole history of this, the whole ugly history of this was opened up by the Supreme Court itself.
	To give an idea of how hypocritical they are on the doctrine of standing, if you're someone who was an urban upper middle class professional being denied equal participation rights, quote unquote, even though you're able to equally participate, you just didn't have a district that had the same voting power, say, as other districts.
	Sometimes people wonder, could states recreate the Electoral College?
	Not according to the Supreme Court, because we used to have one like that.
	We used to have districts that were Based on that different lifestyles, different geographies needed to be equally represented, even if they didn't have the same population size as other areas.
	Now, the backstory to this was this was a fight, in fact, between the urban upper middle class, who was disproportionately unrepresented in redistricting both for state legislative offices and for federal congressional offices, the House of Representatives in particular here.
	And so the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1950s and 1960s dramatically expanded and said, anyone can sue.
	It's always interesting when they find that.
	Anyone can sue.
	For that, you can sue.
	When you're representing the interests that I align with as a Supreme Court upper middle class professional, part of the clerical bureaucratic class, then suddenly you have standing to sue.
	When nobody thought before somebody could sue the state because they don't like the redistricting that's going on.
	But that's what they did.
	The Supreme Court opened up that can of worms.
	Of course, what happened is you had judicial supervision of redistricting, which even though the Constitution commits redistricting to the state legislatures, which Congress can in limited circumstances amend, and almost every state government constitution, state constitution, gives it to the legislature, you had courts coming in and supervising it under these pretexts of one person, one vote, equal proportionality.
	Then, of course, they were doing it under the Voting Rights Act about racial disparity.
	Now, there they had some authority because of the 14th Amendment.
	But the whole one-person-one-vote thing is just made up by the Supreme Court.
	It's not a constitutional doctrine.
	You could district according to interest.
	You could district according to different geographic lifestyles, etc.
	Explain to the ignorant buffoons like myself, you redistrict every 10 years, correct?
	Because of the census.
	You use the census to redistrict.
	Now, in Tennessee, we didn't redistrict for like 60 years between 1900 or thereabouts.
	And it was because it protected rural interest.
	Because otherwise, more and more power would go to the urban interest because that's where the population was growing.
	And the belief in Tennessee was, we want to keep the rural way of life equally represented in the state legislature, and not just say, if you pack a bunch of people in one place, you should now have the power.
	Your cultural, social values should now dominate us.
	That's what the Electoral College really reflects, is not allowing that to occur.
	But the U.S. Supreme Court didn't like that.
	That was inconvenient for the U.S. Supreme.
	It was also inconvenient for them, because the old Democratic political machines were heavily urban-based.
	And they had less influence if they didn't get one person, one vote.
	And so it sounded great, one person, one vote.
	There was still one person, one vote.
	It was just the way redistricting was done represented other values as well.
	The U.S. Supreme Court shut that down.
	And it got so bad that courts were intervening on the grounds of, quote-unquote, you can't even do partisan gerrymandering.
	Basically, they were just taking over.
	And usurping the redistricting process.
	And it was getting particularly bad because Obama judges were doing it to Republican state legislatures.
	And they've been doing it repeatedly.
	Democrats kept losing state.
	And this is a good example.
	This is North Carolina.
	North Carolina federal court did it, created a totally different map that got a bunch of Democrats elected in 2018 in a state disproportionate to their representation within the state.
	The U.S. Supreme Court came in in 2019 and said federal courts should not be in the business.
	It was really saying courts in general.
	But it said definitely federal courts should not be in the business of reexamining these issues.
	And the only time we should get involved is when there's a clear 14th Amendment related issue.
	And as they told Alabama two weeks ago, you shouldn't do so on the eve of an election.
	You should do so in a more prepared way.
	So it did not allow an Alabama federal court to set aside a map.
	So the Republican legislature map has now gone through.
	But in North Carolina, the state court, the North Carolina State Supreme Court, which, by the way, had long said partisan gerrymandering was just fine because Democrats ran the state.
	Now that Republicans ran the state legislature, suddenly said that's offensive to every constitutional right known to man.
	It pretended the U.S. Supreme Court case didn't even exist.
	It was the four Democratic justices against the three Republican justices.
	They had just enough to win, and they're now having to completely make up new maps in North Carolina.
	And they announced a standard that directly conflicts with the U.S. Supreme Court.
	But the U.S. Supreme Court is staying out of state Supreme Courts doing these kind of things.
	So really, where the redistricting fight is going to...
	Most of the efforts by Democrats to set aside maps in the federal court system over the last year failed because of what the U.S. Supreme Court has done in stepping in on Alabama, reasserted that power.
	Where they've had success is where they have Democratic state courts.
	So they have a Democratic Supreme Court in North Carolina.
	They're going to get to rewrite that map.
	They have a Democratic Supreme Court in Pennsylvania, which will probably rediscover that mail-in balloting is all just fine.
	That issue is now pending before, and we'll see what happens.
	But they don't in Wisconsin.
	And that's why they lost in Wisconsin on that mail-in balloting power.
	So I think that what you'll see, and in Georgia and Arizona, they don't have Democratic, in Florida, they don't have Democratic majorities in the state Supreme Court.
	So Republicans will mostly prevail on the redistricting issues because federal courts, the Supreme Court is properly disciplined, and there's not enough Democrats to rewrite the rules, as they are clearly doing, in ways that have nothing to do.
	With constitutional jurisprudence, as their own precedents usually reveal.
	Okay, that's phenomenal.
	I never understood redistricting.
	It happens every decade.
	It's such a meticulous thing.
	If you're not paying attention, you don't know that it's happening.
	Robert, let me just bring up one thing.
	I'm going to share the screen one more time.
	Last time for the evening, people, I promise.
	Share a screen.
	Chrome tab.
	Bernie Madoff's sister and brother.
	This is...
	What world are we living in?
	Bernie Madoff's...
	You see this, Robert?
	Yeah, I've seen it.
	Supposed murder-suicide.
	There's people, because of the people connected to Madoff, there's people who are suspicious of that.
	Late fraudster Bernie Madoff's sister and brother-in-law were found dead from gunshot wounds in their Boynton Beach, Florida apartment on Thursday.
	Gunshots.
	Okay, let's see if we say what that is.
	So they're claiming one shot the other and then shot themselves.
	Yeah, well, what type of firearm would this be?
	The death or an apparent murder-suicide, according to the Palm Beach.
	Sandra Weiner, 87, and her spouse, 90, lost $3 million in Mados Ponzi scheme in 28. It's not known who killed whom, but the couple's relatives have requested the name of Marvin be shielded under Marcy's Law, which is designed to protect the identities of crime.
	Robert, explain the Marcy's Law for us.
	So is that...
	The Florida Marcy's Law?
	I mean, under certain circumstances, certain kinds of crime victims can have their names not disclosed publicly.
	That's the short answer.
	This is a 90 and 87-year-old who allegedly, I'm going to stop sharing, who allegedly died in a murder-suicide.
	Yeah, there's people who are suspicious about it just because of their connection to Madoff and that kind of death occurring.
	And their age.
	And their age.
	I don't know.
	I've only known a few 90-year-olds and 87-year-olds.
	That's not how I would end my life at that point in time.
	How many years do you have left regardless?
	I'm not trying to be glib.
	Unless the remaining years were so miserable.
	Okay, well, that's interesting.
	Yeah.
	We'll see if anything else comes of it.
	Probably not.
	Some people had asked about the Remington settlement.
	So because they are in bankruptcy, this was the insurance companies offered their maximum policy.
	There were five different potential insurance companies that had applicable policies, and they ended up writing a $73 million collective check to the Sandy Hook.
	And I think it's a case that never should have been allowed if the Connecticut Supreme Court would have enforced the law, but they won't in Sandy Hook cases.
	Unless it exposes the corrupt school system, then they'll be happy to get involved.
	Or if it helps hide FOIA information, then they'll be happy to get involved.
	But if it's somebody else being falsely blamed who's not a state actor...
	Like Alex Jones, like Remington, then they go out of their way to gut the law that's supposed to prevent some of these suits from occurring, whether it's the First Amendment in Jones's case or the federal law that immunizes gun manufacturers in this case.
	And the U.S. Supreme Court, you know, sat on its hands, probably because it's Sandy Hook.
	I mean, you mentioned the word Sandy Hook and people just start shaking.
	Can't have a rational conversation anymore, even though we're 10 years removed from it at this point or thereabouts.
	The impact will be bad.
	Plaintiff's lawyers are sharks in the water, and they're going to look for every excuse to bring suits.
	But the lesson of the case is you need to be in the right political jurisdiction.
	Democrats will ignore the law.
	So if Democrats control the court system in your state, and you're a plaintiff's lawyer, and your case aligns with their politics, Yeah, go at it.
	More money to be had, because they'll clearly allow you to go forward.
	If you're in San Francisco, if you're in D.C., if you're in New York, if you're in Connecticut, if you're in Massachusetts, more like 90% of the time, they're not going to enforce the law if it means going against their politics.
	They've made that crystal clear in the Sandy Hook cases especially.
	And so it's an unsettling consequence, not as dangerous and perilous as the Alex Jones cases are, in my view, because of the First Amendment rights those threaten.
	I mean, the theory of the Sandy Hook plaintiffs in those cases is that if you voice a theory different than the government's theory of a major crime, anybody that's in any way connected to a victim of the crime can sue you.
	That's intentional infliction of emotional distress because you disagreed with the government's narrative.
	That's a real terrifying set of principles.
	So we'll see how all that turns out.
	On the more light side...
	7-Eleven is having to defend their tacos.
	So an individual had a 7-Eleven taco near midnight, rather rapidly got atrociously sick, had to go to the hospital, has filed suit saying he's shocked that 7-Eleven tacos, just that combination probably was a warning sign, especially a midnight one, but is suing saying that gave him food poisoning and 7-Eleven saying that's outrageous.
	Everybody knows our tacos are spectacular.
	So if I was 7-Eleven, maybe the defense would be, it was a 7-Eleven taco at midnight.
	You knew what you were eating.
	My defense would have been, what did you eat before?
	If you're eating a taco at midnight, Lord knows what you're doing before that, because it's something that leads you to eat a taco from a 7-Eleven at midnight.
	Robert, I want to read one chat.
	I know we've addressed the question many times before.
	Barnes.
	Against these awful judges, Palin, Trump, what recourses do private citizens have when they issue these awful miscarriages of judicial duty?
	Is the best we can hope for a smackdown in the opinion of an appeals court?
	Yeah, and the court of public opinion, too.
	That always matters.
	So just to educate people these are bad decisions, these are bad laws, or bad application of the law.
	But otherwise, mostly it's just hoping an appeals or a Supreme Court will step in.
	Or changing the law or clarifying in other cases in the legislature if you can.
	And then the court of public opinion.
	Some of these judges are elected.
	So where you could possibly have an impact there.
	I think that's a very underutilized mechanism.
	Is the power of those judges that are elected.
	That not enough challenges are being made to a lot of those judges.
	Who could be very politically embarrassed and be defeated.
	The truth about them was fully and fairly exposed.
	So I think that's often the remedy.
	Now Facebook, by the way, is facing another.
	Invasion of privacy suit, this time for its facial recognition technology, violating a range of laws that are meant to preclude exactly what they are doing and how they've been applying it.
	And so we'll see what they're...
	I think they and Apple have been paying out some big settlements, you know, like 10-figure, 9-figure settlements of late.
	So we'll see how all that sort of fleshes out ultimately.
	And I think the only other case we had was, oh, the Illinois mask mandate.
	It was struck down by a lower court, and then the legislature stepped in, and the appeals court said, based on that, they are not going to allow the governor's mask mandate to move forward at this point.
	So that was another good win on the mask mandate, emergency power side of the equation.
	I'll say one thing.
	I never ask someone's vaccination status, but I do occasionally ask, have you eaten a 7-Eleven taco before we let you into our house?
	Because Robert, someone said, 7-Eleven tacos, we're going to visit Robert and Viva.
	I'll ask.
	I will ask, and I will have no shame.
	If you want to come in after having a 7-Eleven taco, wear a diaper.
	That'll be fine.
	Okay, I think we've gotten everything.
	There was one thing.
	I'm going to forget it.
	It doesn't matter.
	Who do we have on for Wednesday's sidebar?
	Oh, Mr. Moss, so we have a Bitcoin expert that's good on the alternative finance world as well, understands the political-economic interaction.
	But a good number of people that don't know a lot about Bitcoin.
	People that are big Bitcoin advocates wanted a discussion about some Bitcoin-specific subject matters.
	Two, there's some people who don't know much about Bitcoin.
	So this will be kind of a basic introduction to that from someone who provides very good accessible information on it.
	And the third, people asked about this, especially in the context of the truck or convoy issues.
	The GoFundMe, the GiveSendGo, the bank account freezers and forfeitures.
	How can Bitcoin be of help?
	What are its current limitations?
	What are its current advantages?
	Because the Canadians asked one particular group to provide information on their customers, and they basically wrote back, we don't gather that information specifically to screw over governments like you, so goodbye and shove off.
	So there are people out there that have had success in that, and that's useful information in the modern age to have.
	So he'll be very good on all that, and has a lot of broad economic understanding that's useful.
	And I gotta tell you, I reserve the right, we might do this locals, Rumbles exclusive, because this might not be a discussion.
	I don't want to run into an Eric Hundley.
	And even as you said it, Robert, you got frozen.
	Or an Allison Morrow.
	No, that's the thing.
	This might be a Rumble exclusive on Wednesday, because I don't want to run into...
	This is...
	I mean, they're suspending Alison Morrow for quoting the government or quoting doctors at the current state.
	No, it's nuts.
	And I like to think YouTube has some deference to litigious lawyers, but they have no deference to anyone else.
	So this might be a Rumble exclusive.
	We'll see.
	But I've got questions because I know I don't understand jack squat when it comes to this.
	This was amazing.
	And people, okay, so tomorrow...
	Look, between now and Wednesday, there may be live streams between now and then.
	Alexa Lebois from Rebel News.
	Maybe other people, I don't want to mention them by name, but stay tuned.
	Wednesday's going to be good.
	Robert, what do you have on the professional front end for next week?
	And then I need you.
	I need you.
	We all need you to end this on a white pill moment because I've got to tell you, I've been black pill, like on the verge of black pill for the last little while.
	Tell us what you have going on professionally next week, and then maybe try to make me feel better to head into another week of my life.
	Yeah, I don't know if I have anything sort of political next week.
	It's mostly just a range of cases that some have some hearings, some have some other.
	I'll be out in, I think, L.A. on Friday for a range of meetings and Thursday hearings, stuff like that.
	But nothing in particular of public value or particular public notoriety.
	I think the best white pill is just that veteran story you told.
	Here's a guy who for his country got blown up and the way his country responded or treated him was to pick him up at a protest and dump him off 20 miles outside of town.
	His response was to come back in and join anyway and do what he's going to do anyway.
	If he can do it, then we can do it.
	All right.
	Fantastic.
	And if they freeze his bank account, my goodness, there will be people fighting for him because it may not be me.
	People might want me to be in front of courts.
	I'm not the best person right now to be in front of courts, especially if...
	Never mind.
	Someone will.
	David Amber has taken the cases.
	My brother, the lion, who faced the police in Windsor, works at a firm.
	They're looking for it.
	So we will have the big spotlight of the world on this.
	And no one's going to forget.
	I'm not going to forgive, and we're going to deal with it in due time.
	So, Robert, amazing, fantastic.
	Wednesday night's going to be awesome.
	Stay tuned.
	It might be Rumble exclusive.
	Between now and then, there will be news.
	I will be live at some point tomorrow.
	Depends with whom.
	Robert, stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.
	Everyone else in the chat, enjoy the rest of the weekend.
	You got less than three hours left.
	Enjoy it, and enjoy the rest of the week.

▲